Re: Check the facts and judge
- From: Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 09:07:20 +0200
On 5/8/2007 7:21 AM, Nick wrote:
On May 6, 10:32 pm, Eckard Blumschein <blumsch...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Physicists of the world,
After careful verification of various details, see e.g.
ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?isnumber=4069377&arnumber=4069448&coun
I am uttering the substantiated and so far not refuted suspicion that
T-symmetry of Schroedinger's wavefunction is a mathematical artefact
without physical meaning as is better known for positive and negative
frequencies corresponding to a real function of time.
The Hamiltonian as well as energy and also measured frequency are
considered real and positive, if one applies complex Fourier transform.
At least Schroedinger and Dirac traceably took this point of view. Let's
recall that the Fourier transform is based on omission of either exp(ix)
or exp(-ix) replacing 2 cos(x) and this has an implication for any
function that has non-zero values just for real and positive arguments:
One has to use Heaviside's splitting of zero. The Fourier transform of
such a function is twice redundant. Its real part exhibits even
symmetry, its imaginary part odd symmetry. One can calculate the
imaginary part from real part and vice versa. If we know whether the
original function has non-zero values for positive or negative
arguments, then all we would need is either the right or left half of
either the real or the imaginary part. The redundant information in
complex domain codes the one-sidedness of original function.
Consequently, one has to be aware that physical correct representation
in original domain excludes the possibility that the belonging
representation in complex domain is likewise physically correct. All
physicists knew: The real part represents reality. This is true but not
yet the whole truth if the original function in one-sided.
Schroedinger was not quite correct when he wrote in Quantisierung als
Eigenwertproblem, Ann. d, Phys. (4) 81, p. 112(1926):... "wird man als
reelle Wellenfunktion (wenn man sie benoetigt) den Realteil von psi
ansehen dürfen." Actually, the correct inverse counterpart of complex
wavefunction only covers the already elapsed time. It may be considered
equal zero for all time to come.
Already Schroedinger himself tried to resolve a problem that arose from
apparent time-symmetry, cf. his paper "Der stetige Uebergang von der
Mikro- zur Makromechanik", Naturwissenschaften 14, 664 (1926). He
failed. L. S. Schulman still voted in his 1997 book "Time's arrows and
quantum measurement" for "the frontier of physics" at 10^-6 cm. Hermann
Weyl admitted in the preface of 2nd edition of his book 'Gruppentheory
und Quantenmechanik' in 1931 being unable to explain time-symmetry.
Indeed, symmetry of functions of time would imply a silly anticipation
of future. While the differential equations are undoubtedly invariant
against time-reversal, causality is hidden in the embedding initial
conditions, and there are definitely no influences of future events on
what happens now, not even in quantum mechanics. Schulman understood
that T-symmetry would require imposing 'two-time boundary conditions'
instead of initial conditions.
I suspect the idea of time-symmetry just in quantum mechanics as a
speculative interpretation of formal results. Even leading physicists
were not aware of the above explained dilemma related to Fourier transform.
Instead of accepting the fact that future cannot be measured and looking
for the true reason, one performed misleading Gedankenexperiments and
found remedies like the idea of decohernce.
Believing physicists who deny the division between past and future will
never swallow my interpretation of what is mathematically obvious.
The mentioned dilemma vanishes if one replaces complex Fourier transform
by the real-valued cosine transform. FT-transform pairs like radius and
wave number or frequency and elapsed time are also CT-transform pairs,
i.e., they are always subject to the uncertainty relation. However, the
apparent symmetry in complex domain is necessarily missing with CT.
I urgently ask for either refutation or dealing with the consequences of
my suspicion uttered above.
While I will not yet discuss consequences, I nonetheless would like to
rebuke the referees of PRL concerning the paper 'Resolving
Sonoluminescence Pulse with Time-Correlated Single Photon Counting' by
B. Gompf et al including W. Eisenmenger of Uni Stuttgart, Vol. 79 (7)
1405-1408 (18 Aug. 1997). They should have realized that the 'measured'
results show a striking symmetry. Real processes are rarely so
symmetrical. One would expect shorter pulses with a much steeper rise,
and such behaviour was actually measured with a streak camera. Moreover
the bell-shaped 'measured' responses were insensitive against variations
of the measured process. All this together can easily be explained as
due to a much larger random error superimposed to what was intended to
measure. As long as some details are unknown to me, I may not consider
this case an indication for an error due to TCSPC. Nonetheless, I see it
an indication for lacking care and possibly biased decisions, in
general. Please try to be as unbiased as you can.
Don't you mean check the facts and fudge!!!
You did not check the facts.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
Is
http://www.zapfuture.com/author-Nick.html
your only background?
Never mind. You are welcome to refute any detail of your choice.
Perhaps you mistook me.
.
- References:
- Check the facts and judge
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Check the facts and judge
- From: Nick
- Check the facts and judge
- Prev by Date: Re: Extremely High Voltage, Extremely Low Amperage, 1 watt?
- Next by Date: Re: matter and radiation are simply energy moving in linked rotations
- Previous by thread: Re: Check the facts and judge
- Next by thread: Quantum Gravity 134.0: Conformal Algebra vs Heisenberg Algebra in Early Universe
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
