Re: [OT] Quantum physics question.

In article <5di3bhF35b2h9U1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Rolf <rolf@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
[quoting Robert B. Laughlin:]
"Thus Newton's legendary laws have turned out to be emergent. They are not
fundamental at all but a consequence of the aggregation of quantum matter
into macroscopic fluids and solids - a collective organizational phenomenon.
They were the first laws to be discovered, they brought the technical age
into existence, and they are as exact and true as anything we know in
physics - yet they vanish into nothingness when examined to closely.
Astonishing as it may seem, many physicists remain in denial. To this day,
they organize conferences on the subject and routinely speak about Newton's
laws being an "approximation" for quantum mechanics, valid when the system
is large - even though no legitimate approximation scheme has ever been
found.



I find it difficult to think Laughlin making an outright false statement
here, so I am still waiting to see if I can get a clearer understanding of
what excatly the qoute means.

Two possible interpretations of what Laughlin is trying to say
stand out for me.

In quantum mechanics, quantities such as a particle's position
and momentum are probability density functions rather than exact
values. If the law of conservation of momentum exists at this
level, it might have to take a different form: the mean of the
probability density function of the sum of the momenta of two
interacting particles is the same after they interact as it was
before they interacted. The conservation of momentum we observe
in billiard balls would follow from this. If this is what Laughlin
is saying, it doesn't seem all that interesting.

What would be more interesting is if the law of conservation of
momentum didn't exist at all at the quantum level, even in the
fuzzy form I described above, but conservation of momentum at
macroscopic scales emerged statistically from large numbers of
particle interactions at the quantum scale that routinely VIOLATED
the law of conservation of momentum.

The excerpts you've quoted don't make it clear which of these
two interpretations Laughlin intends (or if in fact he means
something else entirely), but this is talk.origins, and there
are people here who would like a version of physics that allowed
God's nano-tweezers to manipulate the universe without violating
its fundamental laws.

--
David Canzi | Eternal truths come and go. |

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [OT] Quantum physics question.
    ... laws being an "approximation" for quantum mechanics, ... I find it difficult to think Laughlin making an outright false statement ... If the law of conservation of momentum exists at this ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Albert Einstein
    ... "An opposite position is assumed by the causal or ensemble interpretation ... Not a quantum Maxwell Lagrangian, ... with momentum in the position representation. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • FIVU: Bertland Russell New appears on Wikipedia, INTERGRATING AND EXPANDING THEORY OF PHYSICS, FINAL
    ... Bertland Russell New appears on Wikipedia, INTERGRATING AND ... FINALY NO DIVISIONS BETWEEN QUANTUM, ... SAMPLE OF THE THEORETICAL PROCESSING BY THE 'BERTLAND RUSSELL NEW'. ... The infinite momentum frame and the Holographic Principle ...
    (soc.culture.usa)
  • Re: Is physics a science?
    ... and you replaced it with "quantum entities". ... accordance with basic kinetic theory of elastic bodies. ... Mass means something in physics. ... momentum can and does exist independent of mass these ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cocycles in definition of "momentum operator"
    ... quantum-theoretical operators describing observables is in the Heisenberg ... All this is well-explained in textbooks of classical and quantum ... The *Standard* definition of momentum operator is ... but this does not mean that you got the kinetic momentum. ...
    (sci.physics.research)