A Interesting Paper On QFT and Quantum Measuremets

[bhobba]

I recently came across the following paper on QFT and Quantum Measurements.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.0205

I have read it, but it may not be legit as it seems to accept the idea of virtual particles, which I find somewhat problematic, as discussed before.

Before reaching any conclusions, I would be interested in others' views.

Thanks
Bill

 

[gentzen]

I have read it, but it may not be legit as it seems to accept the idea of virtual particles, which I find somewhat problematic, as discussed before.

It is not legit, and I guess you already knew that. Take for example

For example, in quantum electrodynamics (QED), the Dirac field and the electromagnetic field are operators (see, eg. [11]). These operators satisfy the coupled system of equations of motion of QED. These equations can be written as follows:
Dirac eq. for phi (1)
conj. Dirac eq. for phibar (2)
Wave eq. for A_u (3)
...
Because this system of equations of motion do not permit an exact solution, it is solved approximately by the method of perturbation theory on the existing small dimensionless parameter α = 1/137 (the fine-structure constant). An important property of such a system is its non-linearity.

Despite writing "the Dirac field and the electromagnetic field are operators" the electromagnetic field is represented by its classical vector potential here. These are not "the coupled system of equations of motion of QED". Such a system doesn't exist, and certainly not in such a simple naive way. Maybe you can interpret this system as a semiclassical approximation for a single electron+EM field in vacuum. The non-linearity appears because of this approximation using the classical EM field, and especially because of the "distance measure" used to judge the accuracy of this approximation.

 

[Vanadium 50]

That paper has been on the archive for 11 years without being published or cited. That alone should tell you it's crap.

The title of this thread says this is "interesting". What is interesting about "unaffiliated researcher posts some hogwash"?

 

[bhobba]

That paper has been on the archive for 11 years without being published or cited. That alone should tell you it's crap.
The title of this thread says this is "interesting". What is interesting about "unaffiliated researcher posts some hogwash"?

That is my bad. You are correct, and apologies to everyone.

After reading your reply, I considered deleting my post, but I will leave it up as an example of being more careful.

My issue was it used virtual particles, which, of course, is just language for the Dyson perturbative expansion.

Thanks
Bill

 

[Vanadium 50]

My issue was it used virtual particles

It doesn't use anything! It's babble. It's not part of the scientific discussion, just something that someone managed to sneak on the arXiv. There is nothing that can reasonably discussed.

 

[Demystifier]

The paper is obviously wrong. It says that QFT is not linear, which is wrong. The QFT state in the Hilbert space evolves linearly, as in any other quantum theory.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The paper is obviously wrong

Is it? Or is it obviously "not even wrong"?

 

[DrChinese]

On any paper purporting to “solve” a particular issue in QM, I always look for their treatment of entangled systems - preferably those involving swapping. That sets a high bar, because many hypotheses won’t translate to such systems at all. Even papers that touch on entanglement simply hand wave away the obvious problems.

The cited paper doesn’t address collapse in entangled systems; they present serious problems when attempting to describe when collapse occurs and how correlations appear.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am puzzled as to why this thread is still open. What is left to discuss?

 

[Nugatory]

I am puzzled as to why this thread is still open. What is left to discuss?

We’re having more fun with the badness of the paper than we ever could have from the paper itself.

 

[Vanadium 50]

While I agree that the paper is pretty awful, it wouldn't even be in the top half on ViXra.