I Objective Wave Function and Non-locality

  • Thread starter lucas_
  • Start date
25,267
6,400
gauge transformations alter the wave function, but only in the mathematics, not in the physics
Yes. Gauge transformations transform between different mathematical representations of the same physics.

so gauge transformations are not in any way related to non-local correlations?
They're certainly not in conflict with them.
 
25,267
6,400
So QFT doesn't allow any superluminal signaling. Does this mean QM also doesn't allow it
Non-relativistic QM can't even model the question. If you're trying to investigate whether or not superluminal signaling occurs, you should not be using non-relativistic QM. Non-relativistic QM is just an approximation to QFT, and cases where the possibility of superluminal signaling is an issue are outside the domain of validity of that approximation.
 
335
15
Non-relativistic QM can't even model the question. If you're trying to investigate whether or not superluminal signaling occurs, you should not be using non-relativistic QM. Non-relativistic QM is just an approximation to QFT, and cases where the possibility of superluminal signaling is an issue are outside the domain of validity of that approximation.
But there are models where QM is more fundamental than QFT.
See https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/volovik-vs-witten-vs-wen-etc.974294/

In standard quantum theory. Why do you say "Non-relativistic QM can't even model the question". But for model where condense matter physics like thing is more fundamental. Then
Non-relativistic QM can indeed even model the question (see for example Nikolic paper in the thread above), right?
 
25,267
6,400
there are models where QM is more fundamental than QFT
These are all speculative hypotheses and have no evidence in their favor.

In standard quantum theory. Why do you say "Non-relativistic QM can't even model the question".
Because it can't. Standard non-relativistic QM is not the same as the speculative models you refer to.
 
335
15
These are all speculative hypotheses and have no evidence in their favor.



Because it can't. Standard non-relativistic QM is not the same as the speculative models you refer to.
Ok. Standard non-relativistic QM deals with electrons while some condense matter theorists use non-relativistic QM not for electrons but for not yet detected fundamental particles. Now it is clearer.

About QFT. Usually you use QFT when dealing with particles at relativistic speed or high energy like in LHC. But for very small scale. One automatically needs relativistic quantum theory? I know very small scale corresponds to high energy. But if one is not talking about high energy but just wants to describe the very small scale. One automatically needs relativistic QT already? What has relativistic got to do with small scale (if high energy is not being described)?
 
25,267
6,400
for very small scale. One automatically needs relativistic quantum theory?
Yes, because to probe small scales experimentally you need high energy particles, i.e., relativistic particles (particles whose total energy is much higher than their rest energy).
 
335
15
Yes, because to probe small scales experimentally you need high energy particles, i.e., relativistic particles (particles whose total energy is much higher than their rest energy).
Yes. This is if the probes are electrons or ordinary particles. But in beyond the standard model such as Nikolic's (and Wen's?) fundamental particles in condense matter analogy. It doesn't necessarily mean high energy particles were required to probe them? At least just wanting to know in principle if in beyond standard model. It is possible to have very small particles at small scale that doesn't require high energy probes (non-ordinary particles). If it's more appropriate to response this in the BSM forum. Then better because I want to know the answer to this.
 
25,267
6,400
This is if the probes are electrons or ordinary particles.
What else can we probe with?

in beyond the standard model
Discussions of such speculative hypotheses belong in the same forum as the other thread you linked to: the Beyond the Standard Model forum. Not this one.
 
25,267
6,400
The OP question has been addressed. Thread closed.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top