Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Tue, Jan 14, 2003 at 06:07:40PM -0600, blah wrote: > >> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, crackpot: > >On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote: > >> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is > >> > -no- time. > >> A photon has no "perspective". > > Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of the > > cosmos. The cosmos views it, it views the cosmos. > OK. I'm convinced that you are a crackpot. Now, could someone (else) tell > me if this is really a troll? It's not a troll--at least not the kind you mean. -- By the time you swear you're his/Shivering and sighing, | Quit smoking: And he vows his passion is/Infinite, undying - | 267d, 14h ago Lady, make a note of this:/One of you is lying. | petro@ -- Dorothy Parker| bounty.org
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
>> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, crackpot: >On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote: >> From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is >> > -no- time. >> >> A photon has no "perspective". > > Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of the > cosmos. The cosmos views it, it views the cosmos. OK. I'm convinced that you are a crackpot. Now, could someone (else) tell me if this is really a troll? [...] >There is a 'c' and a 'v' in -any- Lorentz transform. Do the math with v=c. I provided you with the lorentz transforms explicitly because you seem to be unfamiliar with them and so that you could plug in `c' for `v' and see the problem. It doesn't take any particular genius to realize what happens. But, go ahead and insist a while longer. Or, do like anyone else who read the post in which I provided you with the lorentz transforms could have done if they didn't already know what they were. Plug in the value of `c' for `v'. >'v' is -always- in relation to 'c' because 'c' is -always constant-. Another misconception. `C' is a constant in any inertial frame. `V' defines a relationship between two inertial frames. >> There exists no lorentz transform by which any observer may transform >> coordinates to a photon, > >Really why? sheeesh... I provided you with the lorentz transforms in two different forms so that you could figure this out for yourself. I see that you were either unwilling or were unable to substitute v for c and deduce anything about the transformation. >>It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against >> which speeds must be referenced. >Wrong. -ALL- speeds are measured against c. That -is- the whole point of >Lorentz transforms. 'c' is -always- c. Yikes. Buy an introductory text on relativity as I suggested. >c is a -constant-. Therefore it -is absolute-. What does that have to do with measuring velocities relative to `c' as you seem to believe? A lorentz transform is nothing more than a coordinate transformation that preserves the value of `c'. Since the entire puropse for which the lorentz trannsform was developed was to find a coordinate transformation between coordinates in which `c' has the same value, it's pretty much a tautology that `c' will be constant in those frames. >There is no -space- constant, to that I will agree. Since I haven't the faintest idea what this means, then the only way you could agree with me is to agree that you don't know what you are talking about. Which is perfectly ok with me. --
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, blah wrote: > From: Jim Choate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote: > > > Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is > > -no- time. > > A photon has no "perspective". Yes it does. It is a particle and it interacts with the rest of the cosmos. The cosmos views it, it views the cosmos. > Anyone that wishes to have the short version and skip the detailed > corrections to misconceptions, they may note simply that an observer > in special relativity compares their results with other observers > through a lorentz transform. The photon -is- an observer. It observes the device, just as the device observes it. There is a 'c' and a 'v' in -any- Lorentz transform. Do the math with v=c. 'v' is -always- in relation to 'c' because 'c' is -always constant-. > There exists no lorentz transform by which any observer may transform > coordinates to a photon, Really why? >It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against > which speeds must be referenced. Wrong. -ALL- speeds are measured against c. That -is- the whole point of Lorentz transforms. 'c' is -always- c. c is a -constant-. Therefore it -is absolute-. There is no -space- constant, to that I will agree. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Re: Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003, blah wrote: > >'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective? > > From anyone's perspective. Not from the photons perspective, from a photons perspective there is -no- time. It is clear from Relativity that as -anything- approaches the speed of light it's mass grows larger (photons have -no- rest mass so 0 can't get any bigger than 0) and time -slows to zero-. > A signal carries information. > You can't use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. Then explain two entangled photons and how they behave. > If you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in > "Quantum Mechanics", L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation > relations for electromagnetic fields. I'm familiar with it, however that is taken from the perspective of the external observer, not the photon. Now, do the math -from the perspective of a the photons-. Let me ask you again: - How big is the cosmos to a photon? - How does time pass to a photon? > > Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen > > -any- time a photon is involved. > > Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new > discipline. I am -not- saying that it is -new-. I -am- saying that QM and Relativity have -not- been -completely combined- and that until that happens we won't and can't understand what is going on. In particular I -am- saying that there is a fundamental error being made in experiments like the 2-slit and Entangled Photons, that error is that only -one- perspective is being looked at, the non-relativistic perspective of the mechanism, and that the -relativiistic perspective of the photon is being completely ignored-. You are throwing information away -a priori-. That to understand these results the experimenter -must- look at the perspective of all participants in the experiment, especially those who experience relativistic effects. And a photon is -always- relativistic. Reality is -observer dependent-, the mechanism observes the photon, the photon observes the mechanism. They are -not- in the same time-space frame. The mechanism behaves in its classical time-space frame and the photon behaves in its relativistic time-spacef frame (the only one it has, excepting slowing effects in BEC's). It's no small wonder the results make little sense. -- We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" [EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org
Subject: CDR: Re: QM, EPR, A/B
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 00:28:46 -0600 (CST)
Jim Choate wrote:
> Tim May wrote...
>
>> "I don't believe, necessarily, in certain forms of the Copenhagen
>> Interpretation, especially anything about signals propagating
>> instantaneously,
>'instantaneously' from -whose- perspective?
From anyone's perspective. A signal carries information. You can't
use quantum mechanics to propagate a signal faster than light. If
you think otherwise, allow me to refer you to the last chapter in
"Quantum Mechanics", L. Schiff, where you will find the commutation
relations for electromagnetic fields.
>> Yes, this has been a fashionable set of statements, very smiliar to
>> "quantum mechanics is merely a useful tool for calclating the outcome
>> of experiments".
> Only so long as there are -not- relativistic effects, which -do- happen
> -any- time a photon is involved.
Don't be ridiculous. Relativistic quantum mechanics is not even a new
discipline. See Bjorken & Drell, Vols. I and II, written circa 1963. The
dirac equation has been around for almost 3/4 of a century and the
klein-gordon equation has been around about 80 years. Had the physicists
of the 1920's been able to interpret the klein-gordon equation at the
time, we would have probably had a relativistic theory before the
non-relativistic theory. The schroedinger equation is a result of needing
an equation that's linear in the time variable, due to not knowing at the
time, how to interpret the quadratic which appears if one substitutes the
quantum operators for the dynamical variables in E^2 = p^2 + m^2 (c==1).
Your comment about photons is equally ridiculous. I can derive the qed
lagrangian from the dirac equation in about 1 page of arithmetic, just by
requiring the lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant and applying
noether's theorem to obtain the conserved current. What do you think the
A^{u} in the covariant derivative is? Nevermind, I'll tell you. It's the
field of the electron. Sure, relativity is involved. And it's involved in
a very well understood way. Just start with the dirac lagrangian,
L = \Psibar(p/ - m)\Psi and make the substitution \Psi->\Psi\exp(iS),
where S is ann arbitrary function of the spacetime variable, to obtain
the new lagrangian, L'. For the lagrangian to be locally gauge invariant,
the variation, \delta L = L' - L, must vanish to first order.
General relativity is irrelevant, since (1) we aren't in a strong
gravitational field and the gravitational interaction is about 10^{-32} of
the strength of the E&M field, anyway, (2) spacetime is locally flat and
the minimal coupling model in general relativity assumes there is no
curvature coupling, (3) The main difference would end up being that the
photons would propagate along null geodesics that are curved rather than
along null geodesics that are flat. (4) You can replace the ordinary
gauge covariant derivatives with the general relativistically covariant
derivatives. [See for example, "Problem Book for General Relativity",
Lighthman, et al, where there is a worked example which includes a
mention of curvature coupling (I think that's the name of the book, but
I don't have it handy, to check it)].
For relativistic quantum field theory to even work, one must appeal
to the same unobservability of the wavefunction, if one is to obtain
a conserved current.
>***Reality is -observer- dependent***
>The major hole in -all- current QM systems is they do not take into
>account relativistic effects. Which are required -any time- a photon is
>involved.
There is no "major hole". Not even a minor pinprick. You should take a
look at any relativistic quantum mechanics text or any text on quantum
field theory [Gauge Theories of the Strong, Weak and Electromagnetic
Interactions", C. Quigg, is straightforward and physically illuminating].
QED is the most precise theory ever proposed in the entire
history of science. It's a purely relativistic field theory which served
as the prototype for the standard model, which currently explains all
known phenomena except gravity. Incorporating gravity and the standard
model into a single theory is a _technical_ issue not an issue of either
quanum mechanics or general relativity being wrong. Quite the contrary,
both are bviously correct for any purpose that doesn't include black holes
or possibly neutron stars, and even in those cases, one can do quantum
field theory. See "Aspects of Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime",
S. Fulling, for an example of quantum field theory in curved spacetime.
>> I used to chant this too, but the recent (well, over the last 10 years)
>> experimental work in EPR has convinced me that there's really something
>> odd going on here.
>> "Many worlds" (first proposed in the 50s and recently revived) is one
>> possible explanation for why, for instance, photons in the double slit
>> experiment "know" about the slit they didn't go through. And while I am
>> not particularly convinced that this is the explanation (there
