Re: Article: A Century of Einstein
From: Bill Hobba (bhobba_at_rubbish.net.au)
Date: 08/30/04
- Next message: Homeland_Insecurity: "Re: Final Evidence: No 757 Hit The Pentagon"
- Previous message: Homeland_Insecurity: "Re: Final Evidence: No 757 Hit The Pentagon"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Next in thread: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Reply: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 03:36:54 GMT
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:cgu2uh$974$1@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> In article <%psYc.12658$D7.10501@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> Bill Hobba <bhobba@rubbish.net.au> wrote:
> >
> >"Ole D. Rughede" <ole.rughede@privat.dk> wrote in message
> >news:413204ed$0$211$edfadb0f@dread11.news.tele.dk...
>
> >
> >Blah, blah, blah - your references to explaining the photoelectric effect
> >without particles please?
>
> Wald, in his book "Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole
> Thermodynamics", stresses that quantum field theory is a theory of fields.
> That in asymptotically flat spacetimes there's a natural particle
> interpretation, but there is no particle interpretation in arbitrary
> spacetimes, and particles are never needed.
>
> That, of course, doesn't mean that photons are any less of a particle than
> electrons are.
My point being electrons, photons, and everything else we know of, are all
just quantum stuff which are called quantum particles. The desire to
introduce nomenclature like 'energy-elements' is an attempt to introduce
layers of obstupefaction to cloud the issue; and is a standard crank
technique.
>It's just that particles aren't what people usually think
> they are. Fundamentally we have fields, and DeBroglie's relation and the
> probabilistic interpretation of a wavefunction applies to them.
Correct Gregory - according to QFT everything is a field - but the
observables of those fields are always composed of creation and anihliation
operators of particles - see the chapter 4 page 169 of Weinberg the Quantum
Theory of Fields. QFT gives normal QM as a limit so that the quantum fields
(which come about for particles from the process of second quantisisation on
the quantum state and for classical fields the process of quantiisisation on
the field - see chapter 4 - page 167 Classical Mechanics, Quantum
Mechanics, Field Theory by Amon Katz) can be approximated by the usual
quantum state as found in any book on normal QM - eg Diracs Principles of
QM. But that in no way changes the evidence we have, which is that
everything, including light, consist of quantum particles regardless of if
we consider them to obey the rules of QFT of we consider the approximation
of normal QM.
>
> Can't say I've looked at it in any detail. I'm concerned with utilitarian
> physics for now, I'll get back to funsies later.
Thanks
Bill
>
>
> --
> "You're not as dumb as you look. Or sound. Or our best testing
> indicates." -- Monty Burns to Homer Simpson
- Next message: Homeland_Insecurity: "Re: Final Evidence: No 757 Hit The Pentagon"
- Previous message: Homeland_Insecurity: "Re: Final Evidence: No 757 Hit The Pentagon"
- In reply to: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Next in thread: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Reply: Gregory L. Hansen: "Re: Article: A Century of Einstein"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
