Re: a question on incompatibility of properties in a one particle system

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 10/21/04 

Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:48:51 -0000

 Bill Hobba:
>"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
[...]

>> Don't be concerned. To the best I can tell, it means that the quantum
>> mechanical description of an epr pair as a single quantum state, in which
>> the state vector contains all there is to know about the state is wrong
>> and should be replaced by a mixed state in which there is more information
>> which is simply inaccessible and the environment somehow manages to be
>> involved in the conspiracy. It's an elaborate and rather obtuse way of
>> saying there are hidden variables that conspire to look just like quantum
>> mechanics. I think the overall bottom line is that you can call a theory
>> deterministic by attributing the randomness to the unknowable and not
>> differentiating between probabilistic and statistical.
>
>BTW on another matter I must admit defeat with those lectures on QFT you
>gave me the link to. I did get something out of them but its mathematical
>complexity is beyond me; and functional analysis - especially Hilbert Spaces
>and Distribution Theory - was what I specialized in when I was into math.

  As I mentioned, the material is rather dense. Since the time I mentioned
the link to those lectures, the author of the lectures on renormalization
(the one in which you were interested) was given a nobel prize for his
work in quantum field theory, so if you found things less obvious than he
did, (and a lot of the material in those volumes is like that), you have a
good reason. On the plus side, I'd say it's a rather comprehensive and
compact treatment of field theory with a good outline of string theory,
even if terse. Anytime I think it might have been more fun to have been a
theorist, I can peruse those volumes and realize I had a better aptitude
for experimental physics. People like ed witten have more mathematics
at their immediate disposal than I know exists.

>As I said at the time be careful what you wish for - you may get it.
>When I got Griffiths book I also got Zee's book on QFT in a Nutshell.
>Its light an breezy style I find quite refreshing highly recommended
>to anyone.

  I haven't seen either of those, but if I come across them, I'll
give them a look-through. The only book of griffiths' that I've
seen was the E&M textbook I used as an undergraduate, which I
think is pretty good, especially for the physical intuition (although
I didn't really appreciate that fact at the time.)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why field theories are deterministic, but QM isnt?
    ... FIELD THEORY OVERCOMES EINSTEIN'S OBJECTIONS AGAINST QUANTUM ... mechanics we get probabilities because it's not complete theory - it ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Please give us your opinion about this debate on quantum mechanics
    ... I have been arguing with another poster about physics, quantum ... mechanics, whether a broken glass tumbler can spontaneously put itself ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: K.E. and momentum
    ... on what was known of the laws of mechanics at that time. ... When Quantum Mechaniocs was formulated in the mid-1920s, ... This is a paper on General Relativity. ... General Covariance of physical laws is important for any discussion on ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Non ame
    ... When Quantum Mechaniocs was formulated in the mid-1920s, ... This is a paper on General Relativity. ... General Covariance of physical laws is important for any discussion on ... The present efforts to unite Quantum Mechanics ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Open poll on "What changes for special and general relativity?"
    ... The most glaring omission in present-day field theory is, in fact, is ... Time in Quantum Theory and General Relativity ... the inhomogeneous part yield what is known as the frame bundle. ... The further transition to General Relativity removed the light cone ...
    (sci.physics.research)