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
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. 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. There exists no lorentz transform by which any observer may transform coordinates to a photon, because the photon has no lorentz frame. Therefore, special relativity explicitly precludes any perspective which has been suggested as necessary for a relativistically correct description. Furthermore, since any observers which differ by a lorentz transform must give equivalent descriptions which differ by a lorentz transform, for any phenomena, requiring multiple descriptions for something defeats the entire reason for the existence of special relativity. 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-. It's called relativity because it assumes no absolute frame against which speeds must be referenced. Clocks _always_ keep the proper time in their own rest frame, which means that time dilation, etc., are effects seen by _other_ observers. However, a photon has _no_ rest frame. You cannot attach a clock to one. In addition, no modern text would refer to mass increase. Mass and spin are poincare invariants. An often recommended text is Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler. I recommend making an investment. 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. OK. And I'll even provide an example which is quite different from the usual epr cliche at the bottom. Fisrt, however, entangled photons do not propagate any _information_ faster than than light. In other words, for puposes of sending information, it's irrelevant what you think happens faster than light, because no information is propagated between the observers faster than light. Indeed, the photons are entangled precisely because the spins are completely indeterminate prior to measurement, so that there is no information to propagate until each observer measures the spin of their photon and cannot compare their measurements faster than light. If you want to know how this is applied to quantum cryptography, look at richard huges site at lanl: http://qso.lanl.gov/qc or charles bennett's site: http://www.research.ibm.com/quantuminfo 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, Then, you could presumably tell me what the commutation relations are and what they mean if I were to ask? Or was that merely a lead in to repeat what what you said earlier without really acknowledging the objection except as a formality? If not, don't make such claims, since I won't hesitate to ask when I think I'm being bullshitted. 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-. You are confused. Relativistic quantum mechanics is manifestly lorentz covariant, i.e., it's valid anywhere special relativity applies. Special relativity tells you that you cannot perform _any_ lorentz transform to a the frame of reference of a photon, because a photon has no frame in which it is at rest. If you think otherwise, show me the lorentz transform that accomplishes what you assert must be done. If you need the lorentz trans- forms: ct' = \gamma(ct - \beta x) x' = \gamma( x - \beta ct) or in hyperbolic form: ct' = ct cosh(A) - x sinh(A) x' = x cosh(A) - ct sinh(A) The fact that you think the physics is frame dependent, means that you don't even grasp the principle behind relativity, which is that the physics is frame independent. Let me ask you again: This would be the _first_ time since you didn't ask _me_ before. - How big is the cosmos to a photon? - How does time pass to a photon? Both of those are meaningless questions which may be attributed to classical bias in thinking the photon has a well-defined location from which such a perspective is possible. You can't attach a clock on something which has no point that defines a location. 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. As I previously pointed out, special relativity and quantum mechanics are the
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 EM 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 are other
basic things about the QM world it
