I do not have a lot of knowledge in this, but OP's question seems pretty direct.
What I was thinking the initial question was like "could exist an equivalent of schroedingers equation with the born rule 'already applied'?" he mentioned "absolute of it squared", and that's a probability density...
Just a comment:
There are some questions that pass unanswered for hidden reasons.
Some suggest they don't answer it for being pointless. I'm always suspicious when this happens, because this is not consistent with the behavious of these same people when faced with other questions...
The question is here:
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/45341/representing-a-polarization-vector-for-light-as-a-manifold-of-two-state
I'd appreciante any help
Ok, its (c, H, S(HxH), S(HxHxH), ... ) where S is a symmetrizing or anti-symmetrizing according to the particle type. Its impossible to edut.
This answer helps me(Lubos's)
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/30751/what-is-the-single-particle-hilbert-space
So the "Hilber space for a...
Ok, so let {|a>, |b>,|c>} be a base of vectors for describing position in space and time and |psi>=|b>+|c> be the wavefunction of a particle. What is the "particles Hilbert space" in this case?
I was not formally introduced to this math, so I appreciate corrections but I'll give my impressions.
The fock space for a particle with space H is
(c, H, HxH, HxHxH, ... )
1: What is a hilbert space for a single particle? I believe know what a hilbert space is, but for 'a particle'...
What is the "cost" of citing it? You seem to suggest that showing examples of how building and refuting models is like has no didactic value. I totally disagree, at least when it comes to students majoring in physics. They could be optional subject but even a quick pass on them would be of...
Anyway, I have the impression that some of these original books gives us some ideas about how all the dirty guess work behind science really is.
I've noticed that professors usually just bash simple and mundane constructs to made by students to model phenomena(not as if discovering a new...
In my 'physics 2' It wasn't even mentioned Newtons treatment on fluids, something the seemed to repeat everywhere.
After a while I decide to read Principia and I was amazed by how Newton modeled things by very simple(although often very lengthy), intuitive and powerful arguments(a...
Why is Newton's work on fluids rarely cited? And when cited it is not usually credited. Even If they called it a 'Newtonian fluid" they don't bother telling everything Newton did.