View Single Post
Nov2-11, 04:02 AM
Sci Advisor
Demystifier's Avatar
P: 4,629
I know that many people here have a very high opinion on the Ballentine's QM textbook. I am also one of them, but one particular subsection of it is (in my opinion) wrong. This is the subsection on the quantum Zeno paradox, or as Ballentine calls it, the "watched pot" paradox in Section 12.2 (Exponential and Nonexponential Decay). In this subsection, he presents a nice standard argument that a continuous observation may prevent decay (which in my opinion is correct), and then in the last paragraph argues that it is false. I think that his argument that it is false - is false itself. What do you think?
Phys.Org News Partner Physics news on
Three's a charm: NIST detectors reveal entangled photon triplets
How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?
New webcast series brings cutting-edge physics talks to the world