From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Thu Sep 19 2002 - 23:03:31 MDT
Amara also wrote
> 4) Science. Please read the books, papers, literature before
> drilling people with questions that are answered on page 2.
Some may wonder just where this is coming from, and
what it's about. One might wonder exactly why it is
wrong to reveal one's complete ignorance, and ask
"the professor" a too-easy question. Well, if I may
be permitted to address my own question, one usual
answer is that the student should always make an
effort. With that, I agree.
But here is the background of what Amara is talking
about, I believe. I had asked scerir how the following
worked:
[...]
> Leaving apart normalization factors we can write that the total state
> of those 3 photons is
> |psi>_1,2,3 =
> ( |0>_1 |1>_2 - |1>_1 |0>_2 ) (- a |0>_3 - b |1>_3 ) +
> ( |0>_1 |1>_2 + |1>_1 |0>_2 ) (- a |0>_3 + b |1>_3 ) +
> ( |0>_1 |0>_2 - |1>_1 |1>_2 ) ( a |1>_3 + b |0>_3 ) +
> ( |0>_1 |0>_2 + |1>_1 |1>_2 ) ( a |1>_3 - b |0>_3 )
[...]
and I didn't get it (and as it turns out still, after studying
it don't get it---see the thread "Physics and Interpretations").
Here was Amara's immediate comment on the above:
> Lee:
>> Now that's a bit much (for me).
> My favorite quantum text(s) (from 18 yrs ago)
> is : _Quantum Mechanics_(vol 1&2) by Cohen-
> Tannoudji, 1977, Wiley.
> This bra-ket notation (which he used probably
> to save typing and time) is described in great
> detail in Chapter 2. Serafino's equations are
> a shorthand gedanken experiment. I'll bet you'll
> get it if you work it through.
She evidently thinks that the derivation of |psi>_1,2,3
is "page 2" stuff, and condescends to inform me of
what bra-ket notation is. I didn't know whether I
was just imagining this as a put-down, or whether,
hurriedly or whatever, she sincerely wanted to tell
me that textbooks on QM existed, so I made no
comment. (I own about twelve books on QM, including
Shankar's great text (which I have only mastered the
first three big chapters of, however).)
Due to the tone of her posts in the meantime, however,
including this admonition
> 4) Science. Please read the books, papers, literature before
> drilling people with questions that are answered on page 2.
I can only conclude that her intent was aggressive.
The above, and all the rest of the questions I ask,
I defy anyone to find the answers to on page 2 of
any book, (well, except maybe something pretty
esoteric). But even if it is on page 2 somewhere,
so what?
Anyone who feels drilled can either
* ignore the question,
* reply with an URL,
* say "we've been over this before, sorry",
* say "I'm rather busy to attend to that
level of question, my apologies."
* or suggest they Google
They do not need to feel like they've been unjustly
imposed upon, and start reprimanding the asker.
I defend the propriety of anyone asking any question
they feel like, even "stupid" questions.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:11 MST