Martin Bauer Profile picture
Aug 26 8 tweets 2 min read Read on X
Quantum mechanics can be demystified to some degree by realising that it's probability theory with a squared norm. E.g. you'd add classical probabilities (real numbers) p1, p2, .. < 1 with

p1+p2+...+ pn = 1

In QM instead you have amplitudes and

|w1|^2+|w2|^2+...+|wn|^2=1

1/8
For classical probabilities the linear norm is preserved by acting on P=(p1, ..., pn) with stochastic or Markov matrices M (non-neg matrices where all entries in a column add to 1)

M P = P' and p'1 + p'2 + ... +p2n =1

2/8
In QM the quadratic norm is preserved by acting on W= (w1,...,wn) with unitary matrices U ∈ U(n)

U W = W' and |w'1|^2+|w'2|^2+...+|w'n|^2=1

3/8
this alone shows how superpositions and interference are a thing in QM, but not for classical probabilities. If you act on a 2-state system 0 * Ia> + 1* |b> with the unitary matrix below you get 1/sqrt(2)( |a> + |b>)

In calculating the square the amplitudes interfere.

4/8 Image
In classical probability theory you only ever rescale the probabilities for a certain outcome, because stochastic matrices have non-negative entries and the norm isn't quadratic

5/8
It also explains why amplitudes are intrinsically complex, whereas probabilities are real, because unitary matrices with complex entries preserve the 2-norm, but stochastic matrices can only ever have real entries

6/8
Now one of my favourite observation is that if you look at higher power norms

|u1|^k + |u2|^k +... |un|^k = 1 for k>2 ,

you find that the only matrices that preserve these norms are simple permutations of the entries

7/8
So in the space of k-norms nature has chosen by far the most interesting to construct QM

1-norm: stochastic matrices
2-norm: unitary matrices
k-norm (k>2) : permutation matrices

8/8

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Martin Bauer

Martin Bauer Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @martinmbauer

Aug 20
The strongest evidence for dark matter:

In hot plasma like the early Universe structure can't persist. Whenever matter is compressed by gravity it is driven apart by radiation pressure

The resulting oscillations wash out every seed of over density. Galaxies never form

1/6
Only if there's matter that does interact gravitationally but is *not* susceptible to radiation pressure, these oscillations can be suppressed

Overdensities of this 'dark' matter provide gravitational wells for visible matter (gas) to fall into

2/6
But how to know this really happened?

Remnants of the oscillations should still be present in the way matter is distributed in the Universe today

Dark matter stops the oscillation and more galaxies must've formed where the peak of the wave was 'stopped'

3/6 Source: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.5224
Read 6 tweets
Aug 9
What is a proton made of?

Early scattering experiments probing the substructure of the proton found an interesting result. Instead of being made just from point-like particles (quarks), there seemed to be more going on inside the proton

A🧵1/6
Zooming into a proton corresponds to colliding it with more and more energetic beams

Similar to probing a target with light using shorter wavelength, higher energy results in a better resolution

2/6
If the proton was made just from point like particles alone, the distribution of scattered particles would be described by a flat function of the transferred momentum:

the Fourier transform of a delta function is a constant.

3/6 Image
Read 7 tweets
Jun 9
General relativity is often called geometric, but special relativity is also a geometric theory

It explains moving at different speeds as rotations in spacetime, similar to the way we explain looking in different directions as rotations in space

Some math in this 🧵1/12

In Newtonian mechanics we can disagree about directions, but not about (relative) distances. E.g. if we stood back to back and asked about the distance to London we would agree on the distance, but not about the direction.

2/12
If you draw a vector between 2 points their distance is its magnitude |x⃗|=√(x^2+y^2), the direction is its direction

All vectors with the same length trace out a circle and so two coordinate systems that agree about distance but not directions are related by rotations

3/12
Read 12 tweets
May 19
Did Newton know F=ma?

Newton's 'Principia' uses geometric proofs, not calculus. He didn't give differential equations for his laws, but did he know them?

Exploring whether Newton knew diff expressions for forces is a fascinating rabbit hole

NB @rmathematicus

🧵1/9 Image
Newton published the Principia in 1687 (2nd edition 1713, 3rd 1726). In it he doesn't mention that F = ma. In fact he doesn't use calculus

2/9
It took til 1716 when the Mathematician Jakob Hermann published his book on Mechanics called "Phoronomia" where the connection is explicitly made

In the introduction Hermann mentions his different approach

3/9 Image
Read 11 tweets
May 5
Renormalization group without any math:

For the longest time we discovered more fundamental structures in nature. The further we zoom in the more new structure we see.

The discovery of quarks is a good example

Molecules → Atoms → nuclei → protons → quarks

🧵1/13 Image
Will this go on for ever? Will we keep uncovering layer after layer of new particles?

We don't know the answer to that, but at the most fundamental layer we have discovered Nature has a trick that sounds counterintuitive at first

If you split quarks you find more quarks. 2/13 Image
Ignore particle physics for a moment and let's say you're a biologist with a powerful microscope. You zoom further and further into a sample and you see the same structure repeating itself

e.g. a fern

3/13
Read 13 tweets
Mar 16
The basic idea of renormalisation: A sketch

In Quantum field theory with interactions, there're corrections to fundamental constants

The electron mass is corrected because of the presence of the photon field

So what is measured in an experiment is the 'corrected mass' mr

1/9 Image
You can only ever measure mr

In order to measure m0 you'd need to be able to turn off the photon field. Not the presence of any number of photons, but the existence of a photon field overall -like a Universe where photons don't exist.

We can't do that: m0 is unobservable

2/9
For finite values of L the 'correction' is finite and we simply define the measured mass as the difference between m0 and a finite integral

But even in the limit L -> ∞, where the integral diverges, one can define mr as

3/9 Image
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(