| Subject: Feynman's rest of the universe
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 14:01:51 +0200 From: Dimi Chakalov <dchakalov@surfeu.at> To: Young S Kim <yskim@physics.umd.edu> CC: Marilyn E Noz <noz@nucmed.med.nyu.edu>, patricia@osiris.th.u-psud.fr, greg@math.ucdavis.edu, guehne@itp.uni-hannover.de, slavnov@goa.bog.msu.ru, bostroem@quantum.physik.uni-potsdam.de, marcofrasca@mclink.it, thomdurt@vub.ac.be Dear Dr. Kim, In your recent paper "Is the concept of quantum probability consistent with Lorentz covariance?", quant-ph/0301155 [Ref. 1], you wrote: "Since we do not observe t in the present form of quantum mechanics, we have to integrate the above quantity over the t variable." Isn't it true that this t variable cannot be observed since it belongs to Feynman's rest of the universe? If yes, I think we have a deep puzzle of the nature of t , http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Margon.html You also wrote: "Feynman et al. insist on Lorentz-invariant solutions which are not normalizable" [Ref. 1]. I believe non-unitary dynamics of quantum state is *the* correct approach toward a relativistic quantum theory of measurement, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Boström.html Moreover, in order to claim that there might be a *real* implicit order [Ref. 2], we must examine the physical nature of this t variable: "In the present form of quantum mechanics, we pretend not to know anything about this variable." [Ref. 1] NB: A real implicit order might exist, but it could be "really hidden" [Ref. 2] because we are still unable to formulate a non-unitary dynamics of quantum state, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/faq.html http://members.aon.at/chakalov/LHC.html#Holon Hence the tasks of elaborating a relativistic quantum theory of measurement and Lorentz invariant non-locality are still on our to-do list, as they have been since the first days of Quantum Mechanics, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/readme1st.html
http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Peres.html#NB There is also another puzzle related to the 3-D space, which can be traced back to the assumption of Kant [Ref. 2]. I don't know why do we observe 3-D space, and hope to learn about it soon, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Ashtekar.html#note I will appreciate your opinion, as well as those of your colleagues. You can read this email also at http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Kim.html Regards, Dimiter G. Chakalov
References [Ref. 1] Young S. Kim, Marilyn E. Noz.
Is the concept of quantum probability consistent with Lorentz covariance?
"Does this time-separation variable exist when the hadron
is at rest? Yes, according to Einstein. In the present form of quantum
mechanics, we pretend not to know anything about this variable. Indeed,
this variable belongs to Feynman’s rest of the universe.
"This partial differential equation has many different
solutions depending on the choice of separable variables and boundary conditions.
Feynman et al. insist on Lorentz-invariant solutions which are not normalizable.
"The solution given in Eq. (7) is not Lorentz invariant
but is covariant. It is normalizable in the t variable,
as well as in the space-separation variable z . How can we
extract probability interpretation from this covariant wave function?
"This is the density matrix if both the z
and t variables are taken into account. Since we do
not observe t in the present form of quantum mechanics,
we have to integrate the above quantity over the t
variable."
[Ref. 2] Bernard d'Espagnat. A tentative
new approach to the Schröodinger cat problem.
Footnote 1: "It is well known that, by itself, decoherence
does not unambiguously produce localization. In the instrumentalist conception,
to account for what is observed it is necessary to assume, in addition,
that locality is an a priori mode of human sensibility, much as Kant assumed
space to be one.
"We can therefore say that, in the model, the particle
is at any time at some well-defined place even though it takes part in
a typically quantum phenomenon. In this respect it resembles the friend
in Wigners parable, who is at any time in some well-defined state of consciousness
while he also is taking part in a quantum phenomenon. To strengthen the
analogy it is then appropriate that, in the model, we should attribute
to the particle some kind of a mentality (or, say, protomentality, the
physical nature of which needs not be specified in detail).
"To sum up, within this conception it is considered that even microsystems can be endowed with "internal states of consciousness" (or "protoconsciousness", whatever this may be) that are elements of a basic, not publicly accessible, reality, rather than of empirical reality. In other words, they are hidden (remember we left open the possibility that hidden variables should exist, provided that they should be "really hidden")." ===========
Subject: Re: Feynman's rest of the
universe
Dear Dr. Kim, Let's get professional. It is a matter of fact that everything we observe is in our past light cone, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Youssef.html If you can reconcile STR with QM and keep the story of the unitary "evolution" intact, please don't hesitate to write me back. Or better rush your paper to Nature. Please take a good look at the references at follow the URLs at http://members.aon.at/chakalov/Kim.html Sincerely, Dimi Chakalov P.S. As to your guess about my nationality, I'm afraid you're wrong, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/about.html
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:54:20 -0500 (EST),
============ Subject: The
time variable imposed on QM
On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 18:54:20 -0500
(EST), "Young S. Kim" wrote:
The way I see it, the question is not 'how the electron in the hydrogen atom would look to an observer on a train' (and all the other issues under the hood of 'relativity of simultaneity' and your latest quant-ph/0609127 v1). The main issue in QM was formulated
by Einstein,
The problem in QM is well-known since
1935,
To be specific, the time variable *imposed* on QM is a c-number, which refers to facts in STR, in blatant contradiction to the problem in QM (cf. the link above). To avoid misunderstandings, I respectfully
invite you and your colleagues to take part in the quiz at
Please don't hesitate. More at
> You seem to have a Russian name. I'll change it in our email correspondence, to avoid further confusion :-) Sincerely, Dimi Chakalov
|
