(May 28, 2017 05:09 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I do make errors on occasion, just not against you on physics...or much else.
Or so you thought.
(May 27, 2017 02:03 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Bosons, like photons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, which is what keeps fermions, such as electrons, from occupying the same quantum state as the same time. But time in quantum mechanics is an absolute, so there is no sense in which different times could interact. Time is an a priori given that quantum states are calculated from.
From Wikipedia…
"Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity. It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position.
Absolute time and space were superseded by the notion of spacetime in special relativity, and curved spacetime in general relativity.
Special relativity can be combined with quantum mechanics to form relativistic quantum mechanics and Quantum electrodynamics. It is an unsolved problem in physics how general relativity and quantum mechanics can be unified, but quantum electrodynamics accounts for special relativity.
In relativistic mechanics, the spatial coordinates and coordinate time are not absolute."
(May 28, 2017 05:41 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (May 28, 2017 05:09 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, I do make errors on occasion, just not against you on physics...or much else.
Or so you thought.
(May 27, 2017 02:03 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Bosons, like photons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, which is what keeps fermions, such as electrons, from occupying the same quantum state as the same time. But time in quantum mechanics is an absolute, so there is no sense in which different times could interact. Time is an a priori given that quantum states are calculated from.
From Wikipedia…
"Special relativity implies a wide range of consequences, which have been experimentally verified, including length contraction, time dilation, relativistic mass, mass–energy equivalence, a universal speed limit and relativity of simultaneity. It has replaced the conventional notion of an absolute universal time with the notion of a time that is dependent on reference frame and spatial position.
Absolute time and space were superseded by the notion of spacetime in special relativity, and curved spacetime in general relativity.
Special relativity can be combined with quantum mechanics to form relativistic quantum mechanics and Quantum electrodynamics. It is an unsolved problem in physics how general relativity and quantum mechanics can be unified, but quantum electrodynamics accounts for special relativity.
In relativistic mechanics, the spatial coordinates and coordinate time are not absolute."
Silly girl. Now go look up what I actually said, e.g. "in quantum mechanics". See, you had to combine SR to arrive at quantum electrodynamics to not have absolute time. So either you don't understand time in quantum mechanics, conflate QM with QED, or you're willfully dishonest in your desperate attempt to show me up. Either way, please stop shoving your foot in your mouth.
Neither does QED absolve your nonsense that "light is...everywhere at once". Since special relativity only predicts differing rates of time, not intersections of actual different times (which would violate the light cone of possible interactions), there is no sense in which light is "everywhere at once" nor can the "same particles from different times [exist] at same time".
You can stop digging the hole you're in, unless, to mix metaphors, you're really determined to get our knee down your gullet...
(May 28, 2017 07:46 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Silly girl. Now go look up what I actually said, e.g. "in quantum mechanics". See, you had to combine SR to arrive at quantum electrodynamics to not have absolute time. So either you don't understand time in quantum mechanics, conflate QM with QED, or you're willfully dishonest in your desperate attempt to show me up. Either way, please stop shoving your foot in your mouth.
Silly boy, tricks are for kids. Now go back and look at what I said.
(May 22, 2017 08:01 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (May 22, 2017 06:42 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]SS.....Always liked TED. O'Connell like many others talks about particles being in two places at the same time. What about same particles from different times existing at same time? (Not sure if I'm phrasing this correctly, hope you get my drift)
Yep, photons.
(May 23, 2017 02:59 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Nah, relativity and Feynman’s QED.
The indeterminacy of the path is realized by a quantum particle existing in all possible paths simultaneously, or metaphorically speaking, the single particle simultaneously take all possible paths.
I have few…um…so-called spiritual friends. I just came up with it to put it on candles for gifts.
(May 27, 2017 02:03 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Bosons, like photons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, which is what keeps fermions, such as electrons, from occupying the same quantum state as the same time. But time in quantum mechanics is an absolute, so there is no sense in which different times could interact. Time is an a priori given that quantum states are calculated from.
What is a non-sequitur, Syne? Isn’t it a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it? A conclusion that does not logically follow from the previous statements? So, your statement is a non-sequitur, is it not?
SS, aside from the fact that I never replied to that later post of yours, actual particles do not take all paths simultaneously (only their wavefunction can be thought to). You're just making useless excuses trying to justify your previous nonsense. It's not working, deary.
And you're only illustrating your intellectual dishonesty by pretending that my post was a reply to the one you quoted...making your claim of non-sequitur a transparent lie.
You're so hung up on showing me up or something that you can't even seem to admit that even QED doesn't allow the nonsense you spouted. You just seem to quote things you don't understand and make suppositions unsupported by them. Sad really.
But keep going....you're well past your ankle by now.
(May 28, 2017 10:21 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]But keep going....you're well past your ankle by now.
(May 27, 2017 02:03 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Bosons, like photons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, which is what keeps fermions, such as electrons, from occupying the same quantum state as the same time.But time in quantum mechanics is an absolute, so there is no sense in which different times could interact. Time is an a priori given that quantum states are calculated from.
Isn’t Pauli’s Exclusion Principle a consequence of unifying special relativity and quantum theory?
"Pauli observed that relativistic quantum field theory requires that particles with half-integer spin (s=1/2, 3/2, ...) must have antisymmetric wave functions and particles with integer spin (s=0, 1, ...) must have symmetric wave functions. Such observation is usually introduced as an additional postulate of quantum mechanics: The wave function of a system of electrons must be antisymmetric with respect to interchange of any two electrons."
http://xbeams.chem.yale.edu/~batista/vvv/node24.html
"Since the principle of relativity poses a kinematic demand on all laws of nature, the special theory of relativity is not merely a theory alongside of mechanics, electrodynamics, etc., but all branches of physics have to be examined for their ability to satisfy both fundamental principles of special relativity. Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics do fulfill these requirements, but classical mechanics do not. Its adaptation to the principles of relativity leads to many consequences of which the famous formula E = mc 2 is the best known example. Even Pauli’s exclusion principle—to mention just one out of many examples from quantum mechanics—describing the electron shell structure and thus laying the foundation to, strictly speaking, all of chemistry is deeply rooted in the special theory of relativity." —
Special Relativity for Beginners: A Textbook for Undergraduates
(May 29, 2017 02:23 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (May 28, 2017 10:21 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]But keep going....you're well past your ankle by now.
(May 27, 2017 02:03 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Bosons, like photons, are not subject to the Pauli exclusion principle, which is what keeps fermions, such as electrons, from occupying the same quantum state as the same time.But time in quantum mechanics is an absolute, so there is no sense in which different times could interact. Time is an a priori given that quantum states are calculated from.
Isn’t Pauli’s Exclusion Principle a consequence of unifying special relativity and quantum theory?
Only in relativistic quantum field theory.
According to the spin-statistics theorem, particles with integer spin occupy symmetric quantum states, and particles with half-integer spin occupy antisymmetric states; furthermore, only integer or half-integer values of spin are allowed by the principles of quantum mechanics. In relativistic quantum field theory, the Pauli principle follows from applying a rotation operator in imaginary time to particles of half-integer spin.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_excl...tum_theory
Since the Pauli exclusion principle is pretty fundamental in QM (and the theoretical basis for the structure of the periodic table), it's silly to assume it was only derived from a relativistic quantum theory...which is more advanced.
Quote:"Pauli observed that relativistic quantum field theory requires that particles with half-integer spin (s=1/2, 3/2, ...) must have antisymmetric wave functions and particles with integer spin (s=0, 1, ...) must have symmetric wave functions. Such observation is usually introduced as an additional postulate of quantum mechanics: The wave function of a system of electrons must be antisymmetric with respect to interchange of any two electrons."
http://xbeams.chem.yale.edu/~batista/vvv/node24.html
"Since the principle of relativity poses a kinematic demand on all laws of nature, the special theory of relativity is not merely a theory alongside of mechanics, electrodynamics, etc., but all branches of physics have to be examined for their ability to satisfy both fundamental principles of special relativity. Maxwell’s equations of electrodynamics do fulfill these requirements, but classical mechanics do not. Its adaptation to the principles of relativity leads to many consequences of which the famous formula E = mc 2 is the best known example. Even Pauli’s exclusion principle—to mention just one out of many examples from quantum mechanics—describing the electron shell structure and thus laying the foundation to, strictly speaking, all of chemistry is deeply rooted in the special theory of relativity." —Special Relativity for Beginners: A Textbook for Undergraduates
Pauli developed the Exclusion principle solely on empirical evidence. It was only later that relativistic field theory provided a theoretical underpinning.
Pauli was also bothered by the fact that he couldn’t give any logical explanation for the exclusion principle or derive it from other laws of quantum mechanics, and he remained unhappy about this problem. Nonetheless, the principle worked–it explained the structure of the periodic table and is essential for explaining other properties of matter.
- https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews...istory.cfm
You keep trying to make hay, but nothing you've added has done anything to justify your earlier nonsense. You're arm waving is obviously just a distraction. Do you plan to get around to justifying "Only light is everywhere and everywhere at once"? What about "photons" "from different times existing at same time"?
(May 29, 2017 04:08 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]You want my opinion? Based on your response, I think that you plucked your answer from here, but didn’t fully comprehend it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of..._mechanics
That’s it! You’re not getting a candle. 
Nope, just more of your desperate attempt to avoid admitting "Only light is everywhere and everywhere at once" and "photons" "from different times existing at same time" was complete nonsense.
If you really knew enough to show I misunderstood anything, you could do better than this bare assertion. You have to be up to your knee by now.
Thanks for your continued examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
(May 29, 2017 05:23 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not defending my quote. I'm pointing out your error. Nice try, though, Mr. Know-it-all.
What error was that? You've done a lot of arm waving, but where, for example, did I say the PEP, or even quantum physics in general, had nothing to do with relativity? At least, that's the only supposed error I can fathom you may mean from your posts.
Do you dispute that QM, and its Copenhagen interpretation, rely on classical, absolute time?
Do you deny that Pauli developed his Exclusion principle without relativity?
Why are you arguing if you have no intention to justify your earlier nonsense? Just trolling?