| Subject: Are All Particles Identical?
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:38:50 +0300 From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net> To: Sheldon Goldstein <oldstein@math.rutgers.edu> CC: James Taylor <jostylr@member.ams.org>, Nino Zanghi <zanghi@ge.infn.it> Dear Shelly, I'm reading your recent paper [Ref. 1] with great interest, and am very much eager to study your forthcoming "Are All Particles Identical?", which was mentioned as ref. [11]. I expect that your idea "all of what we presently consider different species are just different states of the same species" will be yet another case for the Holon, as explained at my web site, and that the question posed in your forthcoming paper will yield the answer 'Jain', http://members.aon.at/chakalov/McGuire.html#note More at http://members.aon.at/chakalov/faq.html#QM http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Yang.html#note http://members.aon.at/chakalov/philosophy.html I will be very happy to read your forthcoming paper before being posted on LANL e-print archive. Best regards, Dimi
Reference [Ref. 1] Sheldon Goldstein, James Taylor,
Roderich Tumulka, Nino Zanghi, Are All Particles Real?,
"Put succinctly, Bohmian mechanics is quantum mechanics
with particle trajectories [3, 1, 8, 9, 10]. (...) While the law of motion
of Bohmian mechanics is highly non-Newtonian, Bohmian mechanics has in
common with Newtonian mechanics that there are real particles -- with actual
positions -- in contrast to most other versions of quantum mechanics.
"We encounter here one of the fundamental limitations
of science. There is no way of experimentally testing various possibilities
for X
"Nevertheless, this does not mean that all possibilities
are equally plausible. On the contrary, many of the possibilities are ridiculous.
For example, it is ridiculous to assume that everything presently outside
the solar system is not real, though we (presently living humans) would
not be able to find out (since outcomes of our experiments would be recorded
in the particles inside the solar system).
"We would like to point out, though, that the possibility that all particles are just points, first implicitly suggested in J. S. Bell's seminal paper [2], is quite attractive, more attractive than it may appear at first. And not merely because of metaphysical simplicity. As we have already indicated, if, say, electrons and muons were different kinds of points then this difference in the nature of these points would be in no way directly accessible to us. Our decision as to whether a given particle is an electron or a muon would be based on its behavior under the conditions (such as external fields) we impose, i.e., based on its trajectory. "We add another thought. Sometimes progress in theoretical
physics forces us to regard what was previously considered two species
as two quantum states of the same species. For instance, proton and neutron
appeared as two species, but in fact are two states of a three-quark system.
The most radical development possible in this direction, considered in
[11], would be that all of what we presently consider different species
are just different states of the same species -- which would of course
force us to adopt the symmetrized dynamics (11), and would suggest against
(3)."
Note: On Saturday, 8 May 2004 15:29:34 GMT, Shelly Goldstein et al. posted their paper "Are All Particles Identical?", quant-ph/0405039, and wrote: "To sum up, it seems that no experiment could enable us to decide between conventional and identity-based Bohmian mechanics." I wonder why. "It is particularly obvious that spin-up and spin-down are merely two states of the same particle because we often encounter superpositions, such as spin-left, of these states. But even in cases in which superpositions are extremely hard to obtain, such as of different quark flavors, it is not an unusual idea that what is behind is the same particle, the quark." (Ibid.) But can we detect the Holon which is "the same particle" from which we get "two" spin-up and spin-down states? Are they "two" or ONE? What if they are both two and ONE? The first thing which Paul Dirac was stressing in his famous lectures in Quantum Mechanics was a simple demonstration of 'one' and 'many'. He used to take a piece of chalk, cut it into two pieces, and tell his students that in QM there is ONE piece of chalk, although it could be both 'here' and 'there'. Old story, which is well-known to Shelly Goldstein and his co-authors. I was hoping that will have the privilege of reading their paper before it appears at LANL e-print archive. There is a very simple explanation why we cannot detect the Holon, from a well-known book by John C. Polkinghorne, Quantum Theory, A Very Short Introduction, p. 81. It all boils down to the so-called peaceful co-existence of QM and STR, but since the authors are obviously not interested in this puzzle, I will not impose my opinion. I will only quote John S. Bell: "So one of my missions in life is to get people to see that if they want to talk about the problems of quantum mechanics -- the real problems of quantum mechanics -- they must be talking about Lorentz invariance." I found this in a remarkable paper
by Shelly Goldstein, which I will not quote, since I'm afraid he is not
interested.
D. Chakalov
========== Subject: Re: What
is quantum theory?
Dear Shelly, Since you're talking cosmology, http://God-does-not-play-dice.net/Frederic.html#4 please see http://God-does-not-play-dice.net/Hongsheng.html Best wishes, Dimi ========== Subject: Re:
quant-ph/0512065
v1
> In the Bohmian interpretation there
is no collaps at all,
There are instead many other mysteries, chief among them is the instantaneous (?) conversion of the hidden [whatever] into normal physical stuff that complies with STR. For example, "the force on one particle depends on the *instantaneous* position of all other particles" (quant-ph/0512065 v1, p. 4), a particle can move backwards in time and, consequently, at a single time, it may have two or more positions (ibid., p. 7), and "the effective squared mass may be negative at some x, which corresponds to tachyons at these x" (ibid.). However, "the *observed* velocities are never superluminal and the *observed* position is always a single position" (ibid., pp. 7-8). Thus, you replace an old puzzle (the "collapse") with a new one: the transition from the unobservable hidden [whatever] to the normal observable physical stuff that complies with STR. The math of this transition is clear; sure. But the physics of this transition is just as mysterious as is with the old transition, via the "collapse". Again, I don't talk about the "measurable predictions", since they say nothing about the *transition* from the hidden unobservable quantum reality to the normal world of tables and chairs. The Bohmian interpretation of QM claims that it provides a new ontology, while in fact it is just a theory of observations, since it says nothing about the DYNAMICS of the transition from the hidden [whatever] to the world around us. Am I wrong? More on this puzzle, in the context of GR, can be read at http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Stachel.html#point Regards, Dimi Chakalov ========== Subject: Re: quant-ph/0512065
v1
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:56:01 +0100
(MET), Hrvoje Nikolic wrote:
> > Again, I don't talk about the
"measurable predictions", since they say
Please go ahead and explain this *deterministic dynamical transition* from the hidden unobservable quantum reality to the normal world of tables and chairs, and back to the hidden unobservable quantum reality. If you succeed, it will be a *reversible* smooth transition, back and forth. I've been trying to find this transition since 1987, and hope you will help. I extend this request to all your colleagues. Regards, D. Chakalov ========= Subject: The
particle current: Does the vacuum energy gravitate?
Dear Hrvoje, I read this morning your highly intriguing quant-ph/0602024 [Ref. 1]. You suggested that "the wave function (from which the current is calculated) determines not only the probability density, but also the admissible hypersurfaces on which this probability density is defined", and these "admissible hypersurfaces" may wiggle in any way they want [Ref. 1, p. 4]. I wonder if this additional "freedom" could help you solve the cosmological constant problem: does the vacuum energy gravitate? BTW Dirac stated that "the Schrödinger
vector in QED does not exist at
http://www.God-does-not-play-dice.net/Hauser.html#Leifer It isn't easy to prove Dirac wrong, unless you find the solution to the problem above. Good luck. Dimi
[Ref. 1] Hrvoje
Nikolic, Probability in relativistic quantum mechanics and foliation of
spacetime, quant-ph/0602024 v1.
"Finding a consistent probabilistic
interpretation in the configuration space of relativistic quantum mechanics
(QM) is a long-standing problem (see, e.g., [1, 2]).
"In this Letter we propose a novel,
Lorentz covariant, solution of the problem of probabilistic interpretation
of relativistic QM. The main technical ingredient is the *particle current*,
which can be introduced either as a QFT operator [7, 8], or a c-number
quantity calculated from the wave function attributed to a QFT state [9].
"The main conceptual ingredient is
the observation that, despite common practice, there is no a priori reason
why the hypersurface on which the probability is defined should be spacelike
everywhere. Indeed, such hypersurfaces that are not spacelike everywhere
may appear in some variants of the many-fingered time formulation of QFT
[10, 11, 12] and in the formulation of QFT based on the covariant canonical
De Donder-Weyl formalism [13]. In this paper we show that hypersurfaces
that are not spacelike everywhere naturally emerge from the requirement
that the conserved c-number valued particle current should describe a probability
density on a hypersurface.
p. 2: "Although [sigma]’s are arbitrary spacelike hypersurfaces, there is one special canonical choice of foliation. This canonical foliation is defined as the foliation in which, at each point in spacetime, n, points in the same direction as j^m. We see that the canonical foliation is determined by the direction of j^m. (...) "However, for a more general linear
combination of plane waves with different positive frequencies, j^m may
not be timelike and future-oriented on some regions of spacetime. The generalization
of the construction above to such a general case is the main aim of this
paper.
p. 3: "The most general foliation
that provides the conservation of probability is the foliation for which
each integral curve of j^m crosses each hypersurface of the foliation once
and only once.
p. 4: "Finally, let us discuss the issue of causality related to the foliation of spacetime with hypersurfaces that are not spacelike everywhere. One might think that such a foliation could be related to particles that can move faster than light or backwards in time. Indeed, in the Bohmian deterministic hidden-variable interpretation, such motions are possible [3, 9, 15]. However, the deterministic evolution of the wave function [psi] is, of course, causal, irrespective of the probabilistic interpretation of [psi]. Consequently, with the conventional purely probabilistic interpretation on hypersurfaces that are not spacelike everywhere, one cannot use the foliation with such hypersurfaces to send information to the past or faster than light. In this sense, causality is not violated. "To summarize, in this Letter we
have shown that the conserved currents
"A curious but consistent feature
of these hypersurfaces is that they may not be spacelike everywhere."
========= Subject: Re: Dynamical, reversible,
bi-directional, and smooth transition
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:15:05 +0100
(MET), "R. Tumulka" wrote:
Try me. With math. NB: Dynamical, reversible, bi-directional, and smooth transition from the hidden unobservable quantum reality to the normal world of tables and chairs, and back to the hidden unobservable quantum reality. I can take your math. Just please get professional, if possible. Dimi ========= Subject:
Relativistic-covariant MFT Bohmian mechanics?
Dear Hrvoje, You wrote in "Many-fingered time Bohmian mechanics", quant-ph/0603207 v1, that it "does not insist on the manifestly relativistic-covariant formulation", and claim that its "ontology is nonclassical and nonlocal already at the kinematical level" (p. 4). If you wish to make your Bohmian mechanics relativistic-covariant, look at my web site. The Holon is *everywhere*, like a transcendental tachyon or "dark energy", hence there should be no problem to make a Lorentz-invariant theory of non-local interactions. Just "drag" the Holon state (the "new MFT beables", in your terminology) in your reference frame, and -- voila! :-) Best regards, Dimi
Note:
I haven't heard from Hrvoje Nikolic, so will
make some brief comments on his latest paper, entitled: "Quantum mechanics:
Myths and facts",
quant-ph/0609163
v1. Please follow the links.
He wrote (p. 9): "But can we talk about the value of the variable irrespective of measurements? From a purely experimental point of view, we certainly cannot. Here, however, we are talking about theoretical physics. So does the theory allow to talk about that? Classical theory certainly does. But what about QM? If all theoretical knowledge about the system is described by the state |psi>, then quantum theory does not allow that! This is the fact." p. 11: "To conclude this section,
QM does not prove that there is no reality besides the measured reality.
Instead, there are several alternatives to it. In particular, such reality
may exist, but then it must be contextual (i.e., must depend on
the measurement
itself.) The simplest (although not necessary) way to introduce such reality
is to postulate it only for one or a few preferred quantum observables. Surely time does not fundamentally differ from space by having a property of "lapsing", but only in the distorted minds of people who still believe in the Hamiltonian formulation of GR. Their problems have been recently exposed by G. Gibbons. See also my email to Andrei Novikov-Borodin below. D. Chakalov ----- Subject: Re:
Space-time structure, new paper
Dear Andrei, Thank you for your kind email from Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:27:02 +0400. > Dear Prof.D.Chakalov, I like your sense of humor:-) I'm
not affiliated with any academic
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Poltorak.html#PS > I've just published the paper "Physical
Objects of Dark Systems" at
I personally haven't read any similar paper from other physicists, and it is indeed very close to my efforts, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Chrusciel.html#comment The reason why I didn't call you last week, after reading your paper, was that I cannot understand your 'principle of compatibility of off-site continuums' (physics/0609086 v1, p. 5) and Fig. 1. I need your help, and hope that your colleagues will also help me grasp the main ideas. Please correct me if I got them wrong. 1. Your main idea is to introduce a set of infinite number of the bodies filling all space, like some "medium". 1.1. The generic notion of "set of an infinite number" is something I was never able to understand in the past 35 years. For example, there is no Lebesgue measure on infinite-dimensional spaces, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Barbara.html#5 Let's start with a simple example. My daughter knows from school that there is some obvious "cut off" in the formula for deriving the circumference of a circle, after Archimedes, who used the limiting process on the area and base of polygons inscribed in circles -- as n approaches infinity. As the number of sides, n , on the inscribed polygon increases, its perimeter approaches the circumference of a circle. Then comes the magic of the infinitesimal: as n approaches (Sic!) infinity, we get the well-known formula and the number [pi] . Only we don't know what actually happens with n "when" it approaches infinity. Thus, if we use an infinite "number" of points n to fill in *all the space* (like some "medium", as you put it), we need (i) some sort of cut off and boundary conditions on this "medium", to extract sensible physics from it, and (ii) some (dynamical?) mechanism for creating these points n , such that there will be ABSOLUTELY no empty gaps between then. Only points n . Many years ago, Roger Penrose tried to cover the walls of his bathroom with tiny little tiles n , without any gaps between them, but failed miserably.:-) Can you do that? 2. In your physics/0609086 v1, you wrote: "Off-site physical objects should
manifest themselves somehow as some "influences", known fields in a system
of the observer, differently it would not be any sense to examine and try
to describe them. On the other hand, according to a principle of compatibility,
they need to satisfy to conservation laws in the system of the observer.
So, for example, they cannot be an infinite energy source in the system
of the observer. There are two opportunities to satisfy to this condition:
to consider, that raised fields do not transfer energy or that they are
located in some limited space region in the system of the observer."
"In a macro-scale, the scale of astrophysical objects, the appearance of off-site objects is very similar to the influence found out in last years from "dark matter" and "dark energy"." 2.1. I don't know how to formulate any "conservation laws" for the 'the whole universe', as a system consisting of 'matter & dynamical dark stuff', http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Smolin.html#One 2.2. The so-called dark energy is *not* a relativistic object, as we know from its action on the whole universe 'en bloc' during inflation http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Chrusciel.html#Gibbons and in the current epoch of accelerated expansion of the spacetime metric, http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net/Chrusciel.html#Durrer 2.2.1. The reason why the Dynamical Dark Energy (DDE) is "dark" is in the following: We don't have access to some absolute, now-at-a-distance reference frame, and cannot *directly* observe the perfectly smooth and omnipresent source of DDE, which springs from "empty space". Here, by "empty space" I understand the gaps between the tiles in R. Penrose's bathroom. They are indeed "dark" (I call them 'global mode of spacetime'.) Please see again my efforts at the second link above. Please don not take these questions and remarks as criticism. I'm not a physicist and know very little math. Also, I'm very biased, since I believe in God. You and your colleagues seem to be utterly materialistic people, but since you know the math, I will be very happy to have your professional feedback. With my best regards, Dimi
http://www.god-does-not-play-dice.net
From: Dimi Chakalov <dimi@chakalov.net>
|
