Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity.

From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 10/24/04 

Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 09:59:56 -0000

 Eugene Stefanovich:
>Bilge wrote:
>> Eugene Stefanovich:
>> >> So what? The descriptions are equivalent.
>> >
>> >I don't think that wave and particle pictures are entirely equivalent.
>>
>> They are different classical limits of the same quantum theory.
>> The problem is, you don't think.
>
>This theory is quantum mechanics of PARTICLES. Particles and their
>properties are what experimentalists measure.

  How do you know? You have no idea what experimentalists measure or what
the data mean. Furthermore, you're statement is inconsistent with the fact
that you told me quantization is meaningless, so I have no idea how you
can even say anything about your theory being a quantum theory of
particles.

>Particles and their properties are the cornerstones of my approach.

  No, copying operators from textbooks and then denying the validity of
the means by which the operators were derived such that the operators
have the properties they have, is the cornerstone of of your approach.
You have a theory which you call a relativistically correct quantum theory,
yet it predicts faster than light propagation, doesn't quantize the
relativistic quantum mechanical wave equations as a matter of principle,
and to top it off, the uncertainty relations are no impediment to choosing
quantities that can be measured in an experiment. In what way is either
relativity or quantum mechanics relted to your theory apart from the fact
that you manipulate a few creation and destruction operators, which you
simply copied from a textbook without regard as to how those were obtained?

>This approach is philosophically different from (quantum) field theory which
>is founded on the idea of fields or waves.

  Your approach is factually different from physics.
 
>No experimentalist have ever seen or mesured wave.

  Then, by the same token, no experimentalist has ever seen or measured
a particle, since neither of those classical concepts correctly describes
all of the quantum attributes measured by experimentalists. I'm more than
happy to refer to those things as particles, but then I don't subscribe to
the naive, newtonian picture of a particle that you do.
 
>In final analysis, everything we attribute to waves (light, etc.) can
>be well expressed in the language of particles.

  You're a complete crackpot. Angular distribution <=> diffraction pattern.
Range of force <=> scattering length. Mass <=> compton wavelength.
Momentum <=> de broglie wavelength. Energy <=> frquency.

[...]
>> If that's the case, then post a derivation that justifies your
>> confidence. The fact is, you've absorbed the virtual quanta in
>> qed into your particles and you consider it a virtue to have eliminated
>> any connection between light and the electromagnetic interaction.
>> You not only don't _how_ light reflects in your theory, you don't even
>> know _if_ it reflects.
>
>If you read my book one day, you can notice a postulate I (in subsection
 
  Your book is nothing but a compilation of your misconceptions.
 
>3.2.1): "Each observable can be measured with any prescribed precision"
 
  As I already told you. That means you disagree with quantum mechanics,
so why are writing a book about it?

[...]
>measurement acts. In particular, we will assume that the measurement
>is being performed with a black box whose job is to produce just one real
>number - the value of an observable - upon interaction with the physical
>system."
 
  I've already answered those misconceptions at least once. Go read what
I wrote the first time or two.
 
>You see, I just postulate that things like position, momentum,
>spin, etc. can be measured.
 
  You can postulate santa claus, too, but that doesn't mean you'll
ever see santa by performing an experiment and sitting in the fireplace
all night long on christmas eve.

>The same applies to measurements of time,
>though time is not an observable in the usual sense, because its value
>does not depend on the state of the measured system. I am not interested
>in nitpicking about the details of measurements.

  Of course not. Unlike a real theorist or experimentalist, you aren't
really interested in whether or not the data contradicts you.

>There are more interesting things to do.

  Then have a good time with the mental masturbation.

>> >P (momentum) is Hermitian operator
>> >H (energy) is Hermitian operator
>> >P and H commute with each other, therefore
>> >V = Pc^2/H is also an Hermitian operator.
>>
>> So, in other words, you're clueless.
>
>I just gave you a definition of the velocity operator and showed
>that it is Hermitian.

  No, you didn't. You took the classical meaning of momentum and
energy, replaced the variables by operators without showing that
the result is a velocity or even if the operator exists. The best
you could say is that it's dimensionally consistent by virtue of
its classical correspondence.

>In addition, its components commute with each other.

  So what? A velocity is the time derivative of a position. I'm
sure that is too mundane for you to worry about, though.
 
>Moreover,
>the relativistic law of addition of velocities can be derived
>from this definition (if you like, I can post a proof here).
 
  You haven't proved what you wrote is the velocity of anything.
 
>What else do you need?
 
  You to post less bull***.