Understanding Single Particle Interference in Quantum Physics

[marlon]

QM says more than that, it says that those entities are represented by probability waves individually and that observation consists of applying a projector (or corresponding acts in other interpretations). Moreover, it also declares that the reality content behind the observed effects is entirely revealed through observation (even BM takes the schizoid attitude that the wave isn't real).

This is completely irrelevant. Clearly, you are jumping from one topic to another. If you reread my post to which you replied the above :

[QUOTE = marlon]
You are using two concepts that you know from classical physics (that is what i mean by looking at QM through classical glasses) and you acknowledge that "particles" exhibit wavelike behaviour. You knew what a particle was and you excpected it to behave like one, but in QM it does NOT.
[/QUOTE]

i ask you what your answer has to do with what i wanted to say to you (in the "marlon again" quotation) ? We were talking about duality and it's connection to classical physics. Suddenly, you bring in stuff on "what QM tells us more then the doubble slit exp". We were only talking about the latter experiment, so no need to bring in things like "the wave isn't real"...That is another discussion. We know there is wavelike behaviour, like you said yourself several times. PERIOD.

So, if you agree with what I say about wave particle duality,

I agreed about your formulation in the quotation above. My response as to why i agreed is in my own quotation below. Again, py point was that you needed them classical basis concepts to explain what is going on with this strange behaviour of the doubble slit exp.

then you also acknowledge that QM draws possibly wrong conclusions, otherwise we disagree about it.

?

What does this have to do with anything ? Again, let's stick to our ORIGINAL point of discussion which did NOT involve discussiong the "possibly wrong conclusions of QM". Yousee, you are already using the QM formalism now because you are talking about it's "conclusions", while originally we were talking about the doubble slit exp (beginning of the QM formalism).

marlon

 

[Careful]

Ofcourse you would not be bothered by it because it is "the only reality" you would know (if you look through the QM glasses). The reason we are bothered by QM (if we look at it through classical glasses) is because it is contra intuitive. Why is that so ? Well, because the contra intuitivity comes from the fact that our classical way of thinking does not apply to phenomena at the atomic scale. But if we were all born in a "QM world" the situation is a 180° different from the situation we are really in. In other words, we are used to look through classical glasses and that is why particles and waves do NOT seem strange to us.

Like I said in the beginning, it is pointless to argue against someone who has a bias concerning the very point of discussion.

Why ? I never spoke about the validity of QM what so ever and i never talked about the possible interpretations of it's formalism.

I don't need to know your interpretation in order to be sure that my sentence was correct.

Why ? Care to motivate ?

No, perhaps you could tell us why you would see no conflict with GR. I admit (as I have done previously) that there might be *formally* no problems in say Rovelli's program (although I haven't seen any proper implementation of the constraints so far), however it seems to me there are much better alternatives for the same price.

Besides, i asked you another question in my previous post to you. Why did you not answer that ?

Because I answered it to eep.

Ofcourse, that is perfectly normal because these concepts are contra intuitive to our classical world. This is excatly what i am saying. I still think you are not getting my point.

You simply have no point regarding my analogy : I explained you what it means and you keep on saying nonsense (like your comment below).

But that is wrong because there would be no trial in the first place because no crime has been committed. Looking through the criminal's glasses implies that criminal behaviour is "normal".

No, it does not imply it is considered normal, it is just so that it might make no sense to condemn someone who does not realize he did something wrong. On the other hand, if he knows he is guilty, he might punish himself. So in both cases, no intervention from justice is required.

BINGO : this is exactly why you are missing my point. You cannot judge his acts because they would seem normal to you. Again, you do not know the "abnormal criminal behaviour" (read : normal behaviour) or at least it would seem contra intuitive to you. This is, going back to QM <--> classical physics, is what i mean by : we only knew about particles and waves as they were defined in classical physics.

Of course not, psyschologists and phychiatrists are exactly trying to understand the ``logic'' of the criminal in order to be able to make effective interventions where necessary so that the patient can abandon his reasoning. Now, you are telling us that since they are temporarily looking ``through the glasses of the patient'', that they lose their ability to recognize the desease. Really, this is to crazy for words ...

Why is it so difficult to see that analogy ?

I am sorry, but you are simply not listening to what I said.

Ofcourse QM has a dual nature because it's very fundaments are defined by looking at them through classical glasses. Why ? Because there is no other way. Just look at how the concept of wavefunction is born. The introduction of probabilities (Born etc etc) was necessary because our classical principles didn't work anymore for certain phenomena. This is just the very same story.

Again nonsense, you are just not aware of any different ways. Perhaps you should take a look at the board games I was referring you once to.

?

I SAID : "Even, concepts like superposition are explained using quantum interference, which has it's same basis in the doubble slit exp."

Are you saying this is NOT correct ? Are you saying there are not related ?

I simply said that superposition is not a logical consequence of quantum interference. Does that imply that they are not related ? Of course not, since superpostion implies interference. (again, perhaps you should once care to read posts of others)

I seriously doubt that. Actually, if you reread our lasts posts, you will notice that i am always saying the same stuff over and over again. Especially on the criminal glasses stuff you do not seem to be able to get my point. It is quite easy though because the analogy is the same as the stuff about the duality.

marlon

You simply had no point to start with (and you think you do, while I ignore it, so I am not surprised you keep on doing that).

Careful

 

[Careful]

This is completely irrelevant. Clearly, you are jumping from one topic to another. If you reread my post to which you replied the above :

Perhaps Marlon, you should have also copied the FIRST line of that post. Then it would be clear to the reader that I was not arguing against or for your post, but that I was merely adding some thoughts about how QM deals with wave particle duality; a topic which is entirely legitimate in this context since you are constantly arguing from the QM point of view, you are not even willing to drop it even for the sake of discovering where it might lead you.

You are using two concepts that you know from classical physics (that is what i mean by looking at QM through classical glasses) and you acknowledge that "particles" exhibit wavelike behaviour. You knew what a particle was and you excpected it to behave like one, but in QM it does NOT.

Yes in QM it does not, but the whole point under discussion is whether there is no different way to interpret these experiments in which particles are still classical (self-interacting) particles without being in conflict with wave particle duality (and, yes it seems very possible to me).

i ask you what your answer has to do with what i wanted to say to you (in the "marlon again" quotation) ? We were talking about duality and it's connection to classical physics.

No, marlon you were dictating the ``quantum truth'' with no room for any discussion whatsoever, so it is entirely appropriate to see what QM has to say about it. Your are constantly attempting to reverse the discussion : QM in your eyes is the only true view on the microworld so the rest must be an illusion, you even go that far as to suggest that the problem does not even exist (and thereby discrediting many brilliant scientists who have spend lot's of time on it). So, for a change I will ask you a few questions (to start with) :
(a) to what extend are the laws of QM applicable to our world ?
(b) How do you percieve it in relation to GR ?

Again, py point was that you needed them classical basis concepts to explain what is going on with this strange behaviour of the doubble slit exp.

And that is rubbish, see the complex random walks I have referred you to at least two times before : Richard Feynman, Ted Jacobson, Tomasso Toffoli and others have worked on that for some time.

?

What does this have to do with anything ?

Are you too limited to simply admit that QM does give a very specific and peculiar answer to wave particle duality which is possibly wrong ?

 

[marlon]

Like I said in the beginning, it is pointless to argue against someone who has a bias concerning the very point of discussion.

Why do i have a bias and on what ?

I don't need to know your interpretation in order to be sure that my sentence was correct.

But i was not talking about my interpretation. YOU were the one that started bringing in interpretations and I was the one saying not to do that. My entire point was to avoid using such concepts because they are irrelevant to tis discussion. Why ? because we are talking about the very axioms of the QM formalism, not about it's possible interpretations.

Seems to me you are just fillibustering...

No, perhaps you could tell us why you would see no conflict with GR. I admit (as I have done previously) that there might be *formally* no problems in say Rovelli's program (although I haven't seen any proper implementation of the constraints so far), however it seems to me there are much better alternatives for the same price.

Ofcourse QM and GR have very different "natures" but that is NOT what ae are talking about. Really, i don't get why you start talking about GR while we were discussiong the doubble slit experiment ?

Seems to me you are just fillibustering...

Because I answered it to eep.

Still no anser

No, because you avoided answering that question. Why would anyone do that ? Huh ?

No, it does not imply it is considered normal, it is just so that it might make no sense to condemn someone who does not realize he did something wrong. On the other hand, if he knows he is guilty, he might punish himself. So in both cases, no intervention from justice is required.

Ok, clearly you are joking. Besides, again you make the same mistake. You talk about condemming someone who does not realize he did something wrong. You use TWO perspectives here : the correct glasses and the criminla's glasses. Several times i told you that this was NOT what i wanted to say and i clearly explained to you why.

Seems to me you are just fillibustering...

Of course not, psyschologists and phychiatrists are exactly trying to understand the ``logic'' of the criminal in order to be able to make effective interventions where necessary so that the patient can abandon his reasoning.

Seems to me you are just fillibustering...

Now, you are telling us that since they are temporarily looking ``through the glasses of the patient'', that they lose their ability to recognize the desease. Really, this is to crazy for words ...

AGAIN WRONG. In this analogy i used to compare with the doubble slit exp, you cannot just look through the other glasses temporarily. Your error is that you asume the doctors know both worlds but they just look at one of them temporarily and use the correct world's principles to judge. THAT IS INCORRECT if you look at what happens with the duality in QM. If you look through the QM glasses, the laws of QM are the only ones you know. Just think of it like we discovered QM first without knowing anything of classical physics. THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY "LOOKING TROUGH THE QM GLASSES". In that case, the duality would not strike us as something strange.


You DON'T know what a classical world would look like, just like initially we did not know how the QM world would behave. In your analogy above you are implying that the doctors know the "correct world".

Why don't you (or dont' want to) get that analogy.

I am sorry, but you are simply not listening to what I said.

But then why do i always have to clarify my point to you ?

Again nonsense, you are just not aware of any different ways. Perhaps you should take a look at the board games I was referring you once to.

So you say the following in my quote is nonsense :

Ofcourse QM has a dual nature because it's very fundaments are defined by looking at them through classical glasses. Why ? Because there is no other way. Just look at how the concept of wavefunction is born. The introduction of probabilities (Born etc etc) was necessary because our classical principles didn't work anymore for certain phenomena. This is just the very same story.

You say "you are not aware of any different ways". HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT ?

If you look at the formalism (THE FORUMULA'S) how can you say that ? Even better, how can you prove what you say ?

You are not saying anything here, sorry, but this is just meaningless. Look at the formalism man, look at how the theory was actually constructed and tell me again, how do you prove what you say ?

I simply said that superposition is not a logical consequence of quantum interference. Does that imply that they are not related ? Of course not, since superpostion implies interference. (again, perhaps you should once care to read posts of others)

Pff, again, WHAT HAS THIS TO DO WITH THE PARTICLE WAVE DUALITY ?

You simply had no point to start with (and you think you do, while I ignore it, so I am not surprised you keep on doing that).

That i noticed too. You just keep saying general remarks without any proof nor respect for the actual QM formalism. I am seriously doubting to continue this discussion with somebody who just keeps saying NO with any good counter arguments.

Really, you are not saying anything...
Seems to me you are just fillibustering...

marlon

 

[marlon]

Perhaps Marlon, you should have also copied the FIRST line of that post. Then it would be clear to the reader that I was not arguing against or for your post, but that I was merely adding some thoughts about how QM deals with wave particle duality; a topic which is entirely legitimate in this context since you are constantly arguing from the QM point of view, you are not even willing to drop it even for the sake of discovering where it might lead you.

I know you won't like it but let's reread your comment then : you said (i leave out the first sentence because it does not contribute to the actual content but, ok, we are clear on the intention why you wrote this quote)

YOU SAID THIS :

QM says more than that, it says that those entities are represented by probability waves individually and that observation consists of applying a projector (or corresponding acts in other interpretations). Moreover, it also declares that the reality content behind the observed effects is entirely revealed through observation (even BM takes the schizoid attitude that the wave isn't real).

First of all, when i said this has nothing to do with the particle wave duality i mean this : the particle wave duality and how we described it is something that is an inherent property to the very fundament of QM. What interpretation you assign to the measurement results of the formalism is irelevant because the duality is defines the actual formalism. Now, unless you claim the we have different formalism for QM you are horribly wrong in what you say for that specific reason. The different interpretations are in the RESULTS, NOT THE ACTUAL FORMALISM.

Yes in QM it does not,

Actually, what you do here is just saying that i am right in all i have said.

but the whole point under discussion is whether there is no different way to interpret these experiments in which particles are still classical (self-interacting) particles without being in conflict with wave particle duality (and, yes it seems very possible to me).

In all honesty, i could never deduce from your words we are talking about that. Besides, it's rubbish (or at least how you formulate it) for these reasons :

1) a classical self interacting particle does NOT exist because self interaction is a QM thing

2) how can a classical particle NOT be in conflict with the duality ?

3) this "seems" possible to you ? Well, i am glad for you but how about some proof's ? I don't know ?

Finally, what would be the use ?

No, marlon you were dictating the ``quantum truth'' with no room for any discussion whatsoever, so it is entirely appropriate to see what QM has to say about it.

What you call the "quantum truth" is just the actual formalism. There is only one way to look at that, just like there is only one way for looking classical physis, or GR. The formalism is NOT the same as the measurement interpretations. Now, if you deny this, the please, SHOW ME A DIFFERENT FORMALISM THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS...

Your are constantly attempting to reverse the discussion : QM in your eyes is the only true view on the microworld so the rest must be an illusion,

There is only one QM formalism, YES. But, since you seem to be suggesting that i am missing one, please fill me in on that ...

you even go that far as to suggest that the problem does not even exist (and thereby discrediting many brilliant scientists who have spend lot's of time on it).

What problem ? That there is more then the "quantum truth" ? Well, show me some references then. Besides, again this has actually NOTHING to do with what we ORIGINALLY were talking about : particle wave duality in the QM FORMALISM.

So, for a change I will ask you a few questions (to start with) :
(a) to what extend are the laws of QM applicable to our world ?

atomic scaled phenomena

(b) How do you percieve it in relation to GR ?

the QM formalism has no relation to GR because they are applicable in different physical regimes.

And that is rubbish, see the complex random walks I have referred you to at least two times before : Richard Feynman, Ted Jacobson, Tomasso Toffoli and others have worked on that for some time.

Give me references to prove that i am wrong. A name is not good enough...Show me papers where those people actually stated that what i have said is "rubbish".

Are you too limited to simply admit that QM does give a very specific and peculiar answer to wave particle duality which is possibly wrong ?

But the QM's formalism does NOT give an anser to the duality, the duality is one of the fundametal observations making up this formalism.

Are you too limited to NOT have noticed that ?

marlon

 

[Anonym]

Marlon:” Again, what contradiction ? Do you think i mean that QM is also "a dispersion free theory" (whatever that may be ?). NOT AT ALL.
There is no contradiction because i am not talking about QM nor its formalism.”

Let me try to clarify my point farther. And let me start from the beginning:

Smiley10:” Believe it or not I'm having trouble understanding quantum physics.”

My interpretation is that Smiley10 quote R. Feynman joke from the Lectures. Obviously that implies that he/she read the lectures. In addition, my interpretation is that Smiley10 is not an engineer, he/she is a physicist and a very good physicist. R.Feynman was famous also with his sense of humour. R.Feynman was also outstanding teacher. Here the example of his pedagogical joke:"nobody understands quantum mechanics" (after that he start to explain).I received several interpretations of my interpretation. Only Smiley10 was adequate.

I am not interesting at all to search for contradictions or inconsistency in your point of view or anybody else. To be consistent is not important for me. I will try to explain that later. During wave packet description session I try to focus on W. Heisenberg UR: (delta x)*(delta p) > 0. In classical physics (delta x)*(delta p) = 0 . My question was: what is the connection between delta x in QM, delta x in Newtonian mechanics (Newtonian “ball”) and delta x in E. Schrödinger/ R.J. Glauber? Now I think I am very close to answer (mathematically).

Look now on the following interpretation of R. Feynman simple statement :"nobody understands quantum mechanics":

Vanesch:” The situation is the following: in "ordinary" QM, the formalism is entirely understood ; in quantum field theories (such as QED), even the formalism is not entirely understood, but well enough to do some calculations. In other words, we know that the calculations that are done, are mathematically somehow unsound, but this can be explained away by saying that it must be an approximation to something else (effective field theories).

But Feynman wasn't talking about the formalism, he was talking about the "physical meaning". This is what is not understood, although several attempts with varying degrees of success have been invented. Nobody really knows what the mathematical objects in a quantum theory actually represent.

Some claim that it is just a mathematical tool which gives you statistical outcomes of experiments (in other words, that one shouldn't look for any physical meaning) - fine, but they can't come up with an explicit underlying physical mechanism ! Some (Bohr, with Copenhagen) claim that there IS no explicit physical mechanism, that all there is, is "statistics". This is essentially the "standard" Copenhagen interpretation: the quantum-mechanical formalism links statistically setups and outcomes of a "classical" macroscopic world, and there is no underlying explanation for this link. The formalism of quantum mechanics simply allows you to calculate the probabilities, but doesn't represent anything physical, because there IS nothing physical at that scale.

Others (such as me) claim that the formalism of quantum theory is to be taken seriously, and that it represents genuine physical quantities. These views are "many worlds" views, because you cannot avoid that way, to make a distinction between "the physical state" and "observed reality by an observer", which is so terribly weird.

Others think that the quantum formalism has something real to it, but that there is also an explicit "projection" mechanism. However, this usually introduces some clashes with relativity.

Still others think that there's something fundamentally wrong with the quantum formalism, although it makes correct predictions in many cases, for an ununderstood reason.

This is a discussion that goes on now for almost 80 years, and is usually referred to as the "measurement problem" of quantum theory. However, and that is the nice part: you don't need to think about all this to get the formalism working in practical cases, and in any case, it is a good idea to learn very well the formalism before delving into these issues.

So, the practical attitude to adopt when learning the formalism of quantum theory, is simply this: "quantum theory is a mathematical model which allows you to generate statistical predictions for outcomes of experiment, but for which no evident physical interpretation is known." From the moment that you try to do so, you delve into the problems of the measurement problem, which haven't really been resolved since about 80 years. This is what Feynman meant.”

Marlon:” There is no contradiction because i am not talking about QM nor its formalism.”

And I did not find where you was talking about CM or its formalism either.

” All i wanted to say is that we, as human beings are more familiar with the concepts of classical physics.”

Here I think you are wrong.
Now we arrived to the interconnection between physics, mathematics and biology. It is clear that they are different aspects of the integrated human activity called development of human culture. But you need also to differentiate them. It seems to me that the proper distinction will be achieved if you will define the physics as an empirical science (axiomatically considered as an auxiliary definition). Thus no room for the solipsism will be left.
I guess that human brain is natural realization of quantum computer. It will be properly investigated in future using standard physical tools (Careful restaurant). I guess that You, Vanesch, Smiley10, Careful, Eep, Zbyszek, Ueit, Reilly and me more familiar with the concepts of quantum physics (Linear Hilbert space,linear superpositions are it inherent feature). Only when you or me express yourself verbally or by writings the collapse of wave packet take place. Feed-back loop force you and me try to be consistent.

 

[masudr]

My question was: what is the connection between delta x in QM, delta x in Newtonian mechanics (Newtonian “ball”) and delta x in E. Schrödinger/ R.J. Glauber? Now I think I am very close to answer (mathematically).

The connection is:

<br /> [\hat{A},\hat{B}] \equiv i\hbar \{ A, B \} \equiv i \hbar \left( \frac{\partial A}{\partial x}\frac{\partial B}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial p}\frac{\partial B}{\partial x} \right),<br />

where it is understood that x, p are canonical co-ordinates.

From the above definition, it is straightforward that \{ x, p \} = 1, and so [x, p] = i \hbar. The differences truly arise since in QM we have associated observables with spectra of operators, and (if you follow through on the mathematics) the relation between the root of the variances arise.

 

[Anonym]

Masudr:” The differences truly arise since in QM we have associated observables with spectra of operators, and (if you follow through on the mathematics) the relation between the root of the variances arise.”

So, why you do not follow through on the mathematics?
You can’t put “=” in your expression. It is not a mathematics (see P.Ehrenfest).Notice, that you must use the mathematical languages which are matched. Otherwise, it is like you talk clever things using Chinese with equally clever guy who know only English. You reformulated my question. But I already look for answer.

 

[masudr]

So, why you do not follow through on the mathematics?

The derivation of uncertainty relations given the non-commutativity of the corresponding operators is fairly standard in most advanced QM texts and I'd assumed you'd seen it. See for example Shankar, 2nd ed., pps. 237-239 (you can preview it for free on Google Books, search for "shankar ramamurti derivation of the uncertainty relations" and it's the first hit).

You can’t put “=” in your expression. It is not a mathematics (see P.Ehrenfest).

Yes sorry, it should be an identity sign. I have corrected it now (I had to clear my browser cache to see the effects though).

 

[Anonym]

Masudr:” Yes sorry, it should be an identity sign”

Masudr, come on! It must be expectation value.

 

[Dense]

Originally Posted by Dense
I find it helps to think of it this way:

Imagine lightning. You know how, before the visible lighting bolt strikes, the phenomenon first finds the path of least resistance; and once that path has been carved out in the atmosphere between the two charges, the bolt slams down that path.

So now imagine that a photon has been created, and before it starts to travel you stop time. With time stopped, all of the photon's possible paths are carved out in front of it. Imagine each of these paths as if they were independent photons. Now some of these paths are going to interfere with each other.

Now start up time again. The photon is going to travel down one of these paths. If it's one of the paths that interfered with another potential path, it's going to look as if the photon interfered with itself. Not because it actually did, but because the potential path it followed had already interfered with another potential path.

I'm not saying this is really what happens, I'm just saying it's an analogy that helps me understand the outcome.

This is pretty close to Bohmian Mechanics (maybe you didn't realize this...)

Sorta-kinda. Similar to Bohm's "pilot wave," with all possible "pilot waves" in the photon's phase space going out, outside of time, and interfering with each other.

The analogy only needs one more dimension on top of time for it to make sense.

 

[Dense]

I have read a seminar of Anthony zee once where he uses almost the very same formulation.

Wow! Do you know where I might find the text of that seminar?

 

[masudr]

Masudr, come on! It must be expectation value.

Aren't you getting confused with the time derivative of the expectation of an observable:

\frac{d}{dt}\langle A\rangle = \frac{i}{\hbar}\langle [H,A] \rangle + \frac{\partial A}{\partial t}​

This is explained for time-independent observables in Wikipedia's Ehrenfest thm. article.

What I'm talking about is something different (but still related, as with most things in physics). This is to do with pairs of observables; Paul Dirac saw the link between the commutation relations and the Poisson bracket and it's the same as I gave above. See Wikipedia's article on the can. comm. relation, for example.

Ehrenfest's theorem follows from the fact that the Hamiltonian generates time translations of canonical co-ordinates. e.g. in classical mechanics we have

\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t} f=\frac{\partial }{\partial t} f + \{\,f,H\,\}.​

So no, it shouldn't be an expectation value. The commutator between two operators are proportional to the Poisson bracket, no expectation needed.

 

[Careful]

Give me references to prove that i am wrong. A name is not good enough...Show me papers where those people actually stated that what i have said is "rubbish".

No problem, here you have some:

* Simulating physics with computers, international journal of theoretical physics Vol 21, nos 6/7 1982 R.P. Feynman
* Feynmans Relativistic Chessboard model as an Ising model
H.A. Gersch, International Journal of theoretical physics Vol 20, No, 7,1981
* The Schrodinger equation and Dirac Free particle equations without Quantum mechanics, G.N. Ord, Annals of physics 250, 51-62
* Random walks, continuum limits and Schrodingers equation, Phys Rev A, Vol 54, number 5, 1996

These are all about quantal random walks, a specific road towards the wave particle duality problem has been taken by Toffoli (by considering interfering ensembles of ket and bra's).

I am not even going to dignify the rest with a response except for :

In all honesty, i could never deduce from your words we are talking about that. Besides, it's rubbish (or at least how you formulate it) for these reasons :

1) a classical self interacting particle does NOT exist because self interaction is a QM thing

2) how can a classical particle NOT be in conflict with the duality ?

3) this "seems" possible to you ? Well, i am glad for you but how about some proof's ? I don't know ?

Finally, what would be the use ?

(1) What the hell forbids me to consider classical self interacting particles ? Never heard of classical electromagnetic selfinteraction of the electron ?
(2) Easy, it can undergo wave motion under influence of its own wave field.
(3) I gave a clear argument that it is not impossible, for example Hestenes thought zitterbewegung of spinorial particles to be responsible for the apparent duality.


The use, ohw you would get rid of wave particle duality, you would not need any collaps/consciousness, the theory could be determinstic ... minor things which I am sure are not of your concern.

First of all, when i said this has nothing to do with the particle wave duality i mean this : the particle wave duality and how we described it is something that is an inherent property to the very fundament of QM. What interpretation you assign to the measurement results of the formalism is irelevant because the duality is defines the actual formalism. Now, unless you claim the we have different formalism for QM you are horribly wrong in what you say for that specific reason. The different interpretations are in the RESULTS, NOT THE ACTUAL FORMALISM.

If you believe I was speaking about different interpretations, then yes ... sigh. Anyway, it is clear to any idiot that the way one thinks about wave particle duality is intimately connected to the measurement problem. This Toffoli bra and ket model actually treats particles differently, as well as the waves, and the measurement is entirely local and realist. In the QM model on the other hand, you either need a nonlocal collapse, a nonlocal equation of motion for particles (BM) or you have to give up reality and incoorporate something which measures the particle without actually collapsing the wave (MWI). But a local realist measurement postulate is alas not possible in the light of **QM** wave particle duality.

Careful

 

[reilly]

marlon has been doing the heavy lifting, and doing it well.

I have a question for the contrarians -- how many of you have made a living doing QM? That is, how many contrarians know QM's practical aspects in addition to the millions of words about the abstract theory? I know there are some, but I do wonder how many have been in the trenches.

Again; QM is fundamentally empirical, designed to deal withy phenomena that simply defy the logic of classical physics. Small wonder that the theory, as it is now, has the problems associated with language and logic(L&L) in either one of two camps -- ordinary L&L, which does not cut it, or some QM L&L, all of which have many problems, discussed all through the physics community.

The simple point is: for all practical purposes, we are classical folks, stuck in the very strange quantum world, so far without the L&L tools to feel comfortable with observed reality at the atomic or smaller level. Seems to me, the issue should not be one of competeing ideologies, but rather one of trying to understand better the fundamental issue: why does QM work so well? (That's where the physics is.)

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Careful]

marlon has been doing the heavy lifting, and doing it well.

The heavy ranting you mean.

Again; QM is fundamentally empirical, designed to deal withy phenomena that simply defy the logic of classical physics. Small wonder that the theory, as it is now, has the problems associated with language and logic(L&L) in either one of two camps -- ordinary L&L, which does not cut it, or some QM L&L, all of which have many problems, discussed all through the physics community.

Right, that is exactly how I take QM and this gives me plenty of liberties.

The simple point is: for all practical purposes, we are classical folks, stuck
in the very strange quantum world, so far without the L&L tools to feel comfortable with observed reality at the atomic or smaller level. Seems to me, the issue should not be one of competeing ideologies, but rather one of trying to understand better the fundamental issue: why does QM work so well? (That's where the physics is.)

Exactly, but then you have to be prepared to see things differently and show in what sense QM is an approximation (for example S. Adler is doing this). Actually, many of my views towards QM and entanglement in particular were held by J. Bell (as I learned yesterday while reading his nouvelle cuisine) so I can hardly understand the protest.

 

[Anonym]

Masudr, come on. This is explained for time-independent observables in Wikipedia's Ehrenfest thm. article. See Wikipedia's article on the can. comm. relation, for example. For more detailed discussion see P.A.M. Dirac The Principles.
Look at this point alternatively: why not? Take brackets from both sides. Left is well defined. Right is not defined. This is break-through penetration point.Here somehow fails J. von Neumann, E.P.Wigner, G. Birkhoff, P. Jordan, E.C.G. Stueckelberg and S.L. Adler

 

[masudr]

Masudr, come on. This is explained for time-independent observables in Wikipedia's Ehrenfest thm. article. See Wikipedia's article on the can. comm. relation, for example. For more detailed discussion see P.A.M. Dirac The Principles.

That's not helpful at all. Tell me if you have a problem with the following:

<br /> [\hat{A},\hat{B}] \equiv i\hbar \{ A, B \} \equiv i \hbar \left( \frac{\partial A}{\partial x}\frac{\partial B}{\partial p} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial p}\frac{\partial B}{\partial x} \right).<br />

And if so, a reference to where it is wrong.

 

[marlon]

No problem, here you have some:

* Random walks, continuum limits and Schrodingers equation, Phys Rev A, Vol 54, number 5, 1996

I took the effort of reading this publication and i did not find any clue to denies what i have said. Please, show me, in this paper, the part where you think what i have said (which is just mainstraim physics) is incorrect. Let's work with this one.

I am not even going to dignify the rest with a response except for :

That's a bit easy no ?

Besides, i am still waiting for the answers to MY questions...

(1) What the hell forbids me to consider classical self interacting particles ? Never heard of classical electromagnetic selfinteraction of the electron ?

Err, the fact that it does NOT exist, maybe ?

Show me some self interacting particles in classical physics please. Again, if you make a hollow claim, please take the effort of using mainstream physical examples. Otherwise, what you say is just ...empty stuff...

(2) Easy, it can undergo wave motion under influence of its own wave field.

Huh ? Mainstream physics examples please ?

(3) I gave a clear argument that it is not impossible,

No you did not, but i am giving you the chance to do that again.

for example Hestenes thought zitterbewegung of spinorial particles to be responsible for the apparent duality.

That's the first time you talk about that to me. Also, regurgitating some terms is useless. What do you mean by "spinorial particles responsible for apparent duality" ? Mainstream physics only please...

But again, what does this have to do with our original discussion which is limited to the original QM formalism. We were only look at the "standard view" and certainly NOT about measurement problems.

The use, ohw you would get rid of wave particle duality, you would not need any collaps/consciousness, the theory could be determinstic ...

HUH ? What the hell are you talking about ? Are you laughing with me ?

I cannot take this seriously anymore.

minor things which I am sure are not of your concern.

Yeah, very clear. I am sure that if people read what you say here, your point will be sooooooo convincing.

Clearly, my dear friend, you are not used to real scientific discussions. You seem to be of one of them pop science guys.

If you believe I was speaking about different interpretations, then yes ... sigh.

That's something, you see it is not so hard to swallow your proud and follow mainstream physics.

And YES, you are always talking about different interpretations while i was ONLY talking about the standard QM formalism. NO measurement problems...

Anyway, it is clear to any idiot that the way one thinks about wave particle duality is intimately connected to the measurement problem.

MEASUREMENT PROBLEM ?

Why ? Guess i must be anidiot then, so, please enlighten me.

This Toffoli bra and ket model actually treats particles differently, as well as the waves, and the measurement is entirely local and realist. In the QM model on the other hand, you either need a nonlocal collapse, a nonlocal equation of motion for particles (BM) or you have to give up reality and incoorporate something which measures the particle without actually collapsing the wave (MWI). But a local realist measurement postulate is alas not possible in the light of **QM** wave particle duality.

Careful

WRONG. You are again mixing measurement problems with the formalism. I am not going into that again since i have been doing that ad nauseum".

marlon

 

[marlon]

Right, that is exactly how I take QM and this gives me plenty of liberties.

That is NOT what you have been saying to me. reilly, i leave the honour to you

Exactly, but then you have to be prepared to see things differently and show in what sense QM is an approximation (for example S. Adler is doing this).

C'mon man, you are being so weak here. you have been ranting to me about how i am wrong in saying what i have been saying to you many times. Now, Reilly said basically the same (ESPECIALLY HIS FIRST SENTENCE HERE) and you agree ?

Actually, many of my views towards QM and entanglement in particular were held by J. Bell (as I learned yesterday while reading his nouvelle cuisine) so I can hardly understand the protest.

BUT I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ! How many times do i need to repeat the fact that i was NOT referring to measurement interpretations. I was ONLY talking about the standard QM formalism and i never denied there are "different views", NOTHING MORE !


marlon

 

[Careful]

I took the effort of reading this publication and i did not find any clue to denies what i have said. Please, show me, in this paper, the part where you think what i have said (which is just mainstraim physics) is incorrect. Let's work with this one.

You must go for a career as politician : I never claimed that what you said *about QM* is wrong, just that your claims about what wave particle duality implies are. The latter paper deals with a description of the Schrodinger equation within the context of classical statistical mechanics (without Wick rotation). As I said, the author does not refer explicitely to the measurement problem here, but (a student of) Toffoli has published on that (as said before).

That's a bit easy no ?

Nope, I give up on hopeless cases who do nothing but insulting the other party based on a clear lack of knowledge about what has been said.

Err, the fact that it does NOT exist, maybe ?

Wrong, it is known to exist for about 100 years now : the resulting equation in EM for a particle, taking into account the coulomb selfinteraction as well as the radiative backreaction (= radiative ``self interaction'', I would have better used backreaction if you are so confused by this use of the word selfinteraction) is called the Lorentz Dirac equation.

Show me some self interacting particles in classical physics please. Again, if you make a hollow claim, please take the effort of using mainstream physical examples. Otherwise, what you say is just ...empty stuff...

I gave you already one, and I called it ``electron'' If you want a reference : ``classical electrodynamics of retarded fields of particles'', Rivista del nuovo cimento vol 3, no 9. (1980)

No you did not, but i am giving you the chance to do that again.

Please refrain from giving yourself an imaginary mentor status : I am giving you too much chances.

That's the first time you talk about that to me. Also, regurgitating some terms is useless. What do you mean by "spinorial particles responsible for apparent duality" ? Mainstream physics only please...

Learn to read : I said that the *zitterbewegung* of spinorial particles was responsible for the apparent duality and this is a very old idea.

But again, what does this have to do with our original discussion which is limited to the original QM formalism.

No, you limited it to QM !

Yeah, very clear. I am sure that if people read what you say here, your point will be sooooooo convincing.

In contrast to you, I am not trying to convince anybody of my point of view. I realize that it is still too unpolished, but on the other hand it is useful to point out where other possibilities reside which have been peer published already for many years !

Clearly, my dear friend, you are not used to real scientific discussions. You seem to be of one of them pop science guys.

What you are doing here in this thread does not even qualify in my experience as a discussion, and certainly not as a scientific one. On the other hand, you have proven yourself not even to know about the classical origin of electromagnetic self interaction, but even worse, you straigtforwardly attack someone who is pointing this out to you. Of course this EM self interaction has not the same effect as the QM one (since the wave function is smeared out) and the latter has lead to a correct prediction of the Lamb shift amongst other things.

That's something, you see it is not so hard to swallow your proud and follow mainstream physics.

And YES, you are always talking about different interpretations while i was ONLY talking about the standard QM formalism. NO measurement problems...

I was NEVER talking about different interpretations.

WRONG. You are again mixing measurement problems with the formalism. I am not going into that again since i have been doing that ad nauseum".
marlon

You were never listening to the counter example I gave you he (the bra and ket model). Usually, when people do not know about it, they ask for references.

 

[Careful]

BUT I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ! How many times do i need to repeat the fact that i was NOT referring to measurement interpretations. I was ONLY talking about the standard QM formalism and i never denied there are "different views", NOTHING MORE !
marlon

First, this has nothing to do with my comment, second you were doing much more than merely mentioning the QM view.

 

[dextercioby]

Careful, i think your example/result of classical electrodynamics (Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field) is a classic one, but we know that even inside the theory, Maxwell's theory that is, we have enough reasons to refute such result since its interpretation requires violation of causality -which is a postulate of the theory (SR) generating the result in the first place. Kinda paradoxical if you think about it. I guess Marlon might say that there's no such thing as electrons in CED, because (electromagnetically interacting) electrons are a product of QED. And he wouln't be wrong.

Anyway, my opinion is that this debate isn't going anywhere and this thread should be put to rest.

Daniel.

 

[Careful]

Careful, i think your example/result of classical electrodynamics (Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field) is a classic one, but we know that even inside the theory, Maxwell's theory that is, we have enough reasons to refute such result since its interpretation requires violation of causality -which is a postulate of the theory (SR) generating the result in the first place.

You have to be careful here, the Lorentz Dirac equation does lead to superluminality *within* the particle, but there is no problem with runaway solutions, neither preaccelerations if you demand C_1 force fields (Barut has pointed that out a long while ago) as well as that the back reaction is nihil in absence of external force fields. The traditional weirdness concerning preaccelerations comes from jumps in the acceleration of the particle in which case the equation cannot be applied anyway. Moreover, as you undoubtedly know, one can solve the equation by iteration (starting from the Newtonian one) in which case one does not need to make these considerations at all.

I guess Marlon might say that there's no such thing as electrons in CED, because (electromagnetically interacting) electrons are a product of QED. And he wouln't be wrong.

I disagree here, classical texts usually do not consider the problem on purpose although there has been plenty of research on electron models especially in relation to rotating black holes (and fairly sucessfully). QED, neither first quantized Dirac Maxwell theory, solves that problem either, unless you look for soliton solutions, but that is very different from the conventional treatment.

Anyway, my opinion is that this debate isn't going anywhere and this thread should be put to rest.
Daniel.

I agree that it is leading to nothing.

 

[marlon]

You must go for a career as politician : I never claimed that what you said *about QM* is wrong, just that your claims about what wave particle duality implies are.

NOT AT ALL

"My claims about what particle duality implies" ? I did not say anything about that. What i originally talked about is WHY WE NEED THAT DUALITY. That is something totally different and THAT is what you are objecting against. I am willing to review all what you have said to show you where you were wrong. Because THAT is the truth and nothing more. I only talked about the standard QM formalism.

I know you are trying to get out of this by saying that this thread does not lead to anything, but you will NOT escape that easily.

Nope, I give up on hopeless cases who do nothing but insulting the other party based on a clear lack of knowledge about what has been said.

Easy, like i said before. Show me where i insulted you and i will apologize. I gave you several clear explainaitions as to why you are wrong in your assesment on the necessity of the particle wave duality.

Wrong, it is known to exist for about 100 years now : the resulting equation in EM for a particle, taking into account the coulomb selfinteraction as well as the radiative backreaction (= radiative ``self interaction'', I would have better used backreaction if you are so confused by this use of the word selfinteraction) is called the Lorentz Dirac equation.

I dont' know this. Could you give me a reference where self interaction is explained in classical physics ?

I gave you already one, and I called it ``electron'' If you want a reference : ``classical electrodynamics of retarded fields of particles'', Rivista del nuovo cimento vol 3, no 9. (1980)

Did not find that.

To dextercioby : Hey man, i know what this guy is talking about but he is clearly mixing up stuff (like he has been doing several times in this thread). A particle moving under the influence of his own field is NOT self interaction.

Carefull, i suggest you look at how the many body Schrodinger equation is solved and you will see what self interaction means and what it is used for. Reference : anything of Density Functional Theory for example.

Please refrain from giving yourself an imaginary mentor status : I am giving you too much chances.

I am still waiting for that specific reference/ explanation.

Learn to read : I said that the *zitterbewegung* of spinorial particles was responsible for the apparent duality and this is a very old idea.

I asked you to explain what the above means. I know what you have written. You are , as always, giving me answers that have nothing to do with the actual question.

I wonder why you would do that

No, you limited it to QM !

But i only talked about QM. What else is there to talk about ? Don't come with your different QM formalisms because you are violating the guidelines of this forum with that.

In contrast to you, I am not trying to convince anybody of my point of view.

The QM formalism does not have several versions. You say I impose my opinion onto thers but that is not even possible in this case. QM is NOT my opinion.

I realize that it is still too unpolished, but on the other hand it is useful to point out where other possibilities reside which have been peer published already for many years !

Measurement Problem...sigh

Irrelevant to this discussion for the obvious reasons.

On the other hand, you have proven yourself not even to know about the classical origin of electromagnetic self interaction, but even worse, you straigtforwardly attack someone who is pointing this out to you.

I suggest you read the posts of both Reilly and Dextercioby. I noticed you are disagreeing with the latter too. Do you really think I am the problem here ?

Of course this EM self interaction has not the same effect as the QM one (since the wave function is smeared out) and the latter has lead to a correct prediction of the Lamb shift amongst other things.

Clearly, you do not even know what a self interaction is. Read the post of DEXTER...He will explain to you. I have done my part.

I was NEVER talking about different interpretations.

Ha, so what is this then :

"Actually, many of my views towards QM and entanglement in particular were held by J. Bell (as I learned yesterday while reading his nouvelle cuisine) so I can hardly understand the protest."


<SIGHS BigTime>

You were never listening to the counter example I gave you he (the bra and ket model). Usually, when people do not know about it, they ask for references.

Well, and since i did not ask for references, i know about it.

marlon

 

[marlon]

First, this has nothing to do with my comment,

Why ?

second you were doing much more than merely mentioning the QM view.

What else did i add then ? Show me that.

marlon

 

[Careful]

Clearly, you do not even know what a self interaction is. Read the post of DEXTER...He will explain to you. I have done my part.

Clearly YOU don't know that and you even admitted it ! Dextercioby knows perfectly what I am talking about, but does not seem to be aware that the objections against the Lorentz Dirac equation have been cleared up for a while (you should let him answer). The iterative approach to the latter equation having been discussed in detail recently for point particles with higher multipole moments in a general curved spacetime background by Eric Poisson. By the way, look up the paper of Villaroel, Van Weert and Teitelboim I mentioned previously (even though you could not find it immediatly), it is the best one available on the subject.

Ha, so what is this then :

"Actually, many of my views towards QM and entanglement in particular were held by J. Bell (as I learned yesterday while reading his nouvelle cuisine) so I can hardly understand the protest."

Bell, my dear friend, was talking about a new THEORY, just as I am. Not some silly interpretation of quantum mechanics. You really don't know anything about this, it is that simple.

To dextercioby : Hey man, i know what this guy is talking about but he is clearly mixing up stuff (like he has been doing several times in this thread). A particle moving under the influence of his own field is NOT self interaction.

I knew you were going to say this (for the good reason that you testified to be only aware the QED story), that is why I wrote between brackets backreaction equals self interaction (missed it again he). In the first quantized Maxwell Dirac framework, you can eliminate the gauge field and write the equation entirely in terms of the current using the retarded Greens function. The self interaction therefore is expressed by a nonlocal third order nonlinear term in the wave equation. In the classical case of *point* particles, you have to be more careful since the coulomb self energy momentum tensor is not well defined on the worldline of the particle albeit the radiative energy momentum tensor is. But again, the radiative backraction is directly expressed in terms of the eigentime derivative of the acceleration of the particle in the Lorentz Dirac equation and therefore clearly is a (second order) self interaction. Similarly in the first quantized framework, the radiative corrections are third order terms in the wavefunction, therefore the word self interaction. Actually since 1900 there have been a wealth of papers on the classical theory of self interaction. You can hardly claim to know what it is when you straightforwardly deny such elementary fact.

Concerning Reilly, again let him react. His view towards QM, as expressed in his last post, is very moderate and down to earth, exactly the way you should look at QM as a theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Careful]

What else did i add then ? Show me that.
marlon

Ohw, you were merely declaring it to be the ONLY CORRECT view each time. Mentioning means that you refer to its existence, acknowledging patiently that other views might be correct.

 

[marlon]

Clearly YOU don't know that and you even admitted it ! Dextercioby knows perfectly what I am talking about, but does not seem to be aware that the objections against the Lorentz Dirac equation have been cleared up for a while (you should let him answer).

Dexter wrote this "Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field"

Tell me, since when is a relativistic particle described by classical physics ?

The iterative approach to the latter equation having been discussed in detail recently for point particles with higher multipole moments in a general curved spacetime background by Eric Poisson.

"A general curved spacetime background" in classical physics ?

Bell, my dear friend, was talking about a new THEORY, just as I am. Not some silly interpretation of quantum mechanics. You really don't know anything about this, it is that simple.

Wrong, the stuff you are referring to is NOT an new QM theory. Also, please tell me what "silly interpretation of QM" i referred to.

I knew you were going to say this (for the good reason that you testified to be only aware the QED story), that is why I wrote between brackets backreaction equals self interaction (missed it again he).

No i did not miss that, but you writing this does not change a thing.

In the first quantized Lorentz Dirac framework, you can eliminate the gauge field and write the equation entirely in terms of the current using the retarded Greens function. The self interaction therefore is expressed by a nonlocal third order nonlinear term in the wave equation.

Nice, but you were talking about CLASSICAL PHYSICS.

In the classical case of *point* particles, you have to be more careful since the coulomb self energy momentum tensor is not well defined on the worldline of the particle albeit the radiative energy momentum tensor is.

LOL

What is the "the coulomb self energy momentum tensor " in classical physics ?
What is a world line in classical physics ?

But again, the radiative backraction is directly expressed in terms of the eigentime derivative of the acceleration of the particle in the Lorentz Dirac equation and therefore clearly is a (second order) self interaction.

Eigentime ? In classical physics ?

Concerning Reilly, again let him react. His view towards QM, as expressed in his last post, is very moderate and down to earth, exactly the way you should look at QM as a theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ofcourse, the very same vision as i have and as i have always defended. That is exactly why he wrote : "marlon has been doing the heavy lifting, and doing it well." in post nr 65.


Besides, i am still waiting for your answers to my questions. Also, i was under the impression that we were going to discuss the content of the reference YOU provided and that i have read. Remember "Random walks, continuum limits and Schrodingers equation, Phys Rev A, Vol 54, number 5, 1996
"? Post nr 69 ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

Ohw, you were merely declaring it to be the ONLY CORRECT view each time. Mentioning means that you refer to its existence, acknowledging patiently that other views might be correct.

First of all, that is NOT adding stuff.
Secondly, just like Reilly i look at the QM formalism and only that. Nobody can deny the content (the math etc etc) of that formalism, as i have explained you. You denied this, which implies you think there is another QM formalism starting from other axioms etc etc. Tell me, what is that ?


marlon

 

[Careful]

Dexter wrote this "Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field"

All the more surprising then that you did not get it at that moment.

Tell me, since when is a relativistic particle described by classical physics ?

"A general curved spacetime background" in classical physics ?

This is just hilarious :
(a) apart from the fact that I was taking EM as an example in my last (4 ?) posts, which automatically implies special relativity, it is clearly falling under classical physics. The same with ``curved spacetime background'', why do you think we speak about classical general relativity ?

(b) more funny is the fact that in order to make my point about the backreaction, I don't need special relativity at all. I could take the ``non-relativistic limit´´ of the Maxwell equations in the Lorentz gauge and retain in my formulation only the spacelike indices, this would give diffusion like equations of the form:
\partial_t A_i - \partial_{x^j} \partial_{x_j} A_i = \alpha J_i
where J_i is the three current. Instead of the retarded Green's function, I would have to use the appropriate kernel for the diffusion equation. Likewise, I could treat the particle as a nonrelativistic one.

Wrong, the stuff you are referring to is NOT an new QM theory. Also, please tell me what "silly interpretation of QM" i referred to.

You still misread people, I said : ``I was TALKING about a new theory´´. Whether you do consider these references as a new QM theory or not is an entirely different matter. I do consider the Toffoli construction as new in a sense that almost all single events are corresponding to different configurations, there are new unobserved players on the scene, the kets and bra's , and particles are emergent concepts rather than fundamental ones. Moreover, Toffoli did not offer (like anyone so far) an acceptable theory of ``entanglement'' (you might know that I do not consider exact entanglement a necessity), so the multiparticle problem is still open in these models as far as I am concerned and it is here where a difference will be made. Moreover, you did not refer to any specific interpretation of QM, but you keep on wrongly assuming that I am talking about some interpretation.

The papers I referred you to all indeed reproduce the Schrodinger equation at a fairly immediate level. But for that, they can be hardly blamed for, it is immensly difficult to do better !

Ofcourse, the very same vision as i have and as i have always defended. That is exactly why he wrote : "marlon has been doing the heavy lifting, and doing it well." in post nr 65.

No, no, let Reilly reply !

Besides, i am still waiting for your answers to my questions. Also, i was under the impression that we were going to discuss the content of the reference YOU provided and that i have read. Remember "Random walks, continuum limits and Schrodingers equation, Phys Rev A, Vol 54, number 5, 1996
"

No, I was not going to discuss that, it merely served as a counterexample, in the sense referred to above, to your extravagant claims that QM would be the only answer to all of this (and your erroneous statements that the measurement problem and wave particle duality are independent problems while I was talking about these outside the context of QM). If you ask me whether I am happy about the ``answers'' in these papers, then the answer is for sure negative. They form a careful beginning for what might lead to something very different (as is for sure the author's intention and partial realisation), but the latter will clearly ask a much more difficult analysis. Nevertheless, they constitute an interesting read.

 

[Careful]

You denied this, which implies you think there is another QM formalism starting from other axioms etc etc. Tell me, what is that ?
marlon

I never denied what you said is incorrect within the context of the standard QM formalism and I repeated this several times ! All my comments and observations concerning wave particle duality were made outside the context of QM which is entirely legitimate given the importance of the orginal thought experiments regarding single particle self interference vis a vis the foundations of QM. But you simply cannot constrain your blood when you meet a comment which is contradicting what you said, you take this at the most simple level possible and see it as a direct negation of what you said rather than a logical possibility assuming that you forget about QM for a moment (not about wave particle duality of course). I literally said a few times that you had to look at my comments in this way ...

 

[marlon]

This is just hilarious :
(a) apart from the fact that I was taking EM as an example in my last (4 ?) posts, which automatically implies special relativity, it is clearly falling under classical physics. The same with ``curved spacetime background'', why do you think we speak about classical general relativity ?

You were talking about <quote>"self interaction in classical physics"<end quote>. Now you talk about classical general relativity ? Please, just admit you made a mistale there because if you start saying things that imply classical physics = GR, you are just making fun of yourself. Do you really think people will not notice that ?

At least, i am already glad you dropped terums like eigen time and world lines. Good Job !

(b) I could take the ``non-relativistic limit´´ of the Maxwell equations in the Lorentz gauge and retain in my formulation only the spacelike indices, this would give diffusion like equations of the form:
\partial_t A_i - \partial_{x^j} \partial_{x_j} A_i = \alpha J_i
where J_i is the three current.

Ahh, now THAT's classical physics. Please, explain me where we have self interaction here. How is it described ?

You still misread people, I said : ``I was TALKING about a new theory´´. Whether you do consider these references as a new QM theory or not is an entirely different matter.

But who says this is a new theory ? Who ? You ? Where is the proof ?

I do consider the Toffoli construction as new in a sense that almost all single events are corresponding to different configurations, there are new unobserved players on the scene, the kets and bra's , and particles are emergent concepts rather than fundamental ones.

I am not denying all that, but again, what does this have to do with you saying that "my vision of QM" is wrong ? You keep saying that the stuff i said on the duality is wrong. Reread your very first posts in which you replied to me.

No, no, let Reilly reply !

He will reply if he wants to, no problem, but i ask you AGAIN : why do YOU think he wrote that "marlon has been doing the heavy lifting, and doing it well." In post nr 65. He wrote this AFTER he read my posts in which i explained the (standard) QM formalism and the link to the duality. If i was so completely wrong, like you suggest, do you really think he would have written that ? Please, be honest for once.

No, I was not going to discuss that, it merely served as a counterexample, in the sense referred to above,

A counterexample which you do not want to discuss . You have a very strange way of behaving in a discussion. Also, i read the Phys. Rev. paper i mentioned and i stated that the content does NOT correspond to what you have said. You are not even going to react and start a discussion based upon a PEER REVIEWED PAPER ? Why o why is that ? Could it be that you just gave the reference but that you actually have no idea as to what is in that paper ?

(and your erroneous statements that the measurement problem and wave particle duality are independent problems while I was talking about these outside the context of QM).

Ohhh , you are clearly twisting and turning your way out, no ?

First of all, i never said they were independent problems. What i said was this : the duality is one of the first steps (not to say the first together with the probability nature of atomic scaled phenomena) towards building the QM formalism. Check any QM intro textbook and tell me what comes first : the duality or the measurement problem? <this is a retorical question>

If you ask me whether I am happy about the ``answers'' in these papers, then the answer is for sure negative.

Fine but what i wanted to know is this : show me , from this paper, that what i have said on the duality is WRONG. remember that THAT was the reason you quoted these papers in post nr 64 (reread if you don't believe me). Give some proofs for your claims.

Besides, you forgot to add some reasons why you should not be happy with the content of this paper.
marlon

 

[marlon]

I never denied what you said is incorrect within the context of the standard QM formalism and I repeated this several times !

Please, Careful, this is getting awkward. Reread what you wrote in :

1) post nr 34 : you started by violating the standard QM view (as described by the standard formalism) on the duality

2) post nr 36 and 37 the very same thing as in 1)

3) post nr 40, your response to eep : you contradict the standard view as to why there is the duality

4) post nr 42,43 : again a response to eep (who was correct, you were wrong just like in 3)) : you deny the standard view and the definition on wavelike behaviour

5) post nr 44, the stuff on interference. Actually, this is also what Reilly objected against.


6) It goes on and on and on...

All my comments and observations concerning wave particle duality were made outside the context of QM which is entirely legitimate

i know that is what you are claiming but i am still waiting for proof. AND I WANNA BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT PROOF. Just some references that i can read, but to which you do not want to react is USELESS.

Don't just give references to "appear smart"

But you simply cannot constrain your blood when you meet a comment which is contradicting what you said,

But you do NOT provide me with proof to convince me. What do you expect ?

Besides, you are saying again "a comment that is contradicting what i said". I do not get that for THIS REASON :

You agreed with the fact that i only talked about the standard formalism and you also agree (luckily) with the content of that standard QM formalism, like you wrote youself so do not deny it, but how can there be comments that contradict that formalism with which YOU agree ?

you take this at the most simple level possible and see it as a direct negation of what you said rather than a logical possibility assuming that you forget about QM for a moment (not about wave particle duality of course).

I do not understand what you mean here.

I literally said a few times that you had to look at my comments in this way ...

Science does not work like that. Only accepted theories will do...

marlon

 

[Careful]

Very short, since you do not know how and when to quit.

Please, Careful, this is getting awkward. Reread what you wrote in :

1) post nr 34 : you started by violating the standard QM view (as described by the standard formalism) on the duality

2) post nr 36 and 37 the very same thing as in 1)

3) post nr 40, your response to eep : you contradict the standard view as to why there is the duality

4) post nr 42,43 : again a response to eep (who was correct, you were wrong just like in 3)) : you deny the standard view and the definition on wavelike behaviour

5) post nr 44, the stuff on interference. Actually, this is also what Reilly objected against.

YES, so I contradict the standard view. And how is this in logical contradiction to my assertion that within the standard view, I agree what you said is correct (in either I agree that you are telling the textbook stuff correctly) ?!

i know that is what you are claiming but i am still waiting for proof. AND I WANNA BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT PROOF. Just some references that i can read, but to which you do not want to react is USELESS.

But, this is just amazing, I have shortly given my comments on that paper and I have said at least two times that finding a proof for the single particle self interaction picture is going to be extremely hard. But that hardly implies that it is wrong ! It took the atomic picture more than 2300 years to come to some stage of development, starting from the ideas of democritos in 400 BC.
Second, one post ago, you showed not to understand classical self interaction yet, and now you are proclaiming that you know what I have in mind. :-))

Learn to read, my friend. That is all I can say. As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, it is getting worse again.

This conversation is over, you did not do anything but ranting about something I never said, you made blatant mistakes about self interaction, your comments about what classical physics is supposed to be are just ridiculous and you still did not get it how self interaction will also show up in the nonrelativistic limit I described you above (hint : you will probably end up with the non relativistic limit of the Lorentz Dirac equation which is also of third order in time).

And now, you are trying to hold me responsible for something I never said ! Tssss... never learned in class that the small letters always matter? Because, that is the first thing I remembered ! As I said before to some, it is not because you defend or proclaim the standard view that you cannot be held responsible for it. Should I each time say to people : ``ohw, now you did the respectable job of correctly repeating what is in the textbooks, now we are going to discuss that what is in the textbooks is really correct/the best way to go´´. Now, if I think that the standard textbook material is not the best way to go in the long run (which is basically what fundamental research is about, done by many at the finest institutes), then I proclaim that I think you are wrong, since you are basically telling it to me (and of course I give motivations for it). This is *exactly* the way how scientific discussion works.

 

[marlon]

YES, so I contradict the standard view.

No, you are contradicting the Qm formalism. That is what i am trying to tell you. In my previous post, i gave references to your own posts. Did you not read them ?

I agree what you said is correct (in either I agree that you are telling the textbook stuff correctly) ?!

Talking about a U-TURN.

Please, drop the childish emoticons because they have no influence. I took the effort of rereading this ENTIRE thread and look for your objections against what i said. I gave the specific references denoting the numbers of the posts in which you claim what i said is incorrect.

But, this is just amazing, I have shortly given my comments on that paper

No you did not. I invited you several times to discuss the content of this Phys Rev paper and you keep on refusing. When you quote a paper, just giving "your views" really is not good enough. Especially when your views contradict with that paper.

and I have said at least two times that finding a proof for the single particle self interaction picture is going to be extremely hard.

That proof has already been found. emember the original discussion in this thread ?

But that hardly implies that it is wrong !

Nor that it's correct.

Second, one post ago, you showed not to understand classical self interaction yet, and now you are proclaiming that you know what I have in mind. :-))

Oww ? How did i show that ? Again, you accuse me of ranting but the only YOU do is say "Well marlon YOU ARE WRONG, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS AND THAT"...Explain what you mean otherwise you look stupid.

Learn to read, my friend. That is all I can say.

Really, well, that does not sound very convincing.

As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, it is getting worse again.

That's all you have to say about that ? How about answering my questions, huh ? Or why else, d you bother to reply ? I suggest you reread your last post and LOOK a what you are really saying. It sure ain't much.

This conversation is over,

BRAVO

you did not do anything but ranting about something I never said,

Ohh c'mon man, read my TWO LAST POSTS. I explained WHY YOU WERE WRONG. Don't react in suc a childish way.

you made blatant mistakes about self interaction,

Well, correct me then. If i don't understand something or people tell me i am wrong, ok, but at least take the effort of explaining to me the correct version. I asked you this concerning YOUR OWN WORDS :

1) "Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field"

Tell me, since when is a relativistic particle described by classical physics ?

2) The iterative approach to the latter equation having been discussed in detail recently for point particles with higher multipole moments in a general curved spacetime background by Eric Poisson.

question : "A general curved spacetime background" in classical physics ?

3) In the first quantized Lorentz Dirac framework, you can eliminate the gauge field and write the equation entirely in terms of the current using the retarded Greens function. The self interaction therefore is expressed by a nonlocal third order nonlinear term in the wave equation.

question : first quantisation in classical physcs ?

4) In the classical case of *point* particles, you have to be more careful since the coulomb self energy momentum tensor is not well defined on the worldline of the particle albeit the radiative energy momentum tensor is.

question : What is the "the coulomb self energy momentum tensor " in classical physics ? What is a world line in classical physics ?

5)But again, the radiative backraction is directly expressed in terms of the eigentime derivative of the acceleration of the particle in the Lorentz Dirac equation and therefore clearly is a (second order) self interaction.

question : Eigentime ? In classical physics ?


Finally, SHOW ME THE FORMULA OF THIS CLASSICAL SELF INTERACTION ? Why won't you just do that ?

your comments about what classical physics is supposed to be are just ridiculous

Keeps gettin' better and better. What is classical physics then ?

and you still did not get it how self interaction will also show up in the nonrelativistic limit I described you above (hint : you will probably end up with the non relativistic limit of the Lorentz Dirac equation which is also of third order in time).

Indeed, I DO NOT GET THAT. Show me the formula's that describe this self interaction. Don't just talk about it, show us proof.

And now, you are trying to hold me responsible for something I never said ! Tssss...

Ofcourse not, where do you get that ?

Should I each time say to people : ``ohw, now you did the respectable job of correctly repeating what is in the textbooks, now we are going to discuss that what is in the textbooks is really correct/the best way to go´´.

Great, but what i also did was correcting stuff that YOU claimed and that VIOLATES the content of the textbook stuff. I really think you first need to restudy (or study for the first time) the actual standard textbook stuff because if you reread what you wrote in your posts nr 34,36,37,40,42,43,44 you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Now, if I think that the standard textbook material is not the best way to go in the long run (which is basically what fundamental research is about, done by many at the finest institutes),

But those institutes come up with proof for what they say or they shut up. Also, they do not violate the standard textbook stuff like you.

then I proclaim that I think you are wrong, since you are basically telling it to me (and of course I give motivations for it). This is *exactly* the way how scientific discussion works.

What am i telling to you ? You wrote :

"Now, if I think that the standard textbook material is not the best way to go in the long run ,then I proclaim that I think you are wrong, since you are basically telling it to me (and of course I give motivations for it). This is *exactly* the way how scientific discussion works)."

I don't get this line ?

1) Why am i wrong
2) What am i telling to you ?

Please, stop using the "it" and "that" and use the actual antecedents in stead. People will far better understand what you are talking about.

Hey, and i am still waiting for my answers (for the 5th time )

marlon

 

[vanesch]

Ok, this flaming has been lasting too long. This is not productive anymore, so this thread is done.