- #1
UglyDuckling
- 39
- 0
In the Compton Effect Revisited The Proper Interval Locality Interpretation (http://www.electrodynamics-of-special-relativity.com/Compton-Effect ) we showed that a zero interval strike from a bound electron in a remote quantum system was the equivalent of being struck locally by a photon since the energy and the momentum delivered by the photon or the remote quantum system are related by:
E = Pc where c is the speed of light.
We argued that the Compton effect by itself does not allow us to distinguish between these two possibilities. Only by examining the interference and entanglement effects can we interpret proper interval locality as the preferred model for the propagation of light.
This argument was severely criticised by the members of Physics forums for lacking meat and not walking the walk with respect to the dynamics of the zero interval interpretation. My view at the time was that it was necessary only to simultaneously conserve the energy and momentum and as the energy momentum relationship was identical to that for the photon then the dynamics will be identical to the standard theory. For the Compton effect only the interpretation differs.
My argument was when interference and entanglement are considered along side experiments that seem to indicate the corpuscular nature of light then proper interval locality provides a more general self-consistent theory of light.
My assumption that it was obvious that proper interval locality dynamics for the Compton effect reduces to standard QM, was a mistake and clearly adversely affected the credibility of the argument. That is a pity since PIL appears to be a beautiful solution to the inconsistencies between Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
On a lighter note to the question.
“Who is TD”
My reply can be found at: -
http://www.electrodynamics-of-special-relativity.com/Modern-Physics-view-from-the-duckpond
All the action is beneath the surface.
UD
E = Pc where c is the speed of light.
We argued that the Compton effect by itself does not allow us to distinguish between these two possibilities. Only by examining the interference and entanglement effects can we interpret proper interval locality as the preferred model for the propagation of light.
This argument was severely criticised by the members of Physics forums for lacking meat and not walking the walk with respect to the dynamics of the zero interval interpretation. My view at the time was that it was necessary only to simultaneously conserve the energy and momentum and as the energy momentum relationship was identical to that for the photon then the dynamics will be identical to the standard theory. For the Compton effect only the interpretation differs.
My argument was when interference and entanglement are considered along side experiments that seem to indicate the corpuscular nature of light then proper interval locality provides a more general self-consistent theory of light.
My assumption that it was obvious that proper interval locality dynamics for the Compton effect reduces to standard QM, was a mistake and clearly adversely affected the credibility of the argument. That is a pity since PIL appears to be a beautiful solution to the inconsistencies between Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
On a lighter note to the question.
“Who is TD”
My reply can be found at: -
http://www.electrodynamics-of-special-relativity.com/Modern-Physics-view-from-the-duckpond
All the action is beneath the surface.
UD
Last edited by a moderator: