View Full Version : Re: (MWI); quantum logic ...
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Jun7-04, 04:54 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\nOliver Jennrich wrote:\n//About the thought experiment on "sequentiality" of photons//\n\n> What\'s worse, passages like\n>\n> | Nevertheless, the photon has not\n> | been [permanently] absorbed by the atom, so no interaction between\n> | the photon and the atom seems to have taken place.\n>\n> makes me wonder if the authors really think that an absorption with a\n> re-emission can be considered as "no interaction".\n\nSometimes there are even more nasty fallacious arguments in the literature.\nSome yeons ago I have read about an experiment whose authors considered\nthat the beam particles interacting with a target, and continuing their\npaths *exactly* forward, in fact didn\'t interact at all.\nI was shocked, since I thought that the fundamentals of the optical\ntheorem is taught to everybody studying physics, including hard\nexperimentalists...\n\nJerzy Karczmarczuk\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Oliver Jennrich wrote:
//About the thought experiment on "sequentiality" of photons//
> What's worse, passages like
>
> | Nevertheless, the photon has not
> | been [permanently] absorbed by the atom, so no interaction between
> | the photon and the atom seems to have taken place.
>
> makes me wonder if the authors really think that an absorption with a
> re-emission can be considered as "no interaction".
Sometimes there are even more nasty fallacious arguments in the literature.
Some yeons ago I have read about an experiment whose authors considered
that the beam particles interacting with a target, and continuing their
paths *exactly* forward, in fact didn't interact at all.
I was shocked, since I thought that the fundamentals of the optical
theorem is taught to everybody studying physics, including hard
experimentalists...
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Arkadiusz Jadczyk
Jun12-04, 07:12 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>On 7 Jun 2004 05:54:24 -0400, Jerzy Karczmarczuk\n<karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:\n\n>> makes me wonder if the authors really think that an absorption with a\n>> re-emission can be considered as "no interaction".\n>\n>Sometimes there are even more nasty fallacious arguments in the literature.\n\nOr are they really fallacious? According to the orthodox quantum theory\nthere is no such thing (dynamical) as "absorption" and "emission". The\nonly dynamical thing that exists is a continuous Hamiltonian evolution\nof the total system. Never, never is anything really absorbed or\nemitted. If someone will try to argue about environment and decoherence\n- notice that any division into system and its environment is subjective\n- there is no such thing as an objective environment. There are always\nthings that the theoreticians are not willing to take into account and\nadd to the system.\n\nWhat I am trying to say is that the standard, orthodox, quantum theory\nis fallacious. That the emperor is naked, but only few see it, and among\nthose that see it, only few dare to announce it.\n\nAbsorption and emission are "events", and there is no dynamical\nmechanism that generate events in the standard quantum theory.\n\nEvents can be generated by adding dissipative terms to the evolution\ngenerator, but even then the event generating process is non-uniquely\nrelated to the Linblad generator. There is one exception - when the\nalgebra of observables has a non-trivial center (superselection rules),\nand when the Lindblad generator has a particular form - see\n\nhttp://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/bioel_en.htm\n\nark\n--\n\nArkadiusz Jadczyk\nhttp://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/homepage.htm\n\n--\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>On 7 Jun 2004 05:54:24 -0400, Jerzy Karczmarczuk
<karczma@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:
>> makes me wonder if the authors really think that an absorption with a
>> re-emission can be considered as "no interaction".
>
>Sometimes there are even more nasty fallacious arguments in the literature.
Or are they really fallacious? According to the orthodox quantum theory
there is no such thing (dynamical) as "absorption" and "emission". The
only dynamical thing that exists is a continuous Hamiltonian evolution
of the total system. Never, never is anything really absorbed or
emitted. If someone will try to argue about environment and decoherence
- notice that any division into system and its environment is subjective
- there is no such thing as an objective environment. There are always
things that the theoreticians are not willing to take into account and
add to the system.
What I am trying to say is that the standard, orthodox, quantum theory
is fallacious. That the emperor is naked, but only few see it, and among
those that see it, only few dare to announce it.
Absorption and emission are "events", and there is no dynamical
mechanism that generate events in the standard quantum theory.
Events can be generated by adding dissipative terms to the evolution
generator, but even then the event generating process is non-uniquely
related to the Linblad generator. There is one exception - when the
algebra of observables has a non-trivial center (superselection rules),
and when the Lindblad generator has a particular form - see
http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/bioel_en.htm
ark
--
Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/homepage.htm
--
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.