Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Bilge <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 04 Jul 2007 22:41:12 GMT
On 2007-07-02, Surfer <surfer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:04:08 -0700, Dono <sa_ge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The interference of individual photons with themselves is however a
Hey, wake up, we are still discussing the fringe MOVEMENT in MMX, this
has nothing to do with any quantum theory.
quantum phenomenon.
Yep, and it's due to the fact that in quantum mechanics, no
physical quantity can be associated with some absolute phase.
The existence of an absolute frame means interference depends
on the absolute phases of the interfering photons, not on the
interference of a photon with itself.
[...]
So it seems to me something subtle may be happening.
For example consider semiconductors. Pure samples obey Ohm's law
(which is a classical law), but if they are doped with impurities this
is no longer the case, which is why semiconductors can be used to
build amplifiers.
Now, if you want to analyse what happens in a doped semiconductor you
have to use quantum mechanics, because the impurities have quantum
effects.
Uh, the quantum effects to which you refer hinge on the exclusion
principle, which in turn comes from relativistic quantum field theory.
Since the lorentz covariance of the Dirac equation hinges on the
relation,
[\gamma^u,\gamma^v] = 2g^uv
where the \gamma^k are Dirac matrices and the g^uv is the metric,
I would say you are basically undermining your own argument.
Perhaps a gas should be regarded as doped vacuum, in which case a full
analysis of a gas-mode MM experiment might require quantum mechanics.
But I am just using my imagination here.
Why waste imagination on something that is well known, when you could
use your imaginaton to wonder about the mysteries that remain? All you
are doing is trying to prop up a philosophical point of view that is
inconsistent with all of the data obtained from experiments and wasting
your effort by trying to find a way to get around nature. Ask yourself
whether you are interested in discovering how nature fits your personal
view of how nature ought to be or whether you are interested in discovering
how nature _is_. Physicists want to know how nature is, which is why
they stop trying to prove that nature must be a certain way and move on
after the experimental evidence piles up against them. Personally, I'd
rather use my imagination on something that has a chance of being correct.
.
- References:
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Surfer
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Dono
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Surfer
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Dono
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- From: Surfer
- Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- Prev by Date: Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- Next by Date: Re: quasar accretion disk question
- Previous by thread: Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- Next by thread: Re: QM support for a preferred frame
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|