Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
As I had mentioned in a previous post, complementarity doesn't even
crack a mention in the textbook I learnt QM from (Shankar's book). I
found it in another textbook I had (Schiff's book), which describes it
as being a another way of expressing Heisenberg's uncertainty
princple. I'm not even sure that's true, and in any case I believe
Shankar's book to be superior of the two.
When I thought about it, I realised what complementarity refers in the
double slit experiment - this is what I've been discussing. I'm not at
all certain how it applies in other contexts, however.
Cheers
On Sat, Aug 14, 2004 at 09:58:10AM -0400, John M wrote:
> Dear Russell,
>
> I really would like to read (if ever) about that darn complementarity -
> based on/around a different example from the stale double-slit experiment
> (which it was really constructed for).
>
> IMO the 'double' nature of particle-wave is not (well?) understood and this
> resulted in sweating out the 'complementarity' syndrome to explain some
> hard-to-follow experimental results within the ongoing formalism. (I mean to
> match the quantized items within the system).
>
> Since 2x10^m million experiments - calculations and 3x10^n papers (not to
> speak about hundreds of prizes, tenthousands of tenure) have been devoted to
> the concept - taught to 3 consecutive generations of
> young receptive brains, it would be a BIG job to reformulate it.
>
> Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept from another side
> (another framework), - maybe a new one??
>
> John Mikes
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Fred Chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "'Everything List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 5:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
A/Prof Russell Standish Director
High Performance Computing Support Unit, Phone 9385 6967, 8308 3119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 Fax 9385 6965, 0425 253119 (")
Australia[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Room 2075, Red Centrehttp://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
pgpBcwpwVMhgy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
Unfortunately, it seems that there are very few people seriously working on radical ideas like the models proposed by 't Hooft. My favorite idea is that particles are not real. You could imagine that QM is an effective statistical theory (similar to what 't Hooft says) in which particles appear in a similar way as virtual particles appear in quantum field theory. If the Feynman rules had been discovered by experimentalists, you would have discussions about photons and electrons violating causality except when we observe them... - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Verzonden: Saturday, August 14, 2004 04:51 PM Onderwerp: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity > Thanks! Maybe even further? > John M > - Original Message - > From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John M" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:35 AM > Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity > > > > Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as: > > > > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219 > > > > John M wrote: > > > > > Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept from another side > > > (another framework), - maybe a new one?? > > > > > >
Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
It is not clear that the theory proposed by 't Hooft is incompatible with EPR. As 't Hooft explains there are several loopholes in Bell's theorem. E.g. in a completely deterministic world you cannot claim that you could have chosen to measure a different component of the spin than the one you actually measured... - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Verzonden: Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:19 AM Onderwerp: RE: Quantum Rebel - complementarity > If it can't deal with EPR, what good is it? > > Brent Meeker > > >-Original Message- > >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:35 PM > >To: Russell Standish; John M > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity > > > > > >Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as: > > > > > >http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219 > > > >John M wrote: > > > >> Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept > >from another side > >> (another framework), - maybe a new one?? > > > > > > >
RE: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
If it can't deal with EPR, what good is it? Brent Meeker >-Original Message- >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:35 PM >To: Russell Standish; John M >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity > > >Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as: > > >http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219 > >John M wrote: > >> Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept >from another side >> (another framework), - maybe a new one?? > > >
Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
Thanks! Maybe even further? John M - Original Message - From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:35 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity > Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as: > > > http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219 > > John M wrote: > > > Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept from another side > > (another framework), - maybe a new one?? > >
Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as: http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219 John M wrote: > Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept from another side > (another framework), - maybe a new one??
Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
Dear Russell, I really would like to read (if ever) about that darn complementarity - based on/around a different example from the stale double-slit experiment (which it was really constructed for). IMO the 'double' nature of particle-wave is not (well?) understood and this resulted in sweating out the 'complementarity' syndrome to explain some hard-to-follow experimental results within the ongoing formalism. (I mean to match the quantized items within the system). Since 2x10^m million experiments - calculations and 3x10^n papers (not to speak about hundreds of prizes, tenthousands of tenure) have been devoted to the concept - taught to 3 consecutive generations of young receptive brains, it would be a BIG job to reformulate it. Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept from another side (another framework), - maybe a new one?? John Mikes - Original Message - From: "Russell Standish" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Fred Chen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "'Everything List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 5:50 AM Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel
