Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle meanings
From: zigoteau (zigoteau_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: GR and QM: are them incompatible?"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- In reply to: Old Man: "Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle meanings"
- Next in thread: Old Man: "Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle meanings"
- Reply: Old Man: "Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle meanings"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 21 Sep 2004 02:25:37 -0700
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message news:<6eCdnRlE7NV1y9LcRVn-tw@prairiewave.com>...
Hi, Old Man,
> > IMHO this puts you in the camp of those who are unwilling to let go of
> > the Newtonian world view. You dip your toe into the quantum ocean, but
> > are unwilling to abandon old prejudices and immerse yourself
> > completely. Who is the naive one?
>
> zigoteau's straw man is insufficient to Old Man. Old Man
> thinks that Classical physics is elegant while QED is neat.
Since those are both matters of taste, I'm sure you're right.
Classical physics also just happens not to apply to the real world,
and to fail the test of experiment in a whole string of respects.
> In QFT, the field is quantized, and the energy operator
> isn't even remotely classical. Old Man thinks that's great
> physics.
Why are you writing in the third person? Is there a person there
somewhere that I am corresponding with? English has two words for use
in conversations between real people: 'I' and 'you'. It would make our
exchange seem more human if you used the normal conventions.
> The non-relativistic QM wave equation formalizes the
> extent to which the strict causality of the classical
> Hamiltonian is broken. The prediction of a bound ground
> state is the most remarkable and profound result of non-
> relativistic QM.
>
> However, this result isn't universal. For a potential,
> U(r) = - a / r^s, where "s" is greater than 2, the particle
> becomes infinitely bound and "falls to the center" with
> no uncertainty in its location. For s = 2, the existence
> of a stationary ground state of finite extent is critically
> dependent upon the value of Planck's constant. See:
Are you talking about the same universe that I am in? You seem to be
stuck in a Schrödinger, pre-QFT, time warp. A Schrödinger potential
with s=2 could never arise in QFT.
> > From a quantum point of view, you are a giant. For you, h may be as
> > insignificant as the bacterium your immune system killed yesterday,
> > but without nonzero h, your computer would not work and the laser in
> > your CD player would not shine. In fact if you think about it, nothing
> > would be here. The classical atom is unstable. The Newtonian world
> > view is only tenable if you refuse to go down certain directions in
> > your thought.
>
> zigoteau is arguing with a straw man of his own making.
What exactly is my straw man? The fact that Newtonian physics cannot
explain the stability of matter?
> zigoteau said that classical physics is dead.
Absolutely
> To Old Man,
> that means that zigoteau is incapable of writing down
> a Hamiltonian for the QM wave equation.
The Hamiltonian is a crutch for those who are too scared to abandon
the security of old concepts now shown to be inadequate. Which wave
equation are we talking about? Are you referring to the basic equation
of quantum electrodynamics, whose connection with Newtonian physics is
quite tenuous?
> Measurements are performed through the Hamiltonian, H.
I don't think you've been in a lab for quite a while. Many modern
instruments measure the intensity of light. Others measure electrical
currents. The results go straight into a computer. The connection with
the Hamiltonian and with Newtonian concepts is fairly tenuous, and
certainly not essential.
> That Planck's constant and the HUP are intrinsic to Nature
> is made evident by setting H = constant whereof causality
> is then completely absent. HUP interferes with the results
> of an observation but is not a result of that observation.
??? But h *is* constant. I do not follow your argument here at all.
> > It is quite
> > possible to choose units such that h=1, in which case your distinction
> > loses some of its cogency.
>
> zigoteau seems to be taken-in by mathimatical slight-of-
> hand. Out of sight, out of mind ?
>
> Setting h = 1(unphysically dimensionless ?)
Do you understand the concept of dimensions? Why can't a dimensioned
value take on the value of 1?
> doesn't change the value of the fine structure constant.
Absolutely. The other values e and c change accordingly in the new
units. Alpha is dimensionless, so that its numerical value cannot
change. h has dimensions, so its numerical value can change
arbitrarily, and become 1 with the appropriate choise.
> Wave function
> arguments such as (p / h) x , (x / h) p, and (E / h) t are also
> unchanged. That is, the wave function is unchanged.
Your point?
> > Thinking is most certainly causal: it is caused by external events and
> > is itself a cause, even if in a very subtle way.
>
> zigoteau indulges in childish plays-on-words.
And you make ad hominem comments. Which word have I played on?
> Here's
> a counter argument of equal non-worth. thinking is a
> figment of the imagination.
As, no doubt, are traces on an EEG, and positron emission tomography
recordings correlated with sensory stimulation.
Cheers,
Zigoteau.
- Next message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: GR and QM: are them incompatible?"
- Previous message: Ken S. Tucker: "Re: Download a new book on quantum mechanics and relativity."
- In reply to: Old Man: "Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle meanings"
- Next in thread: Old Man: "Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle meanings"
- Reply: Old Man: "Re: Heisenberg uncertainty principle meanings"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
