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

Discussion Tag Cloud

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.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2014

    created an entry beable

    (Surprisingly, this keyword does not have a Wikipedia entry…)

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2014

    Ugh. Not an attractive English word, IMHO.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2014

    How about spelling it “be-able” instead?

    But I can’t help it, that’s what it’s called…

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTodd_Trimble
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2014

    I know you can’t help it. No, I’d leave the spelling alone (no hyphen unless that’s what appears in the literature); it’s clear from the context how it should be pronounced. In fact, please feel free to ignore my last comment entirely! :-)

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2014

    I added two later references and a remark on how this connects to Bohr toposes.

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 7th 2014
    • (edited Jan 8th 2014)

    Thanks.

    Two questions:

    I have trouble locating the paragraph where Bell explicitly talks about mutually commuting operators, classical contexts. Where is it?

    Second, there seems to be some transmutation of the term in the course of its history which is not fully clear to me. First it’s just a new word meant to help to talk about standard quantum mechanics, but before long people use it as if giving a new interpretation or something of quantum mechanics. Do you oversee this? We should comment on that in the entry.

    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014

    Sorry, I need to add more information. I was doing this from memory.

    I was taking the Halvorson Clifton definition of beable subalgebra (p9) and then focussing on the important special case of the definite algebra D ρD_\rho for a state ρ\rho. This is the subalgebra on which ρ\rho is dispersion free. Hence, for each commutative subalgebras of CD ρC\subset D_\rho, a choice of an element of its spectrum (values). These choices are compatible. Hence, we obtain a local section.

    I’ll add this tomorrow.

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeJan 8th 2014

    Okay, thanks. By the way, I don’t doubt that you are right, but when reading your message I noticed that I had trouble finding the actual definitions in Bell’s articles (or elsewhere).

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorspitters
    • CommentTimeJan 9th 2014

    Done.

    We once had a plan to further explore these connections between beables and Bohr toposes, but never found the time.

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)