Recent content by pnaj

Hi xepma, We are assuming that |A\rangle is normalized. P.

Hi once again, Yes - just noticed that - now I see why you said 'minor' mistake now ... it should just have read ...P(A, m) = |\langle m|A'\rangle|^2 = a_m^* a_m. But I still am having trouble following the logic in Prof. Susskind's lecture. So, we have: P(A, m) = a_m^* a_m. P(B, m) = b_m^*...

Hi Fredrik Ah - maybe this is where the confusion lies. To calculate the probabilities I took the average value of the projection operator for m, which is a definition given in the course ... P(A, m) = \big(\sum \langle k|a_k^* \big) |m\rangle \langle m| \big(\sum a_n |n \rangle \big) =...

Hi Fredrik, Thanks for answering - I think I understand. But shouldn't the superposition of |A> and |B> be normalised in the first place (before we apply the time evolution operator). P.

I've been following the lectures given by Leonard Susskind on Quantum Entanglement. In Lecture 6, he describes a simplified version of the two-slit experiment so that we can use finite dimensional spaces to describe the system (which is all we've learned so far). He also uses what he calls...

Muzza, that is a really nice link. Thanks, Paul.

Ok, Matt, See you round ... and NateTG. P.

NateTG, Well I didn't want to open it all up again. But fair enough. The 'Jeez' post was actually directed at your previous post. I had already asked Matt to explain his comments and he hadn't responded yet. You interpreted it as if I was further questioning Matt's comments. On...

NateTg, Well all I can really say to that is: fair comment. Paul. P.S. NateTg ... if you really want me to list the misquotes, I will, but I'd rather not.

Matt, Thanks for your last post. I accept everything you say. As I said before, you've taught me a really good lesson in how NOT to answer questions. Hopefully, I won't be making the same mistake again. Paul.

Matt, I have acknowledged the mistakes I have made. I just will not acknowledge mistakes that have been made on my behalf. So far, according to you, I've been 'wrong', 'badly wrong' and then 'oh, perhaps not wrong'. Not once have you acknowledged that YOU misunderstood my first statement...

Hi Matt, You're right there! But I've shown quite clearly that both you and NateTG were wrong to insist that a 1-1 map is not sufficient to make a listing of the rationals. He has misquoted me on a number of occasions (and you have too, once). Now he assigns implications to me that I...

It wasn't my implication, whether or not that's how it's being read.

NateTG, I didn't see your last post until after my last one. Thanks for acknowledging the 'misread' bit. I appreciate it. But I have to come back because I'm afraid that you have 'put words in my mouth' again. You said ... The trouble is, I most certainly did NOT imply equality of...

Well, I've certainly learned a valuable lesson here.