Understanding Single Particle Interference in Quantum Physics

[Careful]

I took the effort of reading this publication and i did not find any clue to denies what i have said. Please, show me, in this paper, the part where you think what i have said (which is just mainstraim physics) is incorrect. Let's work with this one.

:rofl: :rofl: You must go for a career as politician : I never claimed that what you said *about QM* is wrong, just that your claims about what wave particle duality implies are. The latter paper deals with a description of the Schrodinger equation within the context of classical statistical mechanics (without Wick rotation). As I said, the author does not refer explicitely to the measurement problem here, but (a student of) Toffoli has published on that (as said before).

:rofl:

That's a bit easy no ?

Nope, I give up on hopeless cases who do nothing but insulting the other party based on a clear lack of knowledge about what has been said.

Err, the fact that it does NOT exist, maybe ?

Wrong, it is known to exist for about 100 years now : the resulting equation in EM for a particle, taking into account the coulomb selfinteraction as well as the radiative backreaction (= radiative ``self interaction'', I would have better used backreaction if you are so confused by this use of the word selfinteraction) is called the Lorentz Dirac equation.

Show me some self interacting particles in classical physics please. Again, if you make a hollow claim, please take the effort of using mainstream physical examples. Otherwise, what you say is just ...empty stuff...

I gave you already one, and I called it ``electron'' :rofl: If you want a reference : ``classical electrodynamics of retarded fields of particles'', Rivista del nuovo cimento vol 3, no 9. (1980)

No you did not, but i am giving you the chance to do that again.

Please refrain from giving yourself an imaginary mentor status : I am giving you too much chances.

That's the first time you talk about that to me. Also, regurgitating some terms is useless. What do you mean by "spinorial particles responsible for apparent duality" ? Mainstream physics only please...

Learn to read : I said that the *zitterbewegung* of spinorial particles was responsible for the apparent duality and this is a very old idea.

But again, what does this have to do with our original discussion which is limited to the original QM formalism.

No, you limited it to QM ! :grumpy:

Yeah, very clear. I am sure that if people read what you say here, your point will be sooooooo convincing.

In contrast to you, I am not trying to convince anybody of my point of view. I realize that it is still too unpolished, but on the other hand it is useful to point out where other possibilities reside which have been peer published already for many years !

Clearly, my dear friend, you are not used to real scientific discussions. You seem to be of one of them pop science guys.

:rofl: What you are doing here in this thread does not even qualify in my experience as a discussion, and certainly not as a scientific one. On the other hand, you have proven yourself not even to know about the classical origin of electromagnetic self interaction, but even worse, you straigtforwardly attack someone who is pointing this out to you. Of course this EM self interaction has not the same effect as the QM one (since the wave function is smeared out) and the latter has lead to a correct prediction of the Lamb shift amongst other things.

That's something, you see it is not so hard to swallow your proud and follow mainstream physics.

And YES, you are always talking about different interpretations while i was ONLY talking about the standard QM formalism. NO measurement problems...

I was NEVER talking about different interpretations.

WRONG. You are again mixing measurement problems with the formalism. I am not going into that again since i have been doing that ad nauseum".
marlon

You were never listening to the counter example I gave you he (the bra and ket model). Usually, when people do not know about it, they ask for references.

 

[Careful]

BUT I WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT ! How many times do i need to repeat the fact that i was NOT referring to measurement interpretations. I was ONLY talking about the standard QM formalism and i never denied there are "different views", NOTHING MORE !
marlon

First, this has nothing to do with my comment, second you were doing much more than merely mentioning the QM view.

 

[dextercioby]

Careful, i think your example/result of classical electrodynamics (Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field) is a classic one, but we know that even inside the theory, Maxwell's theory that is, we have enough reasons to refute such result since its interpretation requires violation of causality -which is a postulate of the theory (SR) generating the result in the first place. Kinda paradoxical if you think about it. I guess Marlon might say that there's no such thing as electrons in CED, because (electromagnetically interacting) electrons are a product of QED. And he wouln't be wrong.

Anyway, my opinion is that this debate isn't going anywhere and this thread should be put to rest.

Daniel.

 

[Careful]

Careful, i think your example/result of classical electrodynamics (Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field) is a classic one, but we know that even inside the theory, Maxwell's theory that is, we have enough reasons to refute such result since its interpretation requires violation of causality -which is a postulate of the theory (SR) generating the result in the first place.

You have to be careful here, the Lorentz Dirac equation does lead to superluminality *within* the particle, but there is no problem with runaway solutions, neither preaccelerations if you demand C_1 force fields (Barut has pointed that out a long while ago) as well as that the back reaction is nihil in absence of external force fields. The traditional weirdness concerning preaccelerations comes from jumps in the acceleration of the particle in which case the equation cannot be applied anyway. Moreover, as you undoubtedly know, one can solve the equation by iteration (starting from the Newtonian one) in which case one does not need to make these considerations at all.

I guess Marlon might say that there's no such thing as electrons in CED, because (electromagnetically interacting) electrons are a product of QED. And he wouln't be wrong.

I disagree here, classical texts usually do not consider the problem on purpose although there has been plenty of research on electron models especially in relation to rotating black holes (and fairly sucessfully). QED, neither first quantized Dirac Maxwell theory, solves that problem either, unless you look for soliton solutions, but that is very different from the conventional treatment.

Anyway, my opinion is that this debate isn't going anywhere and this thread should be put to rest.
Daniel.

I agree that it is leading to nothing.

 

[marlon]

:rofl: :rofl: You must go for a career as politician : I never claimed that what you said *about QM* is wrong, just that your claims about what wave particle duality implies are.

NOT AT ALL

"My claims about what particle duality implies" ? I did not say anything about that. What i originally talked about is WHY WE NEED THAT DUALITY. That is something totally different and THAT is what you are objecting against. I am willing to review all what you have said to show you where you were wrong. Because THAT is the truth and nothing more. I only talked about the standard QM formalism.

I know you are trying to get out of this by saying that this thread does not lead to anything, but you will NOT escape that easily.

Nope, I give up on hopeless cases who do nothing but insulting the other party based on a clear lack of knowledge about what has been said.

Easy, like i said before. Show me where i insulted you and i will apologize. I gave you several clear explainaitions as to why you are wrong in your assesment on the necessity of the particle wave duality.

Wrong, it is known to exist for about 100 years now : the resulting equation in EM for a particle, taking into account the coulomb selfinteraction as well as the radiative backreaction (= radiative ``self interaction'', I would have better used backreaction if you are so confused by this use of the word selfinteraction) is called the Lorentz Dirac equation.

I dont' know this. Could you give me a reference where self interaction is explained in classical physics ?

I gave you already one, and I called it ``electron'' :rofl: If you want a reference : ``classical electrodynamics of retarded fields of particles'', Rivista del nuovo cimento vol 3, no 9. (1980)

Did not find that.

To dextercioby : Hey man, i know what this guy is talking about but he is clearly mixing up stuff (like he has been doing several times in this thread). A particle moving under the influence of his own field is NOT self interaction.

Carefull, i suggest you look at how the many body Schrodinger equation is solved and you will see what self interaction means and what it is used for. Reference : anything of Density Functional Theory for example.

Please refrain from giving yourself an imaginary mentor status : I am giving you too much chances.

I am still waiting for that specific reference/ explanation.

Learn to read : I said that the *zitterbewegung* of spinorial particles was responsible for the apparent duality and this is a very old idea.

I asked you to explain what the above means. I know what you have written. You are , as always, giving me answers that have nothing to do with the actual question.

I wonder why you would do that

No, you limited it to QM ! :grumpy:

But i only talked about QM. What else is there to talk about ? Don't come with your different QM formalisms because you are violating the guidelines of this forum with that.

In contrast to you, I am not trying to convince anybody of my point of view.

The QM formalism does not have several versions. You say I impose my opinion onto thers but that is not even possible in this case. QM is NOT my opinion.

I realize that it is still too unpolished, but on the other hand it is useful to point out where other possibilities reside which have been peer published already for many years !

Measurement Problem...sigh

Irrelevant to this discussion for the obvious reasons.

On the other hand, you have proven yourself not even to know about the classical origin of electromagnetic self interaction, but even worse, you straigtforwardly attack someone who is pointing this out to you.

I suggest you read the posts of both Reilly and Dextercioby. I noticed you are disagreeing with the latter too. Do you really think I am the problem here ?

Of course this EM self interaction has not the same effect as the QM one (since the wave function is smeared out) and the latter has lead to a correct prediction of the Lamb shift amongst other things.

Clearly, you do not even know what a self interaction is. Read the post of DEXTER...He will explain to you. I have done my part.

I was NEVER talking about different interpretations.

Ha, so what is this then :

"Actually, many of my views towards QM and entanglement in particular were held by J. Bell (as I learned yesterday while reading his nouvelle cuisine) so I can hardly understand the protest."


<SIGHS BigTime>

You were never listening to the counter example I gave you he (the bra and ket model). Usually, when people do not know about it, they ask for references.

Well, and since i did not ask for references, i know about it.

marlon

 

[marlon]

First, this has nothing to do with my comment,

Why ?

second you were doing much more than merely mentioning the QM view.

What else did i add then ? Show me that.

marlon

 

[Careful]

Clearly, you do not even know what a self interaction is. Read the post of DEXTER...He will explain to you. I have done my part.

Clearly YOU don't know that and you even admitted it ! :rofl: :rofl: Dextercioby knows perfectly what I am talking about, but does not seem to be aware that the objections against the Lorentz Dirac equation have been cleared up for a while (you should let him answer). The iterative approach to the latter equation having been discussed in detail recently for point particles with higher multipole moments in a general curved spacetime background by Eric Poisson. By the way, look up the paper of Villaroel, Van Weert and Teitelboim I mentioned previously (even though you could not find it immediatly), it is the best one available on the subject.

Ha, so what is this then :

"Actually, many of my views towards QM and entanglement in particular were held by J. Bell (as I learned yesterday while reading his nouvelle cuisine) so I can hardly understand the protest."

:rofl: :rofl: Bell, my dear friend, was talking about a new THEORY, just as I am. Not some silly interpretation of quantum mechanics. You really don't know anything about this, it is that simple.

To dextercioby : Hey man, i know what this guy is talking about but he is clearly mixing up stuff (like he has been doing several times in this thread). A particle moving under the influence of his own field is NOT self interaction.

I knew you were going to say this (for the good reason that you testified to be only aware the QED story), that is why I wrote between brackets backreaction equals self interaction (missed it again he). In the first quantized Maxwell Dirac framework, you can eliminate the gauge field and write the equation entirely in terms of the current using the retarded Greens function. The self interaction therefore is expressed by a nonlocal third order nonlinear term in the wave equation. In the classical case of *point* particles, you have to be more careful since the coulomb self energy momentum tensor is not well defined on the worldline of the particle albeit the radiative energy momentum tensor is. But again, the radiative backraction is directly expressed in terms of the eigentime derivative of the acceleration of the particle in the Lorentz Dirac equation and therefore clearly is a (second order) self interaction. Similarly in the first quantized framework, the radiative corrections are third order terms in the wavefunction, therefore the word self interaction. Actually since 1900 there have been a wealth of papers on the classical theory of self interaction. You can hardly claim to know what it is when you straightforwardly deny such elementary fact.

Concerning Reilly, again let him react. His view towards QM, as expressed in his last post, is very moderate and down to earth, exactly the way you should look at QM as a theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Careful]

What else did i add then ? Show me that.
marlon

Ohw, you were merely declaring it to be the ONLY CORRECT view each time. Mentioning means that you refer to its existence, acknowledging patiently that other views might be correct.

 

[marlon]

Clearly YOU don't know that and you even admitted it ! :rofl: :rofl: Dextercioby knows perfectly what I am talking about, but does not seem to be aware that the objections against the Lorentz Dirac equation have been cleared up for a while (you should let him answer).

Dexter wrote this "Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field"

Tell me, since when is a relativistic particle described by classical physics ?

The iterative approach to the latter equation having been discussed in detail recently for point particles with higher multipole moments in a general curved spacetime background by Eric Poisson.

"A general curved spacetime background" in classical physics ?

:rofl: :rofl: Bell, my dear friend, was talking about a new THEORY, just as I am. Not some silly interpretation of quantum mechanics. You really don't know anything about this, it is that simple.

Wrong, the stuff you are referring to is NOT an new QM theory. Also, please tell me what "silly interpretation of QM" i referred to.

I knew you were going to say this (for the good reason that you testified to be only aware the QED story), that is why I wrote between brackets backreaction equals self interaction (missed it again he).

No i did not miss that, but you writing this does not change a thing.

In the first quantized Lorentz Dirac framework, you can eliminate the gauge field and write the equation entirely in terms of the current using the retarded Greens function. The self interaction therefore is expressed by a nonlocal third order nonlinear term in the wave equation.

Nice, but you were talking about CLASSICAL PHYSICS.

In the classical case of *point* particles, you have to be more careful since the coulomb self energy momentum tensor is not well defined on the worldline of the particle albeit the radiative energy momentum tensor is.

LOL

What is the "the coulomb self energy momentum tensor " in classical physics ?
What is a world line in classical physics ?

But again, the radiative backraction is directly expressed in terms of the eigentime derivative of the acceleration of the particle in the Lorentz Dirac equation and therefore clearly is a (second order) self interaction.

Eigentime ? :rofl: In classical physics ?

Concerning Reilly, again let him react. His view towards QM, as expressed in his last post, is very moderate and down to earth, exactly the way you should look at QM as a theory. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ofcourse, the very same vision as i have and as i have always defended. That is exactly why he wrote : "marlon has been doing the heavy lifting, and doing it well." in post nr 65.


Besides, i am still waiting for your answers to my questions. Also, i was under the impression that we were going to discuss the content of the reference YOU provided and that i have read. Remember "Random walks, continuum limits and Schrodingers equation, Phys Rev A, Vol 54, number 5, 1996
"? Post nr 69 ?

marlon

 

[marlon]

Ohw, you were merely declaring it to be the ONLY CORRECT view each time. Mentioning means that you refer to its existence, acknowledging patiently that other views might be correct.

First of all, that is NOT adding stuff.
Secondly, just like Reilly i look at the QM formalism and only that. Nobody can deny the content (the math etc etc) of that formalism, as i have explained you. You denied this, which implies you think there is another QM formalism starting from other axioms etc etc. Tell me, what is that ?


marlon

 

[Careful]

Dexter wrote this "Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field"

All the more surprising then that you did not get it at that moment.

Tell me, since when is a relativistic particle described by classical physics ?

"A general curved spacetime background" in classical physics ?

This is just hilarious :
(a) apart from the fact that I was taking EM as an example in my last (4 ?) posts, which automatically implies special relativity, it is clearly falling under classical physics. The same with ``curved spacetime background'', why do you think we speak about classical general relativity ?

(b) more funny is the fact that in order to make my point about the backreaction, I don't need special relativity at all. I could take the ``non-relativistic limit´´ of the Maxwell equations in the Lorentz gauge and retain in my formulation only the spacelike indices, this would give diffusion like equations of the form:
$$\partial_t A_i - \partial_{x^j} \partial_{x_j} A_i = \alpha J_i$$
where $$J_i$$ is the three current. Instead of the retarded Green's function, I would have to use the appropriate kernel for the diffusion equation. Likewise, I could treat the particle as a nonrelativistic one.

Wrong, the stuff you are referring to is NOT an new QM theory. Also, please tell me what "silly interpretation of QM" i referred to.

:rofl: You still misread people, I said : ``I was TALKING about a new theory´´. Whether you do consider these references as a new QM theory or not is an entirely different matter. I do consider the Toffoli construction as new in a sense that almost all single events are corresponding to different configurations, there are new unobserved players on the scene, the kets and bra's , and particles are emergent concepts rather than fundamental ones. Moreover, Toffoli did not offer (like anyone so far) an acceptable theory of ``entanglement'' (you might know that I do not consider exact entanglement a necessity), so the multiparticle problem is still open in these models as far as I am concerned and it is here where a difference will be made. Moreover, you did not refer to any specific interpretation of QM, but you keep on wrongly assuming that I am talking about some interpretation.

The papers I referred you to all indeed reproduce the Schrodinger equation at a fairly immediate level. But for that, they can be hardly blamed for, it is immensly difficult to do better !

Ofcourse, the very same vision as i have and as i have always defended. That is exactly why he wrote : "marlon has been doing the heavy lifting, and doing it well." in post nr 65.

No, no, let Reilly reply !

Besides, i am still waiting for your answers to my questions. Also, i was under the impression that we were going to discuss the content of the reference YOU provided and that i have read. Remember "Random walks, continuum limits and Schrodingers equation, Phys Rev A, Vol 54, number 5, 1996
"

No, I was not going to discuss that, it merely served as a counterexample, in the sense referred to above, to your extravagant claims that QM would be the only answer to all of this (and your erroneous statements that the measurement problem and wave particle duality are independent problems while I was talking about these outside the context of QM). If you ask me whether I am happy about the ``answers'' in these papers, then the answer is for sure negative. They form a careful beginning for what might lead to something very different (as is for sure the author's intention and partial realisation), but the latter will clearly ask a much more difficult analysis. Nevertheless, they constitute an interesting read.

 

[Careful]

You denied this, which implies you think there is another QM formalism starting from other axioms etc etc. Tell me, what is that ?
marlon

I never denied what you said is incorrect within the context of the standard QM formalism and I repeated this several times ! :grumpy: :grumpy: All my comments and observations concerning wave particle duality were made outside the context of QM which is entirely legitimate given the importance of the orginal thought experiments regarding single particle self interference vis a vis the foundations of QM. But you simply cannot constrain your blood when you meet a comment which is contradicting what you said, you take this at the most simple level possible and see it as a direct negation of what you said rather than a logical possibility assuming that you forget about QM for a moment (not about wave particle duality of course). I literally said a few times that you had to look at my comments in this way ...

 

[marlon]

This is just hilarious :
(a) apart from the fact that I was taking EM as an example in my last (4 ?) posts, which automatically implies special relativity, it is clearly falling under classical physics. The same with ``curved spacetime background'', why do you think we speak about classical general relativity ?

You were talking about <quote>"self interaction in classical physics"<end quote>. Now you talk about classical general relativity ? Please, just admit you made a mistale there because if you start saying things that imply classical physics = GR, you are just making fun of yourself. Do you really think people will not notice that ?

At least, i am already glad you dropped terums like eigen time and world lines. Good Job !

(b) I could take the ``non-relativistic limit´´ of the Maxwell equations in the Lorentz gauge and retain in my formulation only the spacelike indices, this would give diffusion like equations of the form:
$$\partial_t A_i - \partial_{x^j} \partial_{x_j} A_i = \alpha J_i$$
where $$J_i$$ is the three current.

Ahh, now THAT's classical physics. Please, explain me where we have self interaction here. How is it described ?

:rofl: You still misread people, I said : ``I was TALKING about a new theory´´. Whether you do consider these references as a new QM theory or not is an entirely different matter.

But who says this is a new theory ? Who ? You ? Where is the proof ?

I do consider the Toffoli construction as new in a sense that almost all single events are corresponding to different configurations, there are new unobserved players on the scene, the kets and bra's , and particles are emergent concepts rather than fundamental ones.

I am not denying all that, but again, what does this have to do with you saying that "my vision of QM" is wrong ? You keep saying that the stuff i said on the duality is wrong. Reread your very first posts in which you replied to me.

No, no, let Reilly reply !

He will reply if he wants to, no problem, but i ask you AGAIN : why do YOU think he wrote that "marlon has been doing the heavy lifting, and doing it well." In post nr 65. He wrote this AFTER he read my posts in which i explained the (standard) QM formalism and the link to the duality. If i was so completely wrong, like you suggest, do you really think he would have written that ? Please, be honest for once.

No, I was not going to discuss that, it merely served as a counterexample, in the sense referred to above,

A counterexample which you do not want to discuss . You have a very strange way of behaving in a discussion. Also, i read the Phys. Rev. paper i mentioned and i stated that the content does NOT correspond to what you have said. You are not even going to react and start a discussion based upon a PEER REVIEWED PAPER ? Why o why is that ? Could it be that you just gave the reference but that you actually have no idea as to what is in that paper ?

(and your erroneous statements that the measurement problem and wave particle duality are independent problems while I was talking about these outside the context of QM).

Ohhh :rofl:, you are clearly twisting and turning your way out, no ?

First of all, i never said they were independent problems. What i said was this : the duality is one of the first steps (not to say the first together with the probability nature of atomic scaled phenomena) towards building the QM formalism. Check any QM intro textbook and tell me what comes first : the duality or the measurement problem? <this is a retorical question>

If you ask me whether I am happy about the ``answers'' in these papers, then the answer is for sure negative.

Fine but what i wanted to know is this : show me , from this paper, that what i have said on the duality is WRONG. remember that THAT was the reason you quoted these papers in post nr 64 (reread if you don't believe me). Give some proofs for your claims.

Besides, you forgot to add some reasons why you should not be happy with the content of this paper.
marlon

 

[marlon]

I never denied what you said is incorrect within the context of the standard QM formalism and I repeated this several times !

Please, Careful, this is getting awkward. Reread what you wrote in :

1) post nr 34 : you started by violating the standard QM view (as described by the standard formalism) on the duality

2) post nr 36 and 37 the very same thing as in 1)

3) post nr 40, your response to eep : you contradict the standard view as to why there is the duality

4) post nr 42,43 : again a response to eep (who was correct, you were wrong just like in 3)) : you deny the standard view and the definition on wavelike behaviour

5) post nr 44, the stuff on interference. Actually, this is also what Reilly objected against.


6) It goes on and on and on...

:grumpy: :grumpy: All my comments and observations concerning wave particle duality were made outside the context of QM which is entirely legitimate

i know that is what you are claiming but i am still waiting for proof. AND I WANNA BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT PROOF. Just some references that i can read, but to which you do not want to react is USELESS.

Don't just give references to "appear smart"

But you simply cannot constrain your blood when you meet a comment which is contradicting what you said,

But you do NOT provide me with proof to convince me. What do you expect ?

Besides, you are saying again "a comment that is contradicting what i said". I do not get that for THIS REASON :

You agreed with the fact that i only talked about the standard formalism and you also agree (luckily) with the content of that standard QM formalism, like you wrote youself so do not deny it, but how can there be comments that contradict that formalism with which YOU agree ?

you take this at the most simple level possible and see it as a direct negation of what you said rather than a logical possibility assuming that you forget about QM for a moment (not about wave particle duality of course).

I do not understand what you mean here.

I literally said a few times that you had to look at my comments in this way ...

Science does not work like that. Only accepted theories will do...

marlon

 

[Careful]

Very short, since you do not know how and when to quit.

Please, Careful, this is getting awkward. Reread what you wrote in :

1) post nr 34 : you started by violating the standard QM view (as described by the standard formalism) on the duality

2) post nr 36 and 37 the very same thing as in 1)

3) post nr 40, your response to eep : you contradict the standard view as to why there is the duality

4) post nr 42,43 : again a response to eep (who was correct, you were wrong just like in 3)) : you deny the standard view and the definition on wavelike behaviour

5) post nr 44, the stuff on interference. Actually, this is also what Reilly objected against.

YES, so I contradict the standard view. And how is this in logical contradiction to my assertion that within the standard view, I agree what you said is correct (in either I agree that you are telling the textbook stuff correctly) ?! :grumpy: :grumpy:

i know that is what you are claiming but i am still waiting for proof. AND I WANNA BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT PROOF. Just some references that i can read, but to which you do not want to react is USELESS.

But, this is just amazing, I have shortly given my comments on that paper and I have said at least two times that finding a proof for the single particle self interaction picture is going to be extremely hard. But that hardly implies that it is wrong ! It took the atomic picture more than 2300 years to come to some stage of development, starting from the ideas of democritos in 400 BC.
Second, one post ago, you showed not to understand classical self interaction yet, and now you are proclaiming that you know what I have in mind. :-))

Learn to read, my friend. That is all I can say. As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, it is getting worse again.

This conversation is over, you did not do anything but ranting about something I never said, you made blatant mistakes about self interaction, your comments about what classical physics is supposed to be are just ridiculous and you still did not get it how self interaction will also show up in the nonrelativistic limit I described you above (hint : you will probably end up with the non relativistic limit of the Lorentz Dirac equation which is also of third order in time).

And now, you are trying to hold me responsible for something I never said ! Tssss... never learned in class that the small letters always matter? Because, that is the first thing I remembered ! As I said before to some, it is not because you defend or proclaim the standard view that you cannot be held responsible for it. Should I each time say to people : ``ohw, now you did the respectable job of correctly repeating what is in the textbooks, now we are going to discuss that what is in the textbooks is really correct/the best way to go´´. Now, if I think that the standard textbook material is not the best way to go in the long run (which is basically what fundamental research is about, done by many at the finest institutes), then I proclaim that I think you are wrong, since you are basically telling it to me (and of course I give motivations for it). This is *exactly* the way how scientific discussion works.

 

[marlon]

YES, so I contradict the standard view.

No, you are contradicting the Qm formalism. That is what i am trying to tell you. In my previous post, i gave references to your own posts. Did you not read them ?

I agree what you said is correct (in either I agree that you are telling the textbook stuff correctly) ?! :grumpy: :grumpy:

Talking about a U-TURN.

Please, drop the childish emoticons because they have no influence. I took the effort of rereading this ENTIRE thread and look for your objections against what i said. I gave the specific references denoting the numbers of the posts in which you claim what i said is incorrect.

But, this is just amazing, I have shortly given my comments on that paper

No you did not. I invited you several times to discuss the content of this Phys Rev paper and you keep on refusing. When you quote a paper, just giving "your views" really is not good enough. Especially when your views contradict with that paper.

and I have said at least two times that finding a proof for the single particle self interaction picture is going to be extremely hard.

That proof has already been found. emember the original discussion in this thread ?

But that hardly implies that it is wrong !

Nor that it's correct.

Second, one post ago, you showed not to understand classical self interaction yet, and now you are proclaiming that you know what I have in mind. :-))

Oww ? How did i show that ? Again, you accuse me of ranting but the only YOU do is say "Well marlon YOU ARE WRONG, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS AND THAT"...Explain what you mean otherwise you look stupid.

Learn to read, my friend. That is all I can say.

Really, well, that does not sound very convincing.

As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, it is getting worse again.

That's all you have to say about that ? How about answering my questions, huh ? Or why else, d you bother to reply ? I suggest you reread your last post and LOOK a what you are really saying. It sure ain't much.

This conversation is over,

:rofl:

BRAVO

you did not do anything but ranting about something I never said,

Ohh c'mon man, read my TWO LAST POSTS. I explained WHY YOU WERE WRONG. Don't react in suc a childish way.

you made blatant mistakes about self interaction,

Well, correct me then. If i don't understand something or people tell me i am wrong, ok, but at least take the effort of explaining to me the correct version. I asked you this concerning YOUR OWN WORDS :

1) "Abraham-Lorentz-Dirac theory of a relativistic electrically charged particle moving under the action of its own generated em field"

Tell me, since when is a relativistic particle described by classical physics ?

2) The iterative approach to the latter equation having been discussed in detail recently for point particles with higher multipole moments in a general curved spacetime background by Eric Poisson.

question : "A general curved spacetime background" in classical physics ?

3) In the first quantized Lorentz Dirac framework, you can eliminate the gauge field and write the equation entirely in terms of the current using the retarded Greens function. The self interaction therefore is expressed by a nonlocal third order nonlinear term in the wave equation.

question : first quantisation in classical physcs ?

4) In the classical case of *point* particles, you have to be more careful since the coulomb self energy momentum tensor is not well defined on the worldline of the particle albeit the radiative energy momentum tensor is.

question : What is the "the coulomb self energy momentum tensor " in classical physics ? What is a world line in classical physics ?

5)But again, the radiative backraction is directly expressed in terms of the eigentime derivative of the acceleration of the particle in the Lorentz Dirac equation and therefore clearly is a (second order) self interaction.

question : Eigentime ? In classical physics ?


Finally, SHOW ME THE FORMULA OF THIS CLASSICAL SELF INTERACTION ? Why won't you just do that ?

your comments about what classical physics is supposed to be are just ridiculous

Keeps gettin' better and better. What is classical physics then ?

and you still did not get it how self interaction will also show up in the nonrelativistic limit I described you above (hint : you will probably end up with the non relativistic limit of the Lorentz Dirac equation which is also of third order in time).

Indeed, I DO NOT GET THAT. Show me the formula's that describe this self interaction. Don't just talk about it, show us proof.

And now, you are trying to hold me responsible for something I never said ! Tssss...

Ofcourse not, where do you get that ?

Should I each time say to people : ``ohw, now you did the respectable job of correctly repeating what is in the textbooks, now we are going to discuss that what is in the textbooks is really correct/the best way to go´´.

Great, but what i also did was correcting stuff that YOU claimed and that VIOLATES the content of the textbook stuff. I really think you first need to restudy (or study for the first time) the actual standard textbook stuff because if you reread what you wrote in your posts nr 34,36,37,40,42,43,44 you clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Now, if I think that the standard textbook material is not the best way to go in the long run (which is basically what fundamental research is about, done by many at the finest institutes),

But those institutes come up with proof for what they say or they shut up. Also, they do not violate the standard textbook stuff like you.

then I proclaim that I think you are wrong, since you are basically telling it to me (and of course I give motivations for it). This is *exactly* the way how scientific discussion works.

What am i telling to you ? You wrote :

"Now, if I think that the standard textbook material is not the best way to go in the long run ,then I proclaim that I think you are wrong, since you are basically telling it to me (and of course I give motivations for it). This is *exactly* the way how scientific discussion works)."

I don't get this line ?

1) Why am i wrong
2) What am i telling to you ?

Please, stop using the "it" and "that" and use the actual antecedents in stead. People will far better understand what you are talking about.

Hey, and i am still waiting for my answers (for the 5th time :rofl:)

marlon

 

[vanesch]

Ok, this flaming has been lasting too long. This is not productive anymore, so this thread is done.