Re: Axiom of a new physics.
From: Lefty (Ye_at_h.Right)
Date: 10/16/04
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: AN ENERGY WINDFALL"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: OT: Historical Amnesia"
- In reply to: Morituri-Max: "Re: Axiom of a new physics."
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Axiom of a new physics."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2004 17:25:12 GMT
To be fair, I must elucidate my objections with a greater sense of clarity.
My responses to the current model are illustrated below.
Not reproduced in whole, in respect of fair use.
http://www.stardrive.org/hibbpath.html
> Jack Sarfatti's Notes and Commentaries on
> Feynman's Cal Tech Course on Path Integrals
> recorded by Hibbs.
> (McGraw-Hill, 1965, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals by Feynman and
> Hibbs).
> Version 0.3
> Dec 18, 1996
> Part 1
> ABSTRACT
> This first part is notable in that in 1.6 (on the scattering of neutrons
> from crystals) we find Feynman's proof of the objective existence of
quantum
> possibilities as a different level of reality from historical actualities.
Different level of reality ? Please define "levels of reality".
Something either exists, or it does not. You have a dichotomy. I can accept
partial existence in the universe, but "different levels of reality" is
something unfamiliar to me. You start to sound more like Timothy Leary than
Albert Einstein.
Please define "levels of reality".
> This is an experimental justification for Stapp's ontological theory of
> inner "felt" quantum consciousness in the outer classical brain based upon
> the Heisenberg-James meta-theory of the meaning of quantum mechanics. It
> does not, however, refute Bohm's pilot-wave/hidden-variable meta-theory.
> 0.1. The infinite self-energy of the classical point electron led Feynman
to
You use the word "infinite" as if it existed in the universe. This is an
abstraction. Are you really sure that you want to import this "abstract
thing" into your "abstract model", and still confuse the idea that your
model is manifest reality ?
> a least-action principle using half advanced plus half retarded
> electromagnetic potentials. The source electron sends signals both to the
> future and the past along its light cone.
Future and past sound somewhat abstract to me. I think you use these things
loosely.
> 0.2. S is Hamilton's principal function
You use a "function". You invoke abstraction again.
> defined as the indefinite time
> integral of the Lagrangian.
More abstractions. Please tell me that you can tell the difference.
Langrangians are very simply abstract, they do not occupy alternate levels
of reality. And, they can be used to "model" real universe, but there is a
distinction which is absolutely irrefutable.
> This is also called "the action". Based on
> earlier work of Dirac on the analogy of e^iS to the transformation of the
> quantum wave from one moment to the next, Feynman showed it was more than
an
> analogy. It was an equality.
> 0.3 It is necessary to use path integrals to describe the time evolution
of
> quantum patterns of information.
"patterns of information". Now, there's an abstraction if I ever saw one. I
wont criminalize your usage of it, but I will say that if you import
nonexistent entities into your model and treat them as if they really
existed, you might just wind up dividing by zero through non-rigorous usage
of words and ideas.
>These integrals over all paths are
> infinitely multiple integrals over all space variables at each moment of
> time. The action is a functional of the spacetime path. So these Feynman
> amplitudes are functional integrals over all possible paths connecting a
> preparation to a detection.
> 0.4 The Lorentz invariance of quantum electrodynamics, required by special
> relativity, is easier to see using path integrals than using traditional
the
> traditional Hamiltonian written in terms of second-quantized creation and
> destruction operators. This is because the action is a Lorentz frame
> invariant. Yet, quantum mechanics contains an essential nonlocality which
> contradicts the spirit of special relativity.
> 0.5 The path integral is useful to keep track of the infinities of
> renormalization of the mass, charge and the wavefunction in quantum
> electrodynamics in a way that is both Lorentz and gauge invariant.
Schwinger
> has an alternate way using canonical transformations and the action
> principle which is not as visualizable as Feynman's.
> 1.1 Feynman's informal language is more like Bohr's than Bohm's. For
> example, in discussing the central mystery of quantum mechanics, i.e., the
> double slit experiment, we find
>"We must conclude that when both holes are
>open, it is not true that the particle goes through one hole or the
other."
He was onto something here, but certainly much more sophisiticated than
working on the most fundamental level.
His approach to the experimental is his genius. The results are
inconsequential. He is using the correct kinds of statements, but he has no
rock to stand upon. You guys have circumvented the fundamentals, and never
looked back.
> p.6 In fact, in Bohm's theory the hidden variable particle electron always
> goes through a single slit, but its attached spread out wavy quantum
> pilot-wave always goes through both slits. The pilot-wave exerts a force
on
> the particle which gives it a wavelike behavior in the region of overlap
of
> the waves from each slit when no other interaction can distinguish which
> slit the particle actually passed through.
> 1.2 Wavelike behavior means add the amplitudes of the indistinguishable
> alternatives before computing the squared modulus. Particlelike behavior
> means squaring the amplitudes of the now distinguishable alternatives
before
> adding. The squared modulus of the total amplitude has an interpretation
in
> terms of information flowing forward and backward in time. The complex
> conjugate amplitude
Complex conjugate amplitudes. I am finding abstractions laying about as if
someone got into the toy box and never put things back where they belong.
This is an abstraction, plain and simple. You import this abstraction into
your model, and build structure upon that, and then go on to conclude that
your model has produced "realities" or "levels of reality" or something. It
is quite clear to me that QM can be attacked, but I did not come in here to
call people names or insult anyone.
My intention here is quite pure, the quest for truth.
> is advanced running backward in time from the future
> detection to the past preparation. Wavelike interference corresponds to
> information taking different paths forward and backward in time for the
same
> fixed preparations and detections.
> 1.3 Let a = distance between the two slits. Let L = distance from slits to
> screen. Let d = distance between successive fringe maxima (i.e.,
> constructive interference) on the screen. Let k = wave number (i.e.,
inverse
> wavelength) of the light or matter wave from the slits to the screen.
Then,
> asuming L is large compared to a, so that the two paths, from each slit to
> the next maximum from the main peak at the center of the screen, are
> parallel to first order, with a path difference of one wavelength we have
by
> similar approximately right triangles (to first order):
> sin@ = 1/ka
> d = Lsin@ = L/ka
> But the particle momentum associated with the quantum (pilot) wave is the
> DeBroglie equation p=hk. Therefore, h/d = hka/L, but the component of
> momentum parallel to the screen is dp = pa/L, therefore, h/d = dp which is
> the Heisenberg uncertainty principle since d is a measure of the
uncertainty
> in where the photon will land on the screen.
Is certainty a physical object ? No. Certainty is an abstraction. I will not
say that HUP is false. But I will say that you cant pound nails into it. It
is abstract.
> 1.4 This is very important on the issue of the role of consciousness in
> quantum measurement. Feynman refutes Wigner here! "The concept of
> interfering alternatives is fundamental to all of quantum mechanics. ...
> suppose that information about the alternatives is available (or could be
> made available without altering the result), but this information is not
> used. Nevertheless, in this case a sum of probabilities (in the ordinary
> sense) must be carried out over exclusive alternatives. These exclusive
> alternatives are those which could have been separately identified by the
> information." p.14 Feynman's version of quantum theory is ontological and
> objective about what is really out there independent of our conscious
> awareness or knowledge. In this way it differs markedly from Bohr's and
> Heisenberg's epistemological Copenhagen interpretation of the meaning of
> quantum mechanics. Feynman certainly does not agree with Wigner's idea
that
> consciousness is required to collapse the wave function from coherent
> interfering quantum alternatives (i.e., Heisenberg "potentia") to
incoherent
> non-interfering exclusive classical alternatives (i.e.,Heisenberg
"actua").
> Although, Feynman does not need consciousness to understand quantum
> measurement, his theory here does not preclude the possibility that
quantum
> mechanics is necessary to explain consciousness. That is, quantum
mechanics
> may be more fundamental than consciousness. Consciousness can be an
emergent
> strictly non-classical quantum-type of phenomenon without contradicting
> Feynman's meta-theory of the meaning of quantum mechanics. Note there have
> been recent experiments by Mandel at the University of Rochester which
> actually demonstrate Feynman's above assertion that one need not actually
> make a measurement, but that the mere possibility that such a measurement
> could have been made without changing the observed system, is sufficient
to
> objectively destroy interference between alternatives. Another example of
> this is given below on neutron scattering from crystals. Note the
> alternatives always correspond to mutually exclusive classical
descriptions
> of the history of the system.
- Next message: tj Frazir: "Re: AN ENERGY WINDFALL"
- Previous message: robert j. kolker: "Re: OT: Historical Amnesia"
- In reply to: Morituri-Max: "Re: Axiom of a new physics."
- Next in thread: Lefty: "Re: Axiom of a new physics."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
