Register to reply

QED Lagrangian lead to self-interaction?

by per.sundqvist
Tags: lagrangian, lead, selfinteraction
Share this thread:
Maaneli
#127
Aug28-08, 12:52 PM
P: 520
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
When you say such things as "I am in disbelief that you still try to cling to this idea that PP somehow is the cause of the appearance of nonlocality.", life seems rather tough. You cannot blame me for previously thinking that you flatly deny that PP is a source of nonlocality.
Again, a disingenuous characterization. We were obviously talking about VBI, when referring to nonlocality, not about some other form of nonlocality. Perhaps you decided to start thinking about something else during that time, and to not inform me of it.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
With all due respect, complaining of insults, coming from you - that's pretty rich.
Hey I'm just using your dislike of insults against you in this argument. Actually, I think you're just being inconsistent and hypocritical by not practicing what you preach.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
And I guess there is a difference between "reading up" and looking at one paragraph in my post (that does not mean that you owe me anything, even reading this paragraph).
Ah, wrong again. It is not just looking at one paragraph, but rather reading the papers related KSP. It's a sad day in physics when a 22 year old with a B.S. has more integrity and willingness to learn a new subject than a 50+ year old Ph.D physicist (allegedly).


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
As for dBB, I explained my position in post #69. Your reply (the beginning of post #70), where you somewhat modified the statement that I was doubtful about did not look relevant to VBI. My understanding is, to get VBI, say, in dBB, you need to add some postulate to unitary evolution. Or do you believe you can get VBI in dBB using just unitary evolution? You said that in the pilot wave theory "you can easily account for VBI due to the branching of wavefunctions after a measurement interaction", but is this compatible with unitary evolution?
YES IT IS PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE WITH UNITARY EVOLUTION. That's the whole damn point that doesn't seem to sink into your head. And if you don't even know those basics, then it's safe to say that you probably don't understand much of anything about deBB theory, and which is why you're so confused about EPRB.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
As for GRW, I just don't have any motivation to study it, as its collapse postulate (or is it postulates?) seems extremely arbitrary.
No, it is not a postulate like in SQM. You should really look at those references if you want to make any statements about GRW. Otherwise you're being disingenuous again.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I guess our discussion illustrates that the issue of local causality in the context of SFED is not trivial. I believe you also learned something new about this issue in the course of the discussion. So maybe the discussion was not useless.
And for me, the question remains whether Barut was right when he introduced configuration space in his theory.
The only thing I learned new from this discussion is the KSP method, and a better understanding about how configuration space is used in relativistic SFED. That's about all.
akhmeteli
#128
Aug28-08, 11:58 PM
P: 590
Quote Quote by Maaneli View Post
Yes, but you still seem be suggesting (falsely) that a configuration space implies a 2nd quantized theory, and not recognizing that configuration space is a part of 1st quantized QM, entirely independently of second quantization.
Let me give you an example. Imagine that you have a standard Hamiltonian for N identical bosons (for example) with standard binary interaction (let us assume for simplicity that they are placed in a box with periodic boundary conditions). The Hamiltonian acts upon symmetric wavefunctions in the 3N-dimensional configuration space. It is well-known how to write the relevant second-quantized Hamiltonian built using operator wavefunctions and acting in the Fock space. This Hamiltonian commutes with the particle number operator (the number of particles is conserved), so you can define this Hamiltonian for the subspace of the Fock space defined by the condition: the number of particles equals N. Or, in other words, this is an eigenspace of the particle number operator with eigenvalue N. Then you can calculate the eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian (limited to the subspace). I hope you understand that they will coincide with the eigenvalues of the initial Hamiltonian acting in the 3N-dimensional configuration space. That means that both Hamiltonians describe pretty much the same physics. That's why I am saying that configuration space carries a part of the contents of second quantization. While the form does not look 2nd-quantized in the first case, the contents of the theory is the same. I may praise the first theory as 1st-quantized, but it is pretty much equivalent to the second-quantized theory. So the physical contents of 2nd quantization has already been smuggled in through imposition of the symmetry condition on the wavefunctions and the symmetry of the Hamiltonian.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
So any argument you make for why VBI might occur as a result of applying KSP to a locally causal NDE, has no bearing on the nonlocality from the configuration space in QM formulations, including SFED.
I believe such argument can indeed be relevant, as configuration spaces arise (as parts of the Fock space) as a result of applying KSP to a locally causal NDE. Therefore, the nonlocality from the configuration space in QM formulations may be just a property of an approximation to the "real" theory, i.e. the locally causal NDE or its KSP-version.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
The wavefunctions are still c-number fields, so they are not second quantized.
But a part of the physical contents of second quantization is already there.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
No more so than the configuration space of the Dirac equation.
And no less.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
And that is why it is still a fallacy to call the introduction of the Pauli principle as a "second quantization".
Nevertheless, the Pauli principle introduces a part of the contents of 2nd quantization.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
It is still not at all clear to me that the embedding of this coherent state into Fock space for 1-particle via KSP would actually imply an N-particle theory in configuration space. From your example, I don't see a linear combination of n creation operators acting on the vacuum state.
I did not say "a linear combination of n creation operators acting on the vacuum state". What acts on the vacuum state is an exponent of a linear combination of creation operators (actually, this linear combination is an integral). The configuration spaces arise as follows: you can replace the exponent by its Taylor series, i.e. the sum of powers of its argument. The n-th power of its argument will be a linear combination of products of n creation operators. Acting on the vacuum state, each product of n creation operators generates an n-particle function. You can regard such function as a function in an n-particle configuration space. Thus, the embedding of this coherent state into Fock space for 1-particle via KSP will in general have nonvanishing projections on configuration spaces with any number of particles.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
Furthermore, it still seems that physically, particle-creation annihilation processes in the KSP theory only apply in relativistic cases. Entanglement nonlocality has nothing to do with that. So I still don't understand your argument.
In the following, I am on a shaky ground, as I did not study this in detail. Let us assume for the moment that you are correct, and "physically, particle-creation annihilation processes in the KSP theory only apply in relativistic cases." The thing is electrodynamics is always relativistic as photons are massless, so you always have a hell of a lot of soft photons. Actually, one can speculate that an entangled state (say of two electrons) is maintained through exchange of photons between the particles.




Quote Quote by Maaneli
Again, this "projection onto the 2-particle configuration space" seem entirely physically unmotivated.
Again, I am on a shaky ground, but the physical motivation may be to get a decent approximation.
akhmeteli
#129
Aug29-08, 01:58 AM
P: 590
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Again, a disingenuous characterization. We were obviously talking about VBI, when referring to nonlocality, not about some other form of nonlocality. Perhaps you decided to start thinking about something else during that time, and to not inform me of it.
I tend to read everything as it is written. I cannot read your thoughts.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
Hey I'm just using your dislike of insults against you in this argument. Actually, I think you're just being inconsistent and hypocritical by not practicing what you preach.
Only the "insult" that you somehow found in my words is purely imaginary.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
Ah, wrong again. It is not just looking at one paragraph, but rather reading the papers related KSP.
Why not Encyclopedia Britannica as well? Anyway, I asked you just to look at one paragraph. Furthermore, that was a request, not a demand, so you could grant it or deny it.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
It's a sad day in physics when a 22 year old with a B.S. has more integrity and willingness to learn a new subject than a 50+ year old Ph.D physicist (allegedly).
You asked some time ago why I tend to repeat obvious things. Partly because sometimes it seems you need it. So let me tell you something obvious. You are not my boss, and you cannot order me what and when I must read or study. I have my fair share of responsibilities as it is, and we owe each other nothing.

Another thing. Next time you publicly disclose other people's personal information shared with you in e-mail, don't be surprised if your own integrity is questioned.


Quote Quote by Maaneli
YES IT IS PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE WITH UNITARY EVOLUTION. That's the whole damn point that doesn't seem to sink into your head. And if you don't even know those basics, then it's safe to say that you probably don't understand much of anything about deBB theory, and which is why you're so confused about EPRB.
I am afraid I cannot trust you on your word about dBB. In your post #68 you confidently assured me of something you had to modify in post #70, when challenged. On the other hand, I have no time to check all your statements.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
No, it is not a postulate like in SQM. You should really look at those references if you want to make any statements about GRW. Otherwise you're being disingenuous again.
Same as above.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
The only thing I learned new from this discussion is the KSP method, and a better understanding about how configuration space is used in relativistic SFED. That's about all.
Very well. If you believe this discussion is a waste of time for you, you know what to do.
Maaneli
#130
Aug29-08, 04:28 AM
P: 520
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Let me give you an example. Imagine that you have a standard Hamiltonian for N identical bosons (for example) with standard binary interaction (let us assume for simplicity that they are placed in a box with periodic boundary conditions). The Hamiltonian acts upon symmetric wavefunctions in the 3N-dimensional configuration space. It is well-known how to write the relevant second-quantized Hamiltonian built using operator wavefunctions and acting in the Fock space. This Hamiltonian commutes with the particle number operator (the number of particles is conserved), so you can define this Hamiltonian for the subspace of the Fock space defined by the condition: the number of particles equals N. Or, in other words, this is an eigenspace of the particle number operator with eigenvalue N. Then you can calculate the eigenvalues of this Hamiltonian (limited to the subspace). I hope you understand that they will coincide with the eigenvalues of the initial Hamiltonian acting in the 3N-dimensional configuration space. That means that both Hamiltonians describe pretty much the same physics. That's why I am saying that configuration space carries a part of the contents of second quantization. While the form does not look 2nd-quantized in the first case, the contents of the theory is the same. I may praise the first theory as 1st-quantized, but it is pretty much equivalent to the second-quantized theory. So the physical contents of 2nd quantization has already been smuggled in through imposition of the symmetry condition on the wavefunctions and the symmetry of the Hamiltonian.
First off, I thought we were talking about fermions, not bosons. Indeed, when you proposed to consider KSP in the context of SFED or the DM equations, you can only talk about the Hamiltonian of fermions, not bosons. Remember that there are no photons in SFED or DM. Secondly, the obvious fallacy in your reasoning is that by using words like "smuggled", you are implicitly implying that somehow 2nd quantization is physically and conceptually prior to 1st quantization, and that, in this case, the Pauli principle is somehow borrowed from 2nd quantization in an ad-hoc way. This bias on your part is quite blatant, and has no logical basis, which is why it cannot be taken very seriously.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I believe such argument can indeed be relevant, as configuration spaces arise (as parts of the Fock space) as a result of applying KSP to a locally causal NDE. Therefore, the nonlocality from the configuration space in QM formulations may be just a property of an approximation to the "real" theory, i.e. the locally causal NDE or its KSP-version.
No. See below.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
But a part of the physical contents of second quantization is already there.
Again, that doesn't mean it "smuggles" elements of 2nd quantization. You are again implicitly assuming that these physical contents are a natural property of 2nd quantization, and not a natural property of 1st quantization.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Nevertheless, the Pauli principle introduces a part of the contents of 2nd quantization.
No, wrong again. See above and below.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I did not say "a linear combination of n creation operators acting on the vacuum state". What acts on the vacuum state is an exponent of a linear combination of creation operators (actually, this linear combination is an integral). The configuration spaces arise as follows: you can replace the exponent by its Taylor series, i.e. the sum of powers of its argument. The n-th power of its argument will be a linear combination of products of n creation operators. Acting on the vacuum state, each product of n creation operators generates an n-particle function. You can regard such function as a function in an n-particle configuration space. Thus, the embedding of this coherent state into Fock space for 1-particle via KSP will in general have nonvanishing projections on configuration spaces with any number of particles.
Again, there is no physical reason to think that the "particles" in this KSP Fock space are the physically real particles that we manipulate in real EPRB experiments. Furthermore, based on your first comment above, I don't know if you have in mind bosons or fermions when you talk about the creation-annihilation operators or the word "particle". The situation is quite different for fermions and bosons. You should know that if you have studied QED and QM.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
In the following, I am on a shaky ground, as I did not study this in detail. Let us assume for the moment that you are correct, and "physically, particle-creation annihilation processes in the KSP theory only apply in relativistic cases." The thing is electrodynamics is always relativistic as photons are massless, so you always have a hell of a lot of soft photons. Actually, one can speculate that an entangled state (say of two electrons) is maintained through exchange of photons between the particles.
Um, no, QED is not always relativistic. Indeed the description of "photons" are. But if you're talking about electrons, then they can certainly have a nonrelativistic wavefunction or path integral desciption that is quite independent of real or virtual photons. Furthermore, your speculation makes no sense because, again, the phenomenon of entanglement nonlocality for two electrons has absolutely no need for any element of relativitistic physics.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Again, I am on a shaky ground, but the physical motivation may be to get a decent approximation.

The physical motivation you speculate makes absolutely no physical sense. So more like senseless ground than shaky ground at this point. I think it would help you enormously to clear your mind about the difference between fermions and bosons, and the physical description of entanglement nonlocality in nonrelativistic QED and QM before you present me with any further half-baked speculations about this.
Maaneli
#131
Aug29-08, 05:02 AM
P: 520
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I tend to read everything as it is written. I cannot read your thoughts.
. If you actually do read everything as it is written (and I highly doubt it at this point), it would be immediately clear to you that we initially agreed to assume that VBI and nonlocality meant the same thing. Of course there are different forms of nonlocality, but if you want to start changing definitions without informing me about it, then go confuse someone else. I cannot read your thoughts.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Why not Encyclopedia Britannica as well? Anyway, I asked you just to look at one paragraph. Furthermore, that was a request, not a demand, so you could grant it or deny it..
You call "I beg you, please" a request? Sad. Anyway, my point was that I went above and beyond, and you haven't even lifted a finger even after my repeated requests (which later turned into demands because of your deaf ear). Let me give you a bit of advice about how to lead a productive discussion - when someone requests you to read into something, and you beg them to read into something, it is ALWAYS a good idea to heed their request as well, especially if it is critical to understanding their point of view. It's clear to me now that you never had any interest in understanding my point of view, but instead in just spewing your random speculations. And please, don't bother to try and give me advice in return.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
You asked some time ago why I tend to repeat obvious things. Partly because sometimes it seems you need it.
. I guess the joke went over your head. I was pointing out your obvious insecurity with harsh criticism and your right to speak freely. Honestly, you're just wasting energy by constantly preaching your right to say what you want.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
So let me tell you something obvious. You are not my boss, and you cannot order me what and when I must read or study. I have my fair share of responsibilities as it is, and we owe each other nothing.
I never said I was your boss and I never ordered you to do anything (that would require a threat, which I have never made). I merely expressed my opinion about your lack of knowledge and understanding, and my opinion about what you should do to address it. Of course, I don't care to have to always qualify everything I say by pointing out that they are my opinions (that should be obvious to you). If you feel easily threatened by that, then you have more serious personal issues to deal with.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Another thing. Next time you publicly disclose other people's personal information shared with you in e-mail, don't be surprised if your own integrity is questioned.
Did you feel uncomfortable with that? If so, then I apologize. If you don't have a problem with that, then get over it. Personal information is mentioned by members of this forum quite frequently and without much objection.


I
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I am afraid I cannot trust you on your word about dBB. In your post #68 you confidently assured me of something you had to modify in post #70, when challenged. On the other hand, I have no time to check all your statements.
First off, I am not asking you to "trust" me on my word. I am asking you to read, learn, and understand for yourself - but you obviously don't want to and never wanted to. Secondly, you clearly did not understand a damn thing about what I said in #68 and #70. My "modification" in #70 was actually just an elaboration of what I said in #68. And there was absolutely no contradiction made. Again, you are being disingenuous. And, if you would like to know why I am being abrasive with you now, then think back to my first email to you where I explained my reasons for being abrasive in previous threads with certain other people. It seems, regrettably, that you are absolutely no different than those individuals in that regard.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Very well. If you believe this discussion is a waste of time for you, you know what to do.
I think you have wasted alot of time and energy by your frequent lack of clear explanations, your unwillingness to have either intellectual or academic integrity in discussing these issues, and for your repeated misrepresentations of my views.
akhmeteli
#132
Aug30-08, 01:49 AM
P: 590
Quote Quote by Maaneli View Post
First off, I thought we were talking about fermions, not bosons. Indeed, when you proposed to consider KSP in the context of SFED or the DM equations, you can only talk about the Hamiltonian of fermions, not bosons. Remember that there are no photons in SFED or DM.
Actually, I was talking about both bosons and fermions (for example, I specifically mentioned fermions in post #96). I could agree that there are no photons in SFED (they were eliminated there), but why do you say that there are no photons in DM (Dirac-Maxwell)?

Quote Quote by Maaneli
Secondly, the obvious fallacy in your reasoning is that by using words like "smuggled", you are implicitly implying that somehow 2nd quantization is physically and conceptually prior to 1st quantization, and that, in this case, the Pauli principle is somehow borrowed from 2nd quantization in an ad-hoc way. This bias on your part is quite blatant, and has no logical basis, which is why it cannot be taken very seriously.
I am not trying to decide what was physically and conceptually prior and what was not. In the framework of our discussion, however, we are actually trying to compare SFED with QED. The latter is second-quantized (as far as its contents is concerned – the form may be very different: you even said something like the QED expressions for S-matrix should not be called second quantized) and it preceded SFED, so if you like, you can say that chronologically QED is prior to SFED. So it is psychologically understandable why I talked about Barut smuggling in the contents of second quantization from QED into SFED. If you are trying to say that this expression is out of place when we are talking about, say, Dirac’s equation with Dirac sea, well, I could agree that it does not sound good. But your expression “blatant bias” also looks misplaced. I would say I did not imply “physically and conceptually prior” – these are your words. You could say I implied “chronologically prior” – and only as far as QED and SFED are concerned.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Again, that doesn't mean it "smuggles" elements of 2nd quantization. You are again implicitly assuming that these physical contents are a natural property of 2nd quantization, and not a natural property of 1st quantization.
What I actually implied I described a few lines above. I don’t think there is any real depth here. In other words, I don’t think we essentially disagree on this issue. I agree that my “smuggles” does sound awkward in some situations.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
No, wrong again. See above and below.
So we disagree on this point. On the other hand, it may well be that you're right, and I'm wrong.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Again, there is no physical reason to think that the "particles" in this KSP Fock space are the physically real particles that we manipulate in real EPRB experiments.
I’d say there is indeed such a physical reason: the Fock space is present in both post-KSTP and in QED, which (I mean QED) seems to describe correctly current EPRB experiments. On the other hand, I could agree with you that in the absence of a “final” theory it is difficult to compare “KSP-particles” with real particles.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Furthermore, based on your first comment above, I don't know if you have in mind bosons or fermions when you talk about the creation-annihilation operators or the word "particle". The situation is quite different for fermions and bosons. You should know that if you have studied QED and QM.
As I said, I have in mind both fermions and bosons.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Um, no, QED is not always relativistic. Indeed the description of "photons" are. But if you're talking about electrons, then they can certainly have a nonrelativistic wavefunction or path integral desciption that is quite independent of real or virtual photons.
I am not sure this is so clear-cut. As you know, the experimental low-energy values of the electron mass, charge, and so on correspond to renormalized values of the theoretical infinite mass and charge of “naked” particles. And they are renormalized, among other things, due to creation of virtual electron-positron pairs. Furthermore, the Dirac equation describes Zitterbewegung for low-energy electrons as well. Actually, the eigenvalues of projections of instantaneous velocity in the Dirac theory are +-c.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Furthermore, your speculation makes no sense because, again, the phenomenon of entanglement nonlocality for two electrons has absolutely no need for any element of relativitistic physics.
Yeah, sure:-) Especially if you use PP:-) My reading is that the influence of a measurement on one particle of a singlet propagates to the other particle of the singlet with the speed of light. PP, however, basically states that this influence propagates with infinite velocity. If genuine VBI are demonstrated, I’ll have to admit that I was dead wrong though.

Quote Quote by Maaneli
The physical motivation you speculate makes absolutely no physical sense. So more like senseless ground than shaky ground at this point. I think it would help you enormously to clear your mind about the difference between fermions and bosons, and the physical description of entanglement nonlocality in nonrelativistic QED and QM before you present me with any further half-baked speculations about this.
I see your point of view.
akhmeteli
#133
Aug30-08, 03:20 AM
P: 590
Quote Quote by Maaneli View Post
. If you actually do read everything as it is written (and I highly doubt it at this point), it would be immediately clear to you that we initially agreed to assume that VBI and nonlocality meant the same thing.
I don’t remember such an agreement. Could you remind me the exact words?
Quote Quote by Maaneli
You call "I beg you, please" a request?
Of course, and a humble one at that.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Anyway, my point was that I went above and beyond, and you haven't even lifted a finger even after my repeated requests (which later turned into demands because of your deaf ear). Let me give you a bit of advice about how to lead a productive discussion - when someone requests you to read into something, and you beg them to read into something, it is ALWAYS a good idea to heed their request as well, especially if it is critical to understanding their point of view. It's clear to me now that you never had any interest in understanding my point of view, but instead in just spewing your random speculations. And please, don't bother to try and give me advice in return.
If to understand your point I am supposed to read dozens of articles on dBB and GRW, then no, I have no interest in understanding your point, sorry. I just don’t have time for that. I tried to explain to you that I don’t even understand how dBB and GRW are relevant: if they are experimentally equivalent to SQM, they have to contain the SQM’s contradictions, if they are not experimentally equivalent, then their experimental status is dubious, so why should I care? I did not hear your answer, so I clearly lacked motivation. Again, I just don’t understand how dBB and GRW are relevant to this discussion. I just don’t owe you enough to fulfill really burdensome requests, so your demands are just out of place. You have found time in your busy schedule to read about KSP – I do appreciate that. If you had not found time, I would certainly not have called you names.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
I never said I was your boss and I never ordered you to do anything (that would require a threat, which I have never made).
That may be technically correct, as you often did not bother to threaten me and just resorted to personal insults. Furthermore, you admitted that your requests turned into demands. And I just don’t think we are in a position to demand anything from each other.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
I merely expressed my opinion about your lack of knowledge and understanding, and my opinion about what you should do to address it. Of course, I don't care to have to always qualify everything I say by pointing out that they are my opinions (that should be obvious to you). If you feel easily threatened by that, then you have more serious personal issues to deal with.
And who you are? A shrink? Frankly, I just have no interest in your opinion of me personally. I resent your numerous arguments ad hominem.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Did you feel uncomfortable with that? If so, then I apologize. If you don't have a problem with that, then get over it. Personal information is mentioned by members of this forum quite frequently and without much objection.
I did, but I am satisfied with your reply.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
First off, I am not asking you to "trust" me on my word. I am asking you to read, learn, and understand for yourself - but you obviously don't want to and never wanted to. Secondly, you clearly did not understand a damn thing about what I said in #68 and #70. My "modification" in #70 was actually just an elaboration of what I said in #68. And there was absolutely no contradiction made. Again, you are being disingenuous.
If you stand by what you said in #68, that means that in your opinion dBB implies both unitary evolution and PP, therefore, it contains a contradiction.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
And, if you would like to know why I am being abrasive with you now, then think back to my first email to you where I explained my reasons for being abrasive in previous threads with certain other people. It seems, regrettably, that you are absolutely no different than those individuals in that regard.
I regret that I disappointed you (I am not sure the exact words in your e-mail are applicable to me though). But sometimes I also have problems with bending backwards.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
I think you have wasted alot of time and energy by your frequent lack of clear explanations, your unwillingness to have either intellectual or academic integrity in discussing these issues, and for your repeated misrepresentations of my views.
I regret that my explanations lacked clarity. We are discussing complex issues under time constraints.
If I misrepresented your views, that was not deliberate. As for your comments on my integrity, I reject them as baseless.
Maaneli
#134
Sep1-08, 02:27 AM
P: 520
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Actually, I was talking about both bosons and fermions (for example, I specifically mentioned fermions in post #96). I could agree that there are no photons in SFED (they were eliminated there), but why do you say that there are no photons in DM (Dirac-Maxwell)?
If you were talking about both bosons and fermions, then you haven't shown that you understand the different equations of motion for each. Also, you always talk about DM equations in an SFED form (which is the basis of your half-baked idea) and in that sense there are no photons. Also, you didn't specify whether or not you assume the vector potential A_mu is a second quantized field coupled to the Dirac equation (which is in fact an inconsistent theory) or a classical EM free-field. In the latter case, there definitely are no photons by the QED definition.




Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
So it is psychologically understandable why I talked about Barut smuggling in the contents of second quantization from QED into SFED.
But this isn't about psychology. This is about physics.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
If you are trying to say that this expression is out of place when we are talking about, say, Dirac’s equation with Dirac sea, well, I could agree that it does not sound good. But your expression “blatant bias” also looks misplaced. I would say I did not imply “physically and conceptually prior” – these are your words. You could say I implied “chronologically prior” – and only as far as QED and SFED are concerned.
OK, fair enough distinction.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
What I actually implied I described a few lines above. I don’t think there is any real depth here. In other words, I don’t think we essentially disagree on this issue. I agree that my “smuggles” does sound awkward in some situations.
Glad you admit that.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
So we disagree on this point. On the other hand, it may well be that you're right, and I'm wrong.
Yes I think you're wrong about the Pauli principle and 2nd quantization.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I’d say there is indeed such a physical reason: the Fock space is present in both post-KSTP and in QED, which (I mean QED) seems to describe correctly current EPRB experiments. On the other hand, I could agree with you that in the absence of a “final” theory it is difficult to compare “KSP-particles” with real particles.
This makes no sense. QED can describe only a two-particle Fock space (which is all that is necessary to get entanglement nonlocality), whereas you seem to be saying that the KSP equation is always about N-particles in Fock space. Then I don't see how the KSP equation could possibly describe something as basic as the singlet-state.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I am not sure this is so clear-cut. As you know, the experimental low-energy values of the electron mass, charge, and so on correspond to renormalized values of the theoretical infinite mass and charge of “naked” particles. And they are renormalized, among other things, due to creation of virtual electron-positron pairs. Furthermore, the Dirac equation describes Zitterbewegung for low-energy electrons as well. Actually, the eigenvalues of projections of instantaneous velocity in the Dirac theory are +-c.

Yes it is clear cut. In quantum mechanics (NOT QED), there is no renormalization, and yet the entanglement nonlocality of the singlet-state is perfectly well describe. Even in nonrelativistic QED, renormalization is not at all relevant to describing the singlet-state. That's just elementary quantum optics. Furthermore, your appeal to Zitterbewegung from the Dirac equation makes no sense. The nonrelativistic limit of the Dirac equation is the Pauli equation, and there is definitely NO Zittebewegung in the Pauli equation.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Yeah, sure:-) Especially if you use PP:-) My reading is that the influence of a measurement on one particle of a singlet propagates to the other particle of the singlet with the speed of light. PP, however, basically states that this influence propagates with infinite velocity. If genuine VBI are demonstrated, I’ll have to admit that I was dead wrong though.
As usual, you're missing the point. I am and have always been talking about the entanglement nonlocality in standard, deBB, and GRW QM and QED, not about your half-baked speculative alternative.
Maaneli
#135
Sep1-08, 03:11 AM
P: 520
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I don’t remember such an agreement. Could you remind me the exact words?
How the hell can you say this? Do you have no long-term memory of anything? Look at posts #99 and earlier, and you will see that I repeatedly equate entanglement nonlocality (entanglement of wavefunctions in configuration space) with VBI. And you can clearly seen that you never ever objected to this in all those posts. You never said until very recently that the instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction was what you meant by nonlocality in PP. And just so that you don't even try to BS your way out of this, let me quote myself from post #99:

"If a wavefunction psi(x1, x2, t) is not factorizable (it is entanglement in configuration space), then add in the PP and you get VBI. However, if a wavefunction psi(x1, x2, t) is factorizable (there is no entanglement in configuration space), then add in the PP (because you still have reduction of the state vector) and you do not get VBI. So it is obvious that in the first case, entanglement of wavefunctions plus PP necessarily implies VBI, and in the second case, there are factorizable wavefunctions plus PP, and no VBI is possible. The same is also true of GRW collapse QM. So which do you think is more directly relevant to the cause of VBI in standard QM? Entangled wavefunctions in configuration space or the PP? Also throw in the fact that you can eliminate PP with deBB, keep unitary evolution, and still get VBI. There is no doubt that PP is not the culprit of VBI. The PP is actually a deceptive, red herring."

That's the last time.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
If to understand your point I am supposed to read dozens of articles on dBB and GRW, then no, I have no interest in understanding your point, sorry. I just don’t have time for that.
I didn't say read dozens of articles. There are very specific references (no more than 3) I supplied you with in earlier posts and Emails that you could read.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I tried to explain to you that I don’t even understand how dBB and GRW are relevant: if they are experimentally equivalent to SQM, they have to contain the SQM’s contradictions,
That could not be more wrong. For the millionth time, deBB and GRW are empirically equivalent to SQM, BUT THEY DO NOT SHARE THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS. You would quickly understand that if you just looked at one of the review articles on deBB or GRW theory.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
if they are not experimentally equivalent, then their experimental status is dubious, so why should I care? I did not hear your answer, so I clearly lacked motivation.
I said plenty of times that they are empirically equivalent. For example (12 posts earlier),

"In fact I repeatedly said to consider a QMMT like deBB or GRW which are empirically equivalent to SQM, but are NOT based on ad hoc and imprecise postulates about "measurements". "

I guess you didn't read carefully as usual.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Again, I just don’t understand how dBB and GRW are relevant to this discussion. I just don’t owe you enough to fulfill really burdensome requests, so your demands are just out of place. You have found time in your busy schedule to read about KSP – I do appreciate that. If you had not found time, I would certainly not have called you names.
I have not called you names, I have curtly called you out on your obvious disingenuousness and laziness.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
That may be technically correct, as you often did not bother to threaten me and just resorted to personal insults.
I think the "personal insults" are perfectly justified reactions in your case.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Furthermore, you admitted that your requests turned into demands. And I just don’t think we are in a position to demand anything from each other.
As usual, you missed the point.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
And who you are? A shrink? Frankly, I just have no interest in your opinion of me personally. I resent your numerous arguments ad hominem.
You don't need to be a shrink to see your obvious insecurities. Furthermore, I just have no interest in your opinion of my numerous "arguments ad hominem". As I explained, they are perfectly justifiable reactions to your outright disingenuousness and laziness. If you don't agree, too bad for you.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
If you stand by what you said in #68, that means that in your opinion dBB implies both unitary evolution and PP, therefore, it contains a contradiction.
Wow, how can you be so dishonest? I didn't say that deBB implies PP, I said it implies the APPEARANCE of PP. Again, you need to read a basic review article on deBB that I have supplied you with in earlier posts (or Emails) if you want to understand this point once and for all.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I regret that I disappointed you (I am not sure the exact words in your e-mail are applicable to me though). But sometimes I also have problems with bending backwards.
No, I think the words do perfectly fit you as well. Again, I have not asked you to bend backwards, but to have the respect to at least sincerely try to understand my point of view. But it is clear to me now that you never had any intention of this and are more interested in laziness.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I regret that my explanations lacked clarity. We are discussing complex issues under time constraints.
These issues aren't that complex really. Furthermore, it's always better to take your time to construct a thoughtful response than to write something half-assed.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
If I misrepresented your views, that was not deliberate. As for your comments on my integrity, I reject them as baseless.
I hope not, but I'm still skeptical.
akhmeteli
#136
Sep1-08, 05:23 PM
P: 590
Quote Quote by Maaneli View Post
How the hell can you say this? Do you have no long-term memory of anything?
Sorry to disappoint you again by admitting that I don’t learn your posts by heart.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Look at posts #99 and earlier, and you will see that I repeatedly equate entanglement nonlocality (entanglement of wavefunctions in configuration space) with VBI.
I asked you to remind me the exact words confirming “that we initially agreed to assume that VBI and nonlocality meant the same thing” (and this is not the same as equating “entanglement nonlocality (entanglement of wavefunctions in configuration space) with VBI”, which, by the way seems absurd, because it basically includes in the definition the very phrase I object to: “PP is not a source of VBI”). I found nothing of the kind in your post #99. I also insist that the quote from post #99 that you give below contains nothing of the kind. Absolutely nothing. I am not going to look through the “earlier” 98 posts with a magnifying glass looking for confirmation of your words. Until you give me the exact words, I assume that there has been no such agreement.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
And you can clearly seen that you never ever objected to this in all those posts. You never said until very recently that the instantaneous collapse of the wavefunction was what you meant by nonlocality in PP.
I clearly explained what I meant by nonlocality in PP much earlier, in my post #81: “I tend to believe that PP is the real source of nonlocality, as it states that immediately after we measure a spin projection of one particle of a singlet, the system will be in an eigenstate of that spin projection. That means that the spin projection of the second particle immediately becomes definite (assuming angular momentum conservation), no matter how far the second particle is.”

Quote Quote by Maaneli
And just so that you don't even try to BS your way out of this, let me quote myself from post #99:
"If a wavefunction psi(x1, x2, t) is not factorizable (it is entanglement in configuration space), then add in the PP and you get VBI. However, if a wavefunction psi(x1, x2, t) is factorizable (there is no entanglement in configuration space), then add in the PP (because you still have reduction of the state vector) and you do not get VBI. So it is obvious that in the first case, entanglement of wavefunctions plus PP necessarily implies VBI, and in the second case, there are factorizable wavefunctions plus PP, and no VBI is possible. The same is also true of GRW collapse QM. So which do you think is more directly relevant to the cause of VBI in standard QM? Entangled wavefunctions in configuration space or the PP? Also throw in the fact that you can eliminate PP with deBB, keep unitary evolution, and still get VBI. There is no doubt that PP is not the culprit of VBI. The PP is actually a deceptive, red herring."
Again, there is absolutely nothing in this quote confirming “that we initially agreed to assume that VBI and nonlocality meant the same thing”. Absolutely nothing. The word “nonlocality” itself is just missing, pure and simple. Some agreement indeed.
And I tried to explain to you several times that your reasoning in the quote brazenly defies logics (see, in particular, what you called a “horrible analogy”). I also dispute your phrase about dBB from the quote.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
I didn't say read dozens of articles. There are very specific references (no more than 3) I supplied you with in earlier posts and Emails that you could read.
I am not going to read those references for the purpose of this discussion until I know what exactly I am expected to find there, sorry. I believe you failed to explain how dBB and GRW are relevant to this discussion, and I tried to explain to you several times why I believe so.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
That could not be more wrong. For the millionth time, deBB and GRW are empirically equivalent to SQM, BUT THEY DO NOT SHARE THE SAME CONTRADICTIONS. You would quickly understand that if you just looked at one of the review articles on deBB or GRW theory.
OK, I have just re-read reviews by Passon (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/p.../0611032v1.pdf (Physics and Philosophy 3 (2006) ), http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/p.../0412119v2.pdf ) and, as I expected, “I did not quickly understand that”. Actually, neither quickly, nor slowly. Please tell me one thing. In your opinion, is the projection postulate an approximation from the point of view of dBB or are its experimental implications supposed to be rigorously confirmed according to dBB?
Quote Quote by Maaneli
I said plenty of times that they are empirically equivalent. For example (12 posts earlier),

"In fact I repeatedly said to consider a QMMT like deBB or GRW which are empirically equivalent to SQM, but are NOT based on ad hoc and imprecise postulates about "measurements". "
And I told you repeatedly something that can be rephrased as follows: if in such theories experimental predictions of both unitary evolution and of the projection postulate of SQM are expected to be rigorously confirmed, those theories include the contradiction between UE and PP, if such predictions are not expected to be rigorously confirmed, then those theories are not empirically equivalent to SQM.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
I have not called you names, I have curtly called you out on your obvious disingenuousness and laziness.
Yeah, sure, and you did not accuse me baselessly of dishonesty and what not. As for laziness, I don’t work for you, and you are not in a position to accuse me of it.
Frankly, I am fed up. I warn you in no uncertain term: just one more personal attack, and I’ll leave this discussion all to yourself. If you don’t want a civil discussion, I don’t want any discussion with you.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
I think the "personal insults" are perfectly justified reactions in your case.
See above.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
You don't need to be a shrink to see your obvious insecurities. Furthermore, I just have no interest in your opinion of my numerous "arguments ad hominem". As I explained, they are perfectly justifiable reactions to your outright disingenuousness and laziness. If you don't agree, too bad for you.
See above.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
Wow, how can you be so dishonest? I didn't say that deBB implies PP, I said it implies the APPEARANCE of PP. Again, you need to read a basic review article on deBB that I have supplied you with in earlier posts (or Emails) if you want to understand this point once and for all.
See above.
Quote Quote by Maaneli
No, I think the words do perfectly fit you as well. Again, I have not asked you to bend backwards, but to have the respect to at least sincerely try to understand my point of view. But it is clear to me now that you never had any intention of this and are more interested in laziness.
See above.
Maaneli
#137
Sep1-08, 06:38 PM
P: 520
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Again, there is absolutely nothing in this quote confirming “that we initially agreed to assume that VBI and nonlocality meant the same thing”. Absolutely nothing. The word “nonlocality” itself is just missing, pure and simple. Some agreement indeed. And I tried to explain to you several times that your reasoning in the quote brazenly defies logics (see, in particular, what you called a “horrible analogy”). I also dispute your phrase about dBB from the quote.
First off, it doesn't defy logic at all, and you would know that if you understood QM. Secondly, VBI obviously means the same as entanglement nonlocality. Seriously, what the hell do you think VBI means?


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I am not going to read those references for the purpose of this discussion until I know what exactly I am expected to find there, sorry. I believe you failed to explain how dBB and GRW are relevant to this discussion, and I tried to explain to you several times why I believe so.
As I said before, you have too look at the description of the theory of measurement interactions in deBB. Then you will learn why unitary evolution is preserved in deBB even during measurement interactions. And that the PP turns out to be an "effective colapse".



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
OK, I have just re-read reviews by Passon (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/p.../0611032v1.pdf (Physics and Philosophy 3 (2006) ), http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/p.../0412119v2.pdf ) and, as I expected, “I did not quickly understand that”. Actually, neither quickly, nor slowly. Please tell me one thing. In your opinion, is the projection postulate an approximation from the point of view of dBB or are its experimental implications supposed to be rigorously confirmed according to dBB?
I don't know what you mean by "approximation", but what I mean by approximation is the "effective collapse" described exactly in the Passon paper.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
And I told you repeatedly something that can be rephrased as follows: if in such theories experimental predictions of both unitary evolution and of the projection postulate of SQM are expected to be rigorously confirmed, those theories include the contradiction between UE and PP, if such predictions are not expected to be rigorously confirmed, then those theories are not empirically equivalent to SQM.
No. See the paper again.



Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Yeah, sure, and you did not accuse me baselessly of dishonesty and what not.
Yes, that's not an insult, that's what I really think.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
As for laziness, I don’t work for you, and you are not in a position to accuse me of it.
I am in every position to call it as I see it.


Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Frankly, I am fed up. I warn you in no uncertain term: just one more personal attack, and I’ll leave this discussion all to yourself. If you don’t want a civil discussion, I don’t want any discussion with you.
Frankly, I am glad you are fed up. At least this has shaken you out of your previous behaviors. Oh and I could really care less at this point if you decided to leave. If you don't want to get serious about a discussion like this, then have fun with the rest of your life.
akhmeteli
#138
Sep1-08, 06:45 PM
P: 590
Quote Quote by Maaneli View Post
Yes, that's not an insult, that's what I really think.
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
I warn you in no uncertain term: just one more personal attack, and I’ll leave this discussion all to yourself.
Have a nice day.
Maaneli
#139
Sep1-08, 09:56 PM
P: 520
Quote Quote by akhmeteli View Post
Have a nice day.
Yep, I knew you would find the slightest reason to ignore my latest arguments or look at those references. Don't be surprised from now on if you have lost all respect and integrity in the eyes of myself and other people on physics forum.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Lagrangian... anyone know their Lagrangian mechanics? Advanced Physics Homework 7
What is the difference between van der waals interaction and casimir interaction? Quantum Physics 1
Interaction lagrangian Advanced Physics Homework 0
Interaction lagrangian Quantum Physics 0
Interaction lagrangian High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics 0