As a *first* post, let me cite a link which I picked up on Physicsforums (thread: has quantum mechanics changed since the big bang?) earlier today:
quant-ph/0609163
Authors: H. Nikolic
Comments: 28 two-column pages, pedagogic review
Subj-class: Quantum Physics; Physics Education
A common understanding of quantum mechanics (QM) among students and practical users is often plagued by a number of "myths", that is, widely accepted claims on which there is not really a general consensus among experts in foundations of QM. These myths include wave-particle duality, time-energy uncertainty relation, fundamental randomness, the absence of measurement-independent reality, locality of QM, nonlocality of QM, the existence of well-defined relativistic QM, the claims that quantum field theory (QFT) solves the problems of relativistic QM or that QFT is a theory of particles, as well as myths on black-hole entropy. The fact is that the existence of various theoretical and interpretational ambiguities underlying these myths does not yet allow us to accept them as proven facts. I review the main arguments and counterarguments lying behind these myths and conclude that QM is still a not-yet-completely-understood theory open to further fundamental research.
2006-2008 Least Action. No rights reserved.
1 comment:
I am a little embarrassed to say I have my own explanation why causality is different for classical versus quantum mechanics. This is the land of fringe physics, but I swear my idea is nothing but math.
I was not impressed with Hrvoje Nikolic's article. Oh, there is a problem with the foundations of quantum, but it is not in claiming wave-particle duality is a myth. The wave equation may be called a wave equation, but it also is about particles. The clearest reason to reject his thesis is the CCD camera. Those photons described by a wave equation land on a detector as particles.
The foundation of my proposal is at the intersection of two of the largest ideas in physics: Newton's calculus and Einstein's 4D spacetime. If you figure out the right way to do calculus on a quaternion manifold (where quaternions are numbers like the real and complex numbers, but with 4 parts, one for time, three for space), then you have a reason for the difference between classical and quantum mechanics.
I've had two math nerds say they like my definition of a quaternion derivative, but they don't get the implication for physics. If one uses the standard definition for a derivative with quaternions, that fails. Quaternions do not commute, so there is no way to decide if the differential element should be written on the left or right.
Use a trick from L'Hospital's rule: take 2 limit processes in a row. First let that pesky 3-vector go to zero, then the scalar go to zero. This is a directional derivative, where the last thing that changes is time. This is the stuff of movies, where in each frame of the movie nothing moves in space, but the film progresses logically from from 1 to the last frame.
What if the limit process are reversed? Now time has stopped, and the 3-vector is heading toward zero. Oops, that is undefined as before unless you take the norm. Welcome to quantum mechanics. Now there is no movie. There is the same collection of frames that can be superposed on each other. If you make a measurement, you choose one of the picture frames.
If you want to see a video on the topic, you can go over to http://www.thestandupphysicist.com and watch "Why Quantum Mechanics Is Weird". I honestly don't know how to bring this idea to market, so no paper is being written.
doug
Post a Comment