earthshrink@gmail.com
Dec16-04, 08:10 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>This was the last result contained in the classical derivation of\nPlanck\'s law that I requested for comments about a month ago, and on\nwhich I have yet to get any substantial comment, positive or negative.\n\nHowever, this last result is really self-contained and has no\ndependency on thermodynamics or the statistical reasoning of that\npaper, and is, in my opinion as well as of at least one colleague\nrecently retired from particle physics, a gem in itself and worth\nsharing. It shows that since the entanglement is due to the phases\ninvolved, it has really nothing to do with quantization -- the spatial\nphase is identical for classical EM waves and for quantum wave\nfunctions. Spatial phase relations (coming from the kr part in the wave\nphase kr-wt) are the well known basis of holography and SAR.\n\nThe question I set out to examine was, while we have been examining\nclassical particulate explanation for entanglement, starting from the\nE-P-R paper itself, how about classical electromagnetic field equations\n(i.e. straight from Maxwell, without considering our modern notions of\nvirtual photons etc.) instead? Has that been tried and dismissed?\nEvidently not, at least by my research of many years, and in case,\nfigured it would be interesting even as a repeat exercise. The photon\ncounters would be replaced by (continous) intensity meters, and\nprobabilities by certainties. Ok, if we look too closely at the meters,\nwe\'ll of course see quanta once again, but let\'s hold back and say we\nsimply couldn\'t look that close, like we were a hundred years ago.\n\nIn this short paper (2 pages when single spaced), I\'ve laid out the\nknown entanglement equations (taking from my undergrad text, Feynman\nLectures, vol III), alongside the strictly classical EM picture. The\nequivalence looks so undeniable that it seems to merit posing it as a\nchallenge before this learned group. (Hopefully, at least a brain\nteaser for some.) So here goes:\n\nYour mission, should you choose to accept it, would be to find a bug in\nthis classical picture sufficient to disable recovery. Should you\nsucceed, I would be honoured if you would consider maturing it to a\njoint paper expounding yet another conquest of the great quantum theory\nbefitting the 100th anniversary of Einstein\'s photoelectricity paper.\nShould you fail, I\'m willing to disavow your involvement if you so wish\n:-)\n\n[Please note that it would be pointless to try convincing me that\nFeynman\'s example is itself wrong to begin with!]\n\nURL: http://www.columbia.edu/~vg96/papers/epr.pdf\n\n\nsincerely,\n-prasad.\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>This was the last result contained in the classical derivation of
Planck's law that I requested for comments about a month ago, and on
which I have yet to get any substantial comment, positive or negative.
However, this last result is really self-contained and has no
dependency on thermodynamics or the statistical reasoning of that
paper, and is, in my opinion as well as of at least one colleague
recently retired from particle physics, a gem in itself and worth
sharing. It shows that since the entanglement is due to the phases
involved, it has really nothing to do with quantization -- the spatial
phase is identical for classical EM waves and for quantum wave
functions. Spatial phase relations (coming from the kr part in the wave
phase kr-wt) are the well known basis of holography and SAR.
The question I set out to examine was, while we have been examining
classical particulate explanation for entanglement, starting from the
E-P-R paper itself, how about classical electromagnetic field equations
(i.e. straight from Maxwell, without considering our modern notions of
virtual photons etc.) instead? Has that been tried and dismissed?
Evidently not, at least by my research of many years, and in case,
figured it would be interesting even as a repeat exercise. The photon
counters would be replaced by (continous) intensity meters, and
probabilities by certainties. Ok, if we look too closely at the meters,
we'll of course see quanta once again, but let's hold back and say we
simply couldn't look that close, like we were a hundred years ago.
In this short paper (2 pages when single spaced), I've laid out the
known entanglement equations (taking from my undergrad text, Feynman
Lectures, vol III), alongside the strictly classical EM picture. The
equivalence looks so undeniable that it seems to merit posing it as a
challenge before this learned group. (Hopefully, at least a brain
teaser for some.) So here goes:
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, would be to find a bug in
this classical picture sufficient to disable recovery. Should you
succeed, I would be honoured if you would consider maturing it to a
joint paper expounding yet another conquest of the great quantum theory
befitting the 100th anniversary of Einstein's photoelectricity paper.
Should you fail, I'm willing to disavow your involvement if you so wish
:-)
[Please note that it would be pointless to try convincing me that
Feynman's example is itself wrong to begin with!]
URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~vg96/papers/epr.pdf
sincerely,
-prasad.
Planck's law that I requested for comments about a month ago, and on
which I have yet to get any substantial comment, positive or negative.
However, this last result is really self-contained and has no
dependency on thermodynamics or the statistical reasoning of that
paper, and is, in my opinion as well as of at least one colleague
recently retired from particle physics, a gem in itself and worth
sharing. It shows that since the entanglement is due to the phases
involved, it has really nothing to do with quantization -- the spatial
phase is identical for classical EM waves and for quantum wave
functions. Spatial phase relations (coming from the kr part in the wave
phase kr-wt) are the well known basis of holography and SAR.
The question I set out to examine was, while we have been examining
classical particulate explanation for entanglement, starting from the
E-P-R paper itself, how about classical electromagnetic field equations
(i.e. straight from Maxwell, without considering our modern notions of
virtual photons etc.) instead? Has that been tried and dismissed?
Evidently not, at least by my research of many years, and in case,
figured it would be interesting even as a repeat exercise. The photon
counters would be replaced by (continous) intensity meters, and
probabilities by certainties. Ok, if we look too closely at the meters,
we'll of course see quanta once again, but let's hold back and say we
simply couldn't look that close, like we were a hundred years ago.
In this short paper (2 pages when single spaced), I've laid out the
known entanglement equations (taking from my undergrad text, Feynman
Lectures, vol III), alongside the strictly classical EM picture. The
equivalence looks so undeniable that it seems to merit posing it as a
challenge before this learned group. (Hopefully, at least a brain
teaser for some.) So here goes:
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, would be to find a bug in
this classical picture sufficient to disable recovery. Should you
succeed, I would be honoured if you would consider maturing it to a
joint paper expounding yet another conquest of the great quantum theory
befitting the 100th anniversary of Einstein's photoelectricity paper.
Should you fail, I'm willing to disavow your involvement if you so wish
:-)
[Please note that it would be pointless to try convincing me that
Feynman's example is itself wrong to begin with!]
URL: http://www.columbia.edu/~vg96/papers/epr.pdf
sincerely,
-prasad.