Time is absolute In quantum mechanics like it is in Newtonian mechanics. However, since Newtonian mechanics does not allow for non-locality, it could be that the Newtonian sense of absolute time (N-Time) differs subtley from the Quantum Mechanical sense of absolute time (Q-Time). Perhaps the hidden variable is some form of information that resides in Q-Time that is not present in N-Time.
Harry On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 3:14 PM Vibrator ! <mrvibrat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > here is an example > > Absorption and Stimulated Emission by a Thin Slab Obeying the Lorentz > > Oscillator Model > > It's a quantitative formulation from classical first principles, sans > Schrodinger.. whereas the wave equation approximates the time evolution of > the wavefunction; you could describe a stimulated emission / absorption mode > as playing the predictability of wavefunction's evolution by constantly > resetting it at a fixed freq.. or you could probably describe the behaviour > in terms of QED and Feynman diagrams too i expect, all complimentarily w/o > conflict. You can describe orbital transition energies classically / > relativistically, or Lenz's law in terms of relativistic self-interaction of > a current loop invoking length contraction / time dilation, or in terms of > time-conservation of ambient quantum momentum, charge and energy.. the whole > point about zombie-cat-boxes being that they're an over-extrapolated > conclusion from what is only a formal approximation; atoms and photons are > obviously real, but is the wavefunction? So there's no real dichotomy.. all > roads lead to Rome, we know the SM's incomplete and we're not seeing all the > pieces yet, but the realism / objectivism debate is divided along more > fundamental lines on the nature of causal determinism and the outstanding > possibility (if not logical prerequisite) of non-local hidden variables.. > which in turn segues into philosophical debate re. distinctions between > 'indeterminability' as an inevitable consequence of conservation and finite > nature of quantum information (ie. per Zeilinger et al), versus the > nihilistic anarchy of objective indeterminism; you can guess which side of > the fence i'm on (tho not a Bohm fanatic; pilot waves or some variation, > perhaps.. but his later metaphysics stuff i don't subscribe to). > > The classic DSE using an electron gun and phosphor-plated screen has to > remain the benchmark gold-standard for demonstrating the limits of classical > physics though - ie. it cannot explain how particles / waves self-interact > even when their transits are separated out in time. If not for this singular > crazy (dumbfounding!) result, we wouldn't be in a situation where most > physicists are ready to accept such an oxymoronic imposition as 'acausal > determinants'.. but in for a penny, in for a pound eh.. > >
