Go to the U of M home page
School of Physics & Astronomy
School of Physics and Astronomy Wiki

User Tools

Trace: • groupsites • q_a_1016 • bar
classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1023

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
classes:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1023 [2009/10/26 10:10] – jbarthelclasses:2009:fall:phys4101.001:q_a_1023 [2009/11/12 13:49] (current) – x500_chap0326
Line 25: Line 25:
 ===Devlin 10/23 830a=== ===Devlin 10/23 830a===
 As far as I can tell, determinate states are just eigenfunctions of certain operators.  For example, the stationary states we've been studying are determinate states of the Hamiltonian.  For the stationary states, every measurement of the particle in a stationary state gives a corresponding energy.  It really is just eigenfunctions and eigenvalues. As far as I can tell, determinate states are just eigenfunctions of certain operators.  For example, the stationary states we've been studying are determinate states of the Hamiltonian.  For the stationary states, every measurement of the particle in a stationary state gives a corresponding energy.  It really is just eigenfunctions and eigenvalues.
 +
 +===chap0326 11/12===
 +I think indeterminacy is the phenomenon in QM when you have a bunch of identical systems all in the same state and you don't get the same result each time you measure the observable. So a determinate state is the idea that you could prepare some state where you get the same value for every measurement of the system (Griffith calls it 'Q'). Its in a state that is 'determinate'.
  
 ====Daniel Faraday 10/23 12:30 pm==== ====Daniel Faraday 10/23 12:30 pm====
Line 37: Line 40:
 ===Captain America 10/27 10:08=== ===Captain America 10/27 10:08===
 I thought it was good as well.  I too got tripped up on the last problem, and a bit on the first problem (at least I got an answer that should be right, I just don't know how well I explained myself).  I liked the length and it would have been very doable had I read through the derivation of the energy for the Kronecker Delta function a bit more.  Again I got some work down and I think the right energy, but it may be too scattered to show how I came up with it. I thought it was good as well.  I too got tripped up on the last problem, and a bit on the first problem (at least I got an answer that should be right, I just don't know how well I explained myself).  I liked the length and it would have been very doable had I read through the derivation of the energy for the Kronecker Delta function a bit more.  Again I got some work down and I think the right energy, but it may be too scattered to show how I came up with it.
 +
 +===Esquire 10/26 10:33am===
 +The test was fairly straightforward. After the first test, I made a more concentrated effort at studying for this one and it seems to have paid off. 
 +
 +===Blackbox 10/26 5:59 pm===
 +I'm not quite sure I've got all correct answers for the test but it was reasonable length and also appropriate amount of time. 
  
 ====Schrodinger's Dog 10/23 1:09 pm==== ====Schrodinger's Dog 10/23 1:09 pm====
Line 62: Line 71:
 **Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_1021]]**\\ **Q&A for the previous lecture: [[Q_A_1021]]**\\
 **Q&A for the next lecture: [[Q_A_1026]]** **Q&A for the next lecture: [[Q_A_1026]]**
- 
- 
classes/2009/fall/phys4101.001/q_a_1023.1256569819.txt.gz · Last modified: 2009/10/26 10:10 by jbarthel

Page Tools