Talk:Operator (physics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article needs rewriting[edit]

This article needs rewriting. I propose the following line: to explain first operators which carry out symmetry transformations on physical states: space-time translation, rotation, boosts, etc. Its role in field theory (both classical and quantum), and then the idea of "generator" and its relation to physical observables. A brief mention of representation theory would finish the trick... What do you think? Javirl 10:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. That's how most of my textbooks are laid out as far as I can remember. — Laura Scudder 16:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

physical state[edit]

I think one of two things should be done.

1, it should be made clearer what is meant in the first few sentences by "physical state", or

2, there should be a wiki link to an article that would make the above clearer.

Disambiguation Fix[edit]

Can someone with specific knowledge on this subject change the link from generator (in the concept of generator paragraph) to somewhere more appropriate. At a guess I would say its generating set of a group or maybe generator matrix thanks FlyHigh 14:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

it seems that it's better not to link at all. the (infinitesimal) generator of the group of dynamics, in functional analysis, is not the same as, say, the generators of a group, in combinatorial group theory. Mct mht 20:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Mathematical operators in physics?[edit]

I think this article should be moved to another title like Mathematical operators in physics (I created the article as a redirect for now) because essentially this article does not define operators in physics as something different from operators in mathematics, on the contrary, it discusses applications of operators to physics. It would be thus logical to move the page such that its title reflects this fact. The reason that I'm writing about this is because have recently started rewriting operator (mathematics) (I moved it from operator) with an ambition to end confusion of operator and operation on Wikipedia and thus allow the article on operator to develop into something good. However, now I feel confused when disambiguating operator on physics articles, because operator and operator (physics) are essentially about the same thing. — Kallikanzaridtalk 07:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would help to list and sumarize the operators in one place (so now it does contain definitions) - where better else to do it? Changing the name doesn't really gain anything - mathematical operators in physics is no different to operators (physics).Maschen (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Article Referances/Sources[edit]

The referance tag should be deleted, there are referances, as opposed to none at all, as indicated by the tag. Maschen (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll add more in-line citations now.--F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Matrix rep + Hermiticity[edit]

The matrix representation and Hermitian condition would be useful to include. --F=q(E+v^B) (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by F=q(E+v^B) (talkcontribs)

Use in classical mechanics[edit]

The entire description of the utility of these operators in classical mechanics is the phrase: "Let us consider this function to be invariant under the action of a certain group of transformations". After telling us to consider that, this assumption goes nowhere. Nothing is derived from that consideration, and the reader is left wondering why he was told to consider it. Can someone please explain how these operators are used in classical mechanics? (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Will try to clear this up later. Maschen (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

QM section[edit]

I'll try and rewrite the QM section to be more accurate and useful, using the books QM, E. Abers, 2004 and QM, Schaum’s outlines. Maschen (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)