Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?Nonseparable Hilbert spacePath integral vs. measure on infinite dimensional spaceQuantum computing and quantum controlExamples of discrete Hamiltonians?References on experimental realization of quantum one-dimensional infinite-well modelWhy do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics?Good book for learning about mathematical foundation of quantum physicsKochen-Specker property in infinite dimensional systemsAre there fundamental differences between finite and infinite systems?Infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in QM vs. finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in quantum gravity?Help me make sense of the spectrum for the quantum wave function of an infinitely hard equilateral triangle
Arthur Somervell: 1000 Exercises - Meaning of this notation
Why did Neo believe he could trust the machine when he asked for peace?
"to be prejudice towards/against someone" vs "to be prejudiced against/towards someone"
To string or not to string
How old can references or sources in a thesis be?
What's the point of deactivating Num Lock on login screens?
Can I make popcorn with any corn?
Why do falling prices hurt debtors?
Can a Warlock become Neutral Good?
Theorems that impeded progress
Modeling an IPv4 Address
Adding span tags within wp_list_pages list items
How could an uplifted falcon's brain work?
Is it unprofessional to ask if a job posting on GlassDoor is real?
Can an x86 CPU running in real mode be considered to be basically an 8086 CPU?
Smoothness of finite-dimensional functional calculus
Why doesn't Newton's third law mean a person bounces back to where they started when they hit the ground?
What do you call a Matrix-like slowdown and camera movement effect?
How can bays and straits be determined in a procedurally generated map?
Why can't I see bouncing of a switch on an oscilloscope?
Why did the Germans forbid the possession of pet pigeons in Rostov-on-Don in 1941?
tikz: show 0 at the axis origin
Is it legal for company to use my work email to pretend I still work there?
Why was the small council so happy for Tyrion to become the Master of Coin?
Do infinite dimensional systems make sense?
Nonseparable Hilbert spacePath integral vs. measure on infinite dimensional spaceQuantum computing and quantum controlExamples of discrete Hamiltonians?References on experimental realization of quantum one-dimensional infinite-well modelWhy do we need infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in physics?Good book for learning about mathematical foundation of quantum physicsKochen-Specker property in infinite dimensional systemsAre there fundamental differences between finite and infinite systems?Infinite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in QM vs. finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces in quantum gravity?Help me make sense of the spectrum for the quantum wave function of an infinitely hard equilateral triangle
$begingroup$
I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.
I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.
I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space
New contributor
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
yesterday
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.
I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space
New contributor
$endgroup$
I'm learning infinite-dimensional systems in mathematical viewpoint and trying to understand it from physical perspective.
I would like to understand if infinite-dimensional systems make sense in physics, especially when it becomes necessary in quantum control theory. Are there any simple and intuitive examples?
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space
quantum-mechanics hilbert-space
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
Ruslan
9,81843173
9,81843173
New contributor
asked yesterday
GaoGao
343
343
New contributor
New contributor
4
$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
yesterday
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
yesterday
4
4
$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
yesterday
$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
yesterday
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Welcome to Stack Exchange!
I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.
Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.
You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome on the Stack Exchange :-)
$endgroup$
– peterh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.
Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:
You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!
In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.
Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
Do you happen, by chance, to be a finitist?
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470675%2fdo-infinite-dimensional-systems-make-sense%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Welcome to Stack Exchange!
I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.
Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.
You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome on the Stack Exchange :-)
$endgroup$
– peterh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to Stack Exchange!
I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.
Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.
You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Welcome on the Stack Exchange :-)
$endgroup$
– peterh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome to Stack Exchange!
I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.
Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.
You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.
$endgroup$
Welcome to Stack Exchange!
I do not know much about quantum control theory, but I can give you a simple example from regular quantum mechanics: that of a particle in a box. This is one of the simplest systems one can study in QM, but even here an infinite dimensional space shows up.
Indexing the energy eigenstates by $n$ so that $$H|nrangle=E_n|nrangle$$ there is an infinite number of possible states, one for every integer. Every state with its own energy: $$E_n=fracn^2pi^2hbar^22mL^2.$$ Thus if you want to describe a general quantum state in this system you would write it down as $$|psirangle=sum_n=1^infty c_n|nrangle,$$ where $c_n$ is a complex number. $|psirangle$ is then an example of a vector in an infinite dimensional space where every possible state is a basis vector, and the $c_n$ are the expansion coefficients in that basis.
You can of course imagine the $n$ indexing some other collection of states of some other system. Indeed, in most cases the dimension of the space of all possible states of a quantum system will be infinite dimensional.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
JSorngardJSorngard
3416
3416
$begingroup$
Welcome on the Stack Exchange :-)
$endgroup$
– peterh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Welcome on the Stack Exchange :-)
$endgroup$
– peterh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome on the Stack Exchange :-)
$endgroup$
– peterh
14 hours ago
$begingroup$
Welcome on the Stack Exchange :-)
$endgroup$
– peterh
14 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
"Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.
Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:
You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!
In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.
Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
Do you happen, by chance, to be a finitist?
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
"Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.
Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:
You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!
In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.
Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
"I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
Do you happen, by chance, to be a finitist?
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
"Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.
Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:
You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!
In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.
Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.
$endgroup$
"Infinite" for me does not make much sense in physics. It is a nice mathematical tools, you need it to make calculations; but for real things I prefer "very large". I have seen many "very large" things; I have never seen anything infinite.
Anyway, more seriously, we use all the time infinite dimensional spaces, they are useful. From the example of "particle in a box" by >JSorngard:
You want to keep your particle in one eigenstate, against external disturbance. It can excape going to other eigenstates. Those, in theory, are infinite, so to calculate the probability for your particle to fall off from your favourite eigenstate, you sum the transition probability to each of all those (infinite) states. And it works!!
In practice there are not really infinite eigenstates; the particle is confined by some actual physical trap that is finite in size and can hold only finite energy. But incredibly often you can disregard this finiteness, as the infinite sum is almost identical to the (very large) sum of the actual eigenstate.
Another argument in favour of usefulness/reality of infinites is about notation: we use infinite things to define & manipulate a normal object.
Example is the Taylor expansion of $e^x$:
It is an infinite sum, its useful, don't give rise to anything nonsensical.
answered yesterday
pattapatta
813
813
2
$begingroup$
"I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
Do you happen, by chance, to be a finitist?
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2
$begingroup$
"I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
1
$begingroup$
Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
2
$begingroup$
Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
Do you happen, by chance, to be a finitist?
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
12 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
"I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
$begingroup$
"I have never seen anything infinite." are you sure?
$endgroup$
– Orangesandlemons
yesterday
1
1
$begingroup$
Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
Well, ok, maybe I've seen it, but I didn't manage to see it all, my small brain recorded only a small part!
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
$begingroup$
You will not "see" irrational numbers either, so I guess you can only use finite mathematics to do physics?
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
yesterday
2
2
$begingroup$
Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
Yes, my computer and all sensors I know use only integers; irrationals are just approximated with large integers. About brain and analog machines, we can discuss... My meaning was that a tool (infinity, irrationals..) can "make few sense" in physics, while being actually useful.
$endgroup$
– patta
yesterday
$begingroup$
Do you happen, by chance, to be a finitist?
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
Do you happen, by chance, to be a finitist?
$endgroup$
– Don Thousand
12 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Gao is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f470675%2fdo-infinite-dimensional-systems-make-sense%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
$begingroup$
"Makes sense" is kind of hard to interpret. But they're definitely useful as models describing the observable behavior of some systems. In fact, you're probably referring to countably-infinite-dimensional spaces, aka separable. There are also uses for uncountably-infinite-dimensional (aka non separable) spaces, e.g., physics.stackexchange.com/questions/60608 (and google for lots more stuff).
$endgroup$
– John Forkosh
yesterday