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

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

Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2004 08:56:54 -0000

 Eugene Stefanovich:

>My point was that AB experiment does not provide an unambiguous proof
>that classical EM theory with potentials, gauges, etc. is the ONLY
>correct theory. I hope, you agree with that.

  You are free to offer an alternative theory. It also does not say
the classical theory is correct, since the potentials in classical
E&M are artifacts of the formalism with no physical significance.
The potentials take on meaning precisely because of quantum mechanics.
You'll have a great deal of effort trying to find some alternative,
since at no time is there a force on the electrons that changes their
momentum.

>If you do agree with that, than you should give me a benefit of a
>doubt when I am trying to find a theory which describes certain
>phenomena better than Maxwell's theory or QED.

  The benefit of the doubt ceased when you started misconstruing quotes
you reference in order to engage in a semantics debate rather than stick
to physics. If you do not understand why the lorentz transforms apply
universally to the things which live in spacetime in special relativity,
that isn't my problem. I really think you know better, or at least you
should know better.

  I also am not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who
cannot (or willnot) express what they are proposing in terms which offer a
means of comparison to anything else. You have so far rejected any attempt
on my part to apply any concept related to E&M to your theory and you
refuse to do it yourself. You claim maaxwell's equations are wrong, yet
refuse to accept the differences. Your theory violates gauss' law. I
can see why you're reluctant to admit that, but that isn't my problem.

  Why should I give you the benefit if the doubt after you posted several
responses accusing me of not having listed any experiments relevant to
your theory? You justed wasted my time responding to your reply in which
you feigned an interest in one of those experiments, but in which you
really have no interest.

>I think I demonstrated that my approach can describe time evolution,
>while QED can't.

  No, I don't agree you've done that. The types of phenomena which you've
said you wish to describe aren't even physical. For example, onse such
phenomenon was the ``evolution'' of the individual electron spins in
collision between electrons. But electrons are indistinguishable
particles, so it isn't even possible to talk about the interaction as
anything but a singlet or triplet state. The individual spin projections
are not observables. That's the reason for clebsh-gordon coefficients and
tensor operators. The eigenstates of two spin 1/2's are an S=0 singlet and
an S=1 triplet. Even if the two particles are different, the spin
eigenstates of the system are a singlet and triplet. Go look at a rabi
diagram at the point on the diagram at which the applied external field
is zero.

>I told you a few times that I haven't discussed AB experiment in
>my approach. I am sure, that such a description is possible. You
>may disagree with that. If you think my approach does not merit
>discussion until I provide full description of AB experiment, you should
>wait for a while.
 
  You haven't provided any description. You're grasping at straws if
you think scattering from the solenoid or some residual field from
the solenoid looks like interference.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast