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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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