Register to reply 
QED Lagrangian lead to selfinteraction? 
Share this thread: 
#127
Aug2808, 12:52 PM

P: 520




#128
Aug2808, 11:58 PM

P: 590




#129
Aug2908, 01:58 AM

P: 590

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


#130
Aug2908, 04:28 AM

P: 520

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 halfbaked speculations about this. 


#131
Aug2908, 05:02 AM

P: 520

I 


#132
Aug3008, 01:49 AM

P: 590




#133
Aug3008, 03:20 AM

P: 590

If I misrepresented your views, that was not deliberate. As for your comments on my integrity, I reject them as baseless. 


#134
Sep108, 02:27 AM

P: 520

Yes it is clear cut. In quantum mechanics (NOT QED), there is no renormalization, and yet the entanglement nonlocality of the singletstate is perfectly well describe. Even in nonrelativistic QED, renormalization is not at all relevant to describing the singletstate. 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. 


#135
Sep108, 03:11 AM

P: 520

"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. "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. 


#136
Sep108, 05:23 PM

P: 590

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. 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. 


#137
Sep108, 06:38 PM

P: 520




#138
Sep108, 06:45 PM

P: 590




#139
Sep108, 09:56 PM

P: 520




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 