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..
>
>

Reply via email to