Talk:Unitarity (physics)

Untitled

You might want to check that operator.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.44.252 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2007

Second law of thermodynamics?? If energy were not bounded from below, the first law would not make much sense. --128.214.2.137 (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Unitarity (physics)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==Why call this article a stub?== While reading about the Higgs Boson, I ran into this article, which I find to be clear and concise. It explains in simple terms what "unitarity" signifies. I don't see why an article on this reasonably simple concept needs to be any longer than this one currently is. (Note: I'm not a professional physicist.) Dratman (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

quantum decoherence acts against unitarity

Static Universes are a result of absolute unitarity, but aren't actual.

unitarity is perceived as if it was maintained only if a very controlled experiment lasts shortly and if the non neutral distribution of measurement deviations are not strong enough

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:AD00:5040:8F69:E3E2:4F13 (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC) 

Please create the Unitarity violation page

1. when the system isn't closed-confined (the observable Universe isn't closed, neither the actual Universe, even if it has edges {of course it hasn't, or more accurately it has maximum probabilistic uncertainty edges in respect to an observer, it means after that edge any possible arrangement is accepted} they never reach zero density)
2. when quantum noise accumulates
3. when dark energy acts (but some claim that dark energy is a unitarity violation, a minor statistical violation for our Universe, but a future Big Bang cause, because it accumulates thus grows in magnitude) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410D:D600:8C45:C97D:86A8:51F4 (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The impact of unitarity on gravity

We must elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4116:4E00:3D75:5D3B:E453:D62 (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Interpreations of quantum mechanics and "Implications of unitarity on measurement results"

The section Implications of unitarity on measurement results contains this quote:

For example, say Alice and Bob are performing measurements on the same system at different times. Alice is measuring at time t1 and Bob at time t2. according to the many-worlds interpretation, Bob will almost surely find himself in a world where the result was R2. But then, when Bob meets Alice, Alice must have also measured R2. Thus Alice would tell Bob she had measured a very unrealistic result, with probability arbitrarily close to 0%. Thus in such a scenario, physicists report they have had very unrealistic results, and the notion of probability breaks down.

Should this not be true regardless of which interpretation of quantum mechanics that we may allow ourselves to use? (As long as the interpretation does not alter the "core theory" itself, but only adds to it.) That is, why is the many-worlds interpretation mentioned in particular here? Also, when Bob meets Alice, Bob could just tell Alice he measured the qubits before Alice got to do it, and then it would be clear to Alice why she found herself with an unexpected result? Most interpretations would accept that as an answer?? Maybe I am misunderstanding it? · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

It starts with unitarity, attempts at doing a counter-example (quote: "This point is further stressed by a hypothetical counter-example: Consider a case of non-unitarity"), but *instead* trails off... and ends up with bashing the many-worlds interpretation? This needs to be rewritten! Unitarity comes from the Kologorovs 2nd axiom (all probabilities summed together is 100% of all outcomes, so the vector length is 1), AND/OR from Unitary operators + Born's rule... Instead of trailing off, maybe one could show what happens if one is allowed to have e.g. 102% probability to be in a certain state? Or something · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Its a year between my two edits above, no-one else would probably update the article.. so, I just deleted the weird text. · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)