lalbatros
- 1,247
- 2
Ok Anonym, as I can see you are more interrested in sociology than in physics.
Anonym said:You forget that you ask to explain the content of the paper published in PRL, October 2006. It is the frontier of the modern physics.
.
lalbatros said:Ok Anonym, as I can see you are more interrested in sociology than in physics.
Viva-Diva said:Wow that makes me happy as I fished out that paper even though I am not a science person. Did you know about this paper already before?
Viva-Diva said:why weren't you aware of it? Being a scientist, don't you keep track of latest litrature?
Anonym said:I try. My research interests now in the relativistic QM and the measurement theory (information). I missed it. A posteriori it is obvious that we should look on fluids first of all. They describe also something totally unexpected and I should return to study hydrodynamics. However, it is better late than never.
lalbatros said:I specially like the Landau & Lifchitz series that I read several time in detail during my engineering hobby time.Other books are Jackson, gravitation by MTW, Weinberg, ...
Twenty years ago I read the collection of papers in "Quantum theory and Measurement" edited by Wheeler.
lalbatros said:This is actually the point of view developped by Landau & Lifchitz in the introductory chapter 7 of "Quantum mechanics".
LinJieFu said:Can anyone help me with this? If so, please do. If you have a paper or text to point me to, that would be great. Here goes: When a double slit experiment with respect to single particle interference is conducted, and only one particle is emitted for the entire event, what is the observed result that suggests that a single particle has interfered with itself?