Recent content by jeffn1

I need to understand MWI better. To the extent it really requires universes to come into existence every time there is a quantum collapse, I would pass. How many gazillions of universes have to be created in my little office every time a photon hits a wall? Are these universes comparable to...

I'll dig into the book more. (I'm reading it occasionally and slowly). I suspect it doesn't make the math easier. The comparison to Newtonian and relatavistic physics may be apt here too. In a typical case on earth classical Newtonian physics will get you the answer easier. So, where you are not...

I'll try to find the exact quote. In the Introduction, p. xiii of Fields and their Quanta, Hobson writes: "Chapter 4 discusses wave-particle duality and the meaning of the quantum state. It explains the famous 2-slit experiment that Richard Feynman urged students not to think about because...

When applied to the physical universe, it seems to me the concept requires some sense of continuity of the "thing" considered infinite. For example up until the '60s, we thought our Milky Way Galaxy was "the universe". And people argued that it was "infinite". Then we realized the we inhabit a...

My $.02 for what its worth: The term "observer" has caused so much confusion. The word "observer" implies a conscious, biological entity looking at a result. Art Hobson emphasizes that wave function collapse and measurement are entirely physical, mind-independent processes. For Hobson, a...

My impression is, for practicing physicists, the major difference between ordinary quantum physics and quantum field theory is the relativistic component. But, I think there is a very big difference in terms quantum interpretations. From a big picture perspective, things tend to make "more...

I am curious whether undergrad physics students take courses on the philosophy of science. For example, does your syllabus include reading the seminal book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Physics is sort of the cutting edge for these type of issues. Of course, Newton...

If you buy into the QFT notion of non-local fields, it makes sense that quantum entanglement is a result of the interaction with those non-local fields.

I tend to think entanglement is the result of (let's say) infinite quantum fields, with the caveat that whatever we (think) we know is always tentative. I tend to think classical physics is to general relativity as quantum mechanics is to quantum field theory. I just picked up a copy of Art...

I suppose I have tended view a central component of QFT the (assertedly) infinite (but at least, non-local) nature of quantum fields. So, once I bought into QFT, it did not seem "weird" to apply it to entangled particles. I am curious if any cares to comment on this statement: Because QFT...

I think I am saying the same thing Bhoppa is saying (and, I suspect, the book he linked). He said QFT treats two entangled particles as a single particle. Since quantum fields are non-local (infinite, it is often said), the correlations within the two-particle structure remain even if they are...

Bill, any additional thoughts or articles on how quantum fields may explain (non-local) entanglement would be much appreciated. I tend to suspect this is the case. But, I have not found much literature explaining non-local entanglement by referring to QFT. To me (non physicist enthusiast in...

There is no consciousness here (I would argue). The entangled particle are correlated. I am curious about other peoples theories of how they remain correlated even when separated by billions of miles. Most of what I have read just says, they act "as one particle". But, this is not satisfying...

Is light "a quantum field" or is it more accurate to say it is an "excitation in a quantum field"? (Specifically, the electromagnetic field).

My impression is, at a quantum level, all fundamental "particles" are really waves. According to Quantum Field Theory, all fundamental particles are merely excitations of their underlying quantum field. But, I tend to think there is a better case for viewing fundamental particles as...