(May 29, 2017 05:40 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]What error was that?
Are you fucking kidding me right now? It's obvious that you were the one trying to one-up me. I was just trying to be creative and make it more interesting for Zinman with my short scifi story and craft project. But noooo, Mr. Know-it-all tried to imply that QM had the final say in time not being absolute.
FYI, it was natural to try to unit QM and special relativity for several reasons.
"The first formulation of a quantum theory describing radiation and matter interaction is attributed to British scientist Paul Dirac, who (during the 1920s) was able to compute the coefficient of spontaneous emission of an atom."—Wikipedia
During this time, QM and special relativity only diverged because of the success of Schrodinger’s non-relativistic wave equation. However, with space and time being on equal footing, a concept that is respected by not only Maxwell’s equations, but Pauli's Exclusion Principle, as well, but is violated in both classical mechanics and Schrodinger’s wave mechanics.
Pauli, himself, was well versed in the theory of relativity and his goal was to rationalize special relativity with the quantum theory. The discovery of the Exclusion Principle and the connection between spin and statistics: in relativistic quantum theory, particles with half-integral spin satisfy the Exclusion Principle, those with integral spin satisfy Bose=Einstein statistics.
So, why am I pointing this out? Well, because your statement included bosons, fundamental particles such as photons (a massless particle), which was too irresistible. Why?
Because…
"Quantum mechanics (QM) cannot give an account of photons which constitute the prime case of relativistic 'particles'. Since photons have rest mass zero, and correspondingly travel in the vacuum at the speed c, a non-relativistic theory such as ordinary QM cannot give even an approximate description. Photons are implicit in the emission and absorption processes which have to be postulated; for instance, when one of an atom's electrons makes a transition between energy levels. The formalism of QFT is needed for an explicit description of photons."—Wikipedia
And? Who said it wasn't "natural to try to unit QM and special relativity"? Show me where I said ANYTHING that could be construed to say anything like that.
You're just continuing to babble on about the straw man you've erected, without the barest hint of being able to show that anything like that straw man was ever argued.
If you were just "being creative", you should have simply left my factual correction/addendum alone, instead of acting like you were refuting it or justifying your nonsense:
"It was a play on relativity, the path integral formulation, particles being in two places at once, occupying the same space, and the fact that darkness does not exist."
"And you’ve been wrong on several occasions."
The ouroboros that was SS has now swallowed itself and vanished. Sad that someone who professes an interest in physics is so willing to mislead others because she doesn't like being corrected.
(May 29, 2017 05:24 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And? Who said it wasn't "natural to try to unit QM and special relativity"? Show me where I said ANYTHING that could be construed to say anything like that.
You're just continuing to babble on about the straw man you've erected, without the barest hint of being able to show that anything like that straw man was ever argued.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. That’s not the way I interpreted it. You were obviously trying to imply that QM supersedes QFT in how it treats time.
(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.
(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.
I didn’t "conflate" the two. They did, out of necessity.
It was evident from the beginning that a proper quantum treatment of the electromagnetic field had to somehow incorporate Einstein's relativity theory, which had grown out of the study of classical electromagnetism. This need to put together relativity and quantum mechanics was the second major motivation in the development of quantum field theory. Pascual Jordan and Wolfgang Pauli showed in 1928 that quantum fields could be made to behave in the way predicted by special relativity during coordinate transformations (specifically, they showed that the field commutators were Lorentz invariant).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...relativity
(May 29, 2017 06:06 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (May 29, 2017 05:24 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]And? Who said it wasn't "natural to try to unit QM and special relativity"? Show me where I said ANYTHING that could be construed to say anything like that.
You're just continuing to babble on about the straw man you've erected, without the barest hint of being able to show that anything like that straw man was ever argued.
Sorry, but I'm not buying it. That’s not the way I interpreted it. You were obviously trying to imply that QM supersedes QFT in how it treats time.
I don't care what you're "buying". The point is that you cannot show anywhere I even implied "QM supercedes QFT". You just keep making up new straw man arguments...as if you think no one here is smart enough to notice.
Quote: (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.
(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.
And? Are you disputing that time in QM is absolute? O_o
Quote:I didn’t "conflate" the two. They did, out of necessity.
It was evident from the beginning that a proper quantum treatment of the electromagnetic field had to somehow incorporate Einstein's relativity theory, which had grown out of the study of classical electromagnetism. This need to put together relativity and quantum mechanics was the second major motivation in the development of quantum field theory. Pascual Jordan and Wolfgang Pauli showed in 1928 that quantum fields could be made to behave in the way predicted by special relativity during coordinate transformations (specifically, they showed that the field commutators were Lorentz invariant).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of...relativity
You'll notice I said "
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". Since you're defending the conflation, we can only assume that's the one you think most applies. Although it's looking more like you just don't understand time in QM, where most experiments are done in the same frame as the observer...simplifying the calculations by treating time as absolute.
Or...just so desperate to show me up that you can't even manage to admit well-known facts.
(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.
You’re explaining the boson/fermion dichotomy, which is mandated by the Spin-Statistics of quantum field theory. So, either you don’t understand QFT or you’re just willfully dishonest.
Like I said earlier, you’re statement is a non-sequitur.
(May 29, 2017 09:31 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
You’re explaining the boson/fermion dichotomy, which is mandated by the Spin-Statistics of quantum field theory. So, either you don’t understand QFT or you’re just willfully dishonest.
Like I said earlier, you’re statement is a non-sequitur.
Yet Pauli came up with the exclusion principle on empirical evidence alone. Otherwise, show me where QFT existed prior to PEP. You can't, because empirical evidence and working theories usually precede later theories that provide the underpinnings. LOL! You seem completely ignorant of empirical methods. Like no one could have hypothesized bosons/fermions until a theory that fully explained the behavior could be formulated.
What a joke.
(May 29, 2017 04:54 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (May 29, 2017 05:40 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]What error was that?
Are you fucking kidding me right now? It's obvious that you were the one trying to one-up me. I was just trying to be creative and make it more interesting for Zinman with my short scifi story and craft project. But noooo, Mr. Know-it-all tried to imply that QM had the final say in time not being absolute.
FYI, it was natural to try to unit QM and special relativity for several reasons.
"The first formulation of a quantum theory describing radiation and matter interaction is attributed to British scientist Paul Dirac, who (during the 1920s) was able to compute the coefficient of spontaneous emission of an atom."—Wikipedia
During this time, QM and special relativity only diverged because of the success of Schrodinger’s non-relativistic wave equation. However, with space and time being on equal footing, a concept that is respected by not only Maxwell’s equations, but Pauli's Exclusion Principle, as well, but is violated in both classical mechanics and Schrodinger’s wave mechanics.
Pauli, himself, was well versed in the theory of relativity and his goal was to rationalize special relativity with the quantum theory. The discovery of the Exclusion Principle and the connection between spin and statistics: in relativistic quantum theory, particles with half-integral spin satisfy the Exclusion Principle, those with integral spin satisfy Bose=Einstein statistics.
So, why am I pointing this out? Well, because your statement included bosons, fundamental particles such as photons (a massless particle), which was too irresistible. Why?
Because…
"Quantum mechanics (QM) cannot give an account of photons which constitute the prime case of relativistic 'particles'. Since photons have rest mass zero, and correspondingly travel in the vacuum at the speed c, a non-relativistic theory such as ordinary QM cannot give even an approximate description. Photons are implicit in the emission and absorption processes which have to be postulated; for instance, when one of an atom's electrons makes a transition between energy levels. The formalism of QFT is needed for an explicit description of photons."—Wikipedia
thus my question i posed in a thread.
if photons have no mass they must there for be non reliant on E=MC2 and quite theorhetically possible to go faster than the stated speed of light.
299 792 458 m / s
would it not be equally sugestable that as a principal of observation, we may see & expereince light only as it slows down.
noting the last post topic
i had thought that QM practitioners had agreed that alternate universes were not precluded by QM.
Thus time being relatavistic is not needed to be omni present and thus alternate time lines may merge to give differing time instances inside a single expereinced liniar time concept.
This Hume quote was my signature for many years on the old science forum. Words I live by, if you think you know something then instead of declaring it, question it.
"All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance
and obscurity, is to be sceptical, or at least cautious, and not
to admit of any hypothesis whatever, much less of any which is
supported by no appearance of probability"......Hume
He may have been referring to religion but I think it works for science as well.
I have no idea if time is real or just a concept. I understand many great minds have researched it, experimented with it and drawn fantastic conclusions from it. My question is merely about observation and whether we may be missing something. Never said observation is absent elements of time that we cant notice or will never notice. Just wondering about the possibility.
(May 29, 2017 10:34 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yet Pauli came up with the exclusion principle on empirical evidence alone. Otherwise, show me where QFT existed prior to PEP. You can't, because empirical evidence and working theories usually precede later theories that provide the underpinnings. LOL! You seem completely ignorant of empirical methods. Like no one could have hypothesized bosons/fermions until a theory that fully explained the behavior could be formulated.
What a joke.
Okay, Mr. Know-it-all, then tell us why you felt the need to toss in the tidbit about how time is treated in QM.
When…
"The fact that particles with half-integer spin (fermions) obey Fermi–Dirac statistics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and particles with integer spin (bosons) obey Bose–Einstein statistics, occupy "symmetric states", and thus can share quantum states, is known as the spin-statistics theorem. The theorem relies on both quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity, and this connection between spin and statistics has been called "one of the most important applications of the special relativity theory".—Wikipedia
I’ll tell you why, because I answered, yes, photons, and then said…
(May 24, 2017 03:13 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]In physics, time as we know it disappears, until you get to relativity, and then everything in this world is relative, my dear Watson. No absolute time. No absolute space.
FYI, if there was an absolute rest frame, you wouldn’t even exist because there would be no light.
Oops! My bad. I forgot that the you still walk in the light of the Lord.
What a joke.
(May 30, 2017 04:05 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ] (May 29, 2017 10:34 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Yet Pauli came up with the exclusion principle on empirical evidence alone. Otherwise, show me where QFT existed prior to PEP. You can't, because empirical evidence and working theories usually precede later theories that provide the underpinnings. LOL! You seem completely ignorant of empirical methods. Like no one could have hypothesized bosons/fermions until a theory that fully explained the behavior could be formulated.
What a joke.
Okay, Mr. Know-it-all, then tell us why you felt the need to toss in the tidbit about how time is treated in QM.
When…
"The fact that particles with half-integer spin (fermions) obey Fermi–Dirac statistics and the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and particles with integer spin (bosons) obey Bose–Einstein statistics, occupy "symmetric states", and thus can share quantum states, is known as the spin-statistics theorem. The theorem relies on both quantum mechanics and the theory of special relativity, and this connection between spin and statistics has been called "one of the most important applications of the special relativity theory".—Wikipedia
I’ll tell you why, because I answered, yes, photons, and then said…
(May 24, 2017 03:13 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]In physics, time as we know it disappears, until you get to relativity, and then everything in this world is relative, my dear Watson. No absolute time. No absolute space.
FYI, if there was an absolute rest frame, you wouldn’t even exist because there would be no light.
Oops! My bad. I forgot that the you still walk in the light of the Lord.
What a joke.
You're so full of shit. I'm not a Christian, but atheist bigots often like to assume I am.
Again, who said ANYTHING about an "absolute rest frame"? You just keep erecting non-sequitur straw men.
You keep asking about QM but then doubting my answers about QM by adding QFT. When teaching people, you don't jump to the most advanced theories. You start simple, like QM and its classical time and space. But you don't really care if anyone actually learns anything here...just so long as you can try to show someone up to distract from the nonsense you post.
You do know that QFT doesn't make your post any less nonsensical, don't you? O_o