Re: Waves vs Particles


"cliff wright" <c.c.wright@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:47ae2c1b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cecil Moore wrote:
Tom Donaly wrote:

Cecil, get Feynman's _Lectures on Physics_ Volume I, and
read the entirety of Chapter 38, "The Relation of Wave and
Particle Viewpoints." Quantum mechanics is a very successful attempt,
using statistical methods, to explain the behavior of very small things.
In order to do that, it has to look at those things in very strange
ways. If you want to read about the philosophical underpinnings
you should read chapter 8 of _Quantum Theory_
by David Bohm (a Dover reprint).


Thanks Tom, I will do that as time permits.
Now consider this! When a quantum of energy, of any wavelength is emitted
from an atom or a nucleus then time and space ceases to exist for that
"wave packet" until it is absorbed again, or passes through a medium where
the velocity of light is less than c (glass for example, or coaxial
cable!!!). Since it is always travelling at c in "space" then time ceases
to pass for the quantum and/or the universe appears to be a single point
from the quantum's point of view.

With all due respect, this is not correct. From the quantum's point of view,
time passes as it normally does when moving at c. From the observer's point
of view, the time that the quantum is experiencing is zero relative to the
time that the observer is experiencing. If your twin brother moves at c for
twenty years, your twin will experience time as normal in his own frame of
reference but in your frame of reference as an observer, he will be twenty
years younger (and would look it too). Part of the dilemma is that he should
have 20 years of memory in hisown time frame but when he returns back to
this time frame it will seems as just an instant has passed.

A possible corrollary of this might perhaps be that there is only one
"real" quantum of a particular energy in the universe at a time!!!

Where did you read that? I do not believe this is a widely accepted notion.

This is pretty well where Relativity leaves Quantum Mechanics I reckon.
Now this may be philosophy but what is the answer that both quantum
mechanics and relativity have for this apparent absurdity?
If it perhaps not so absurd, perhaps this explains some of the results of
the famous single quantum slit experiment?

BTW surely FTL communication only destroys causality if the speed of
information is infinite.

No, FTL communication itself does not destroy causality. However, if it
involves mass or quanta in motion between point A and point B, those
entities must behave according to causality which means basically that they
can never travel faster than c. Thus, FTL "communication" cannot involve the
motion of such entities. At IBM a few years ago, theories began to arise in
their R&D labs in Switzerland about super fast communication that could
travel 7 or 8 times c or even more. It doesn't involve motion of mass or
photons or fields (or certainly not electrons or holes), rather it involves
statistics. For example, suppose I have a pair of quarks where if one is
oriented as top, the other must be oritented as top. Call this condition 1.
Now separate the quarks and put one on earth and the other on say mars. Now,
Everytime I reorient my top quark on earth to become a bottom quark (call
this 0), then the quark on mars must, statistically, become a bottom quark
(value = 0) in nearly zero time. Compare that against the 15 minutes that a
light wave takes to travel from mars to earth. I know that a lot of
theoretical progress has been made on communications by statistics using
quantum theeory and subatomic particles and prototypes have been made.
However, IBM has lately been investing less and less in R&D these days as it
moves into becoming a software company. You may concede that FTL
communication is already possible in this way and it does not produce a
causality dilemma at all.

de AI4QJ

Just faster than light by say 1,000 times would
simply mean that it got there faster not before it was transmitted?
Cliff Wright ZL1BDA.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: From Maximal Entropy Random Walk to Quantum Thermodynamics
    ... well-defined assumptions/approximations in the statistical mechanics ... "We regard quantum mechanics as a complete theory for which the ... physics as if they were very small grains of sand. ... also magnetism moment) lead to similar statistics as in QM. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Is State Vector Reduction a Process?
    ... Mean values of thermodynamic origin are the raw observables ... It is precisely what is predicted by quantum mechanics. ... accuracy allowed by statistical mechanics. ... > have statistics of outcomes. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Curing Einsteins Disease (is Copyrighted)
    ... is discrete and consists of quantum events. ... Thirdly,Einsteinco-opted the statistics ... General Relativity is the model of choice ... but if one wants to do creative work in electronics, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is Classical Statistical Mechanics dead?
    ... Newtonian and General Relativistic accounts is well understood. ... is that the same cannot be said in statistical mechanics because there ... the foundations of quantum theory are well aware, ... But it is not about fundamentals of classical or quantum statistics. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: Question (faster than light)
    ... communication everywhere in the universe and this is confirmed to work ... To create a casuality paradox, ... SR implies FTL communication is not possible. ... It is also a misconception that quantum entanglement implies FTL ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)