Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry beauty bundles calculus categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-theory cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science connection constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundations functional-analysis functor gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry goodwillie-calculus graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homology homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory infinity integration integration-theory internal-categories k-theory lie lie-theory limit limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic manifolds mathematics measure-theory modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology multicategories noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pasting philosophy physics pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 21st 2010

    Created a stub for no-go theorem. I’d like to organize it so that Bell’s theorem, the Kochen-Specker theorem, and Gleason’s theorem are referenced from the no-go theorem entry in the QM contents. Any objections?

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTim_van_Beek
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2010

    No objection in principle, but maybe we need a sharper distinction of results that are not intuitive and those who directly contradict claims made in most textbooks, examples of the opposite ends of the spectrum would be (from my viewpoint) Gleason’s theorem, which is more of a Go-theorem for the algebraic approach to quantum logic, and Haag’s theorem wich says that the interaction picture used in most QFT textbooks does not exist (at least not in the sense claimed).

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2010
    • (edited Jun 22nd 2010)

    I am a bit sceptical. The term “no-go theorem” says more about the culture that the theorem was found in than the nature of the theorem itself.

    And if we have an entry on it, how meaningful is it to say that no-go theorems have their place in theoretical physics? The evident interpretation of the term clearly has no restriction to physics.

    The point is rather that theoretical physicists developed the habit of calling some theorems “no-go theorems”. I think it s more a reflection of the operational way of thinking in physics. They call it a no-go-theorem if it prevents proceeding along the naive track, in the same vein as they call it an “anomaly” if things don’t proceed as naively as normal. It is part of the general attitude of first proceeding and then solving the problems as they become apparent.

    I would opt for making it clear in the entry that “no-go theorem” is more than a technical term a piece of physics jargon.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2010

    Sorry for the delay in responding. I’ve been caught up in some work.

    I have no objection to any of the above points.

    Question: is there a way to more correctly/succinctly categorize (for lack of a better term) the theorems I mentioned in that entry?

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2010

    Word no-go theorem is used in mathematics as well. It is however the matter for English Dictionary. Any attempt at list would give thousands of negative existence theorems.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorIan_Durham
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2010
    Any suggestions, then, on making this more clear? Those three theorems are very much related and they are all no-go theorems in the physics sense, but clearly there's a broader meaning to the term (it is used fairly specifically in quantum information and quantum foundations).
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeMay 12th 2019
    • (edited May 12th 2019)
Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)