Monday, December 12, 2005


How to understand this quantum-to-classical transition linking two incompatible descriptions of reality is still a matter of debate among the various interpretations of quantum theory. In any case, one can probe the borderline between the classical and the quantum realm by performing interference experiments with particles of increasing complexity.

Of course I am cocnerned about the determinations of the paticle natures seen in a particular light. These constituent s are part an dparcel of a much larger view from increase entrophy( I always get these things a**backwards), and cooling temperatures?

Decoherence is relevant (or is claimed to be relevant) to a variety of questions ranging from the measurement problem to the arrow of time, and in particular to the question of whether and how the ‘classical world’ may emerge from quantum mechanics. This entry mainly deals with the role of decoherence in relation to the main problems and approaches in the foundations of quantum mechanics.

Of course I am paying attention and listening. :)Of course I want to find my way back to the classical world from where probabilistic valuations reigned. I was acting as a "gathering point" in my quest for a "philosophical design" (not to be confused with ID?). :) Okay, I understand this is not acceptable.

The difference between quantum and classical behaviour is exemplified by the famous “double-slit experiment”, in which photons are fired at a barrier containing two slits, and then allowed to fall on a screen opposite the barrier. Classical particles would pass through (at most) one slit at a time, but photons can pass through both simultaneously. The two waves associated with the photon passing through the two different slits fall in and out of phase with each other at different points on the screen — the phase of these waves being related to the total distance the photon travels from source to screen — so they interfere either constructively or destructively, producing a pattern of light and dark bands.

What motivated such cosmlogical design, as a crunching inevitable to have found the limitations of the energy having found itself turning back? So we do not see this right now and we speculate. this did ont take away from the isolated examples of unfoldment as a cyclcical process between energy and matter did it??

Oh for heaven's sake, where will my ramblings take me next? :)

Lubos Motl:
I would not promote overly technical lecture notes, especially not about things covered in many books. But the interpretation of quantum mechanics in general and decoherence in particular - a subject that belongs both to physics as well as advanced philosophy - is usually not given a sufficient amount of space in the textbooks

Those are strong words [shut up and calculate] for a layman to consider, when he is groping to trying to find his way.

Lecture 23 was pointed out by Lubos Motl in his article for consideration. More was considered from the list contained here.

If such energies were to be amongst the recognition of the quantum world, had we really been that separated from cosmological recognition of what constitued that beginning? Am I suppose to dismiss Weinberg in his first three minutes, for what might have been recognized in the first three seconds?? Remeber I am in the fifth dimension, where temeprature and entropic findings would have found a furthe rvalue to the discussion of what went this way and what that way. The entangling process is very profound.

So in looking back, we do not know where such a thing could begin? I think I understand that from what , although, if such proceses were recognized in the cyclcial nature of the cosmos why would we not entertain the rejuvenation of geometrical propensities to models inherent already in the universe? See the universe as a much "larger process" much different then the scope through which we might have treated each galaxy in it's rotations? Everett? Hmmm....

To map the "invisible" Universe of dark matter and gas expelled during the birth of galaxies: a large-aperture telescope for imaging and spectroscopy of optical and ultraviolet light.

To measure the motions of the hottest and coldest gas around black holes: a radio interferometer in space.

To see the birth of the first black holes and their effect on the formation of galaxies, and to probe the behavior of matter in extreme environments: a very large aperture arc-second X-ray imaging telescope.

To determine the nature and origin of the most energetic particles in the Universe today: a mission to track them through their collisions with the Earth.

I have been troubled indeed by the "orbital mapping" I speculated to the cosmological design, seen as "events" in that cosmo. By such happen stance, such relations seem to spark some wonder about the arrangement, to the fundamental library of that same orbital design. I made this mistake before, and I need to correct it now.

Slow down! "Antimatter?" "Pure energy?" What is this, Star Trek?

But you can see evidence for antimatter in this early bubble chamber photo. The magnetic field in this chamber makes negative particles curl left and positive particles curl right. Many electron-positron pairs appear as if from nowhere, but are in fact from photons, which don't leave a trail. Positrons (anti-electrons) behave just like the electrons but curl in the opposite way because they have the opposite charge. (One such electron-positron pair is highlighted.)

The collider ring as a boson, whose overall contention could have been seen in the total energy involved, and the dispensing to those extra dimensional perspectives within the "natural world" of our settings? Have I misunderstood the values of the Pierre Auger experiment to see better, then we had seen before, not to have seen a topological question about how one would interpret the sphere with one hole, as a donut? What values circles then?

Decoherence represents an extremely fast process for macroscopic objects, since these are interacting with many microscopic objects in their natural environment. The process explains why we tend not to observe quantum behaviour in everyday macroscopic objects since these exist in a bath of air molecules and photons. It also explains why we do see classical fields from the properties of the interaction between matter and radiation.

Angels/demons seem to make there way into view here? Yet in the world of Dirac might he seen the consequence of possible pathways in the construction of the matrix involved and intoduced the i of questionable directives as results in the arrangement of that same matrix?? Feynman took over for sure in his toy models.

Then of course I come across this statement previous and I am back to scratching my head. Oh boy!

You might imagine antimatter as a possible temporary storage medium for energy, much like you store electricity in rechargeable batteries. The process of charging the battery is reversible with relatively small loss. Still, it takes more energy to charge the battery than what you get back out of it. For antimatter the loss factors are so enormous that it will never be practical.

If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes.

Hmmmm......more confusion again.:)

What value from such gravitonic perceptions from the modifications if events such as these above are not held to the dynamical nature of the spacetime fabric itself?

1 comment:

  1. Dear Plato,

    "Shut up and calculate" is good advice to everyone. Feynman said:

    "… I do feel strongly that this is nonsense! … I think all this superstring stuff is crazy and is in the wrong direction. … I don’t like it that they’re not calculating anything. … why are the masses of the various particles such as quarks what they are? All these numbers … have no explanations in these string theories - absolutely none! … "

    -Davies & Brown, editors, ‘Superstrings’ 1988, pages 194-195.

    My calculations are ignored, so I have the problem of telling professors like Lubos and even string theory critics to shut up about philosophy and check the calculation. However, the physical principle of least action governs their behaviour ...

    The Young's double slit experiment was analysed in a peer-reviewed article by Dr David A. Chalmers which I published in "Science World", February 1997, journal ISSN 1367-6172.

    Chalmers, I recall, experimentally and theoretically analysed what happened in the dark fringes.

    Notice that Young claimed that at the dark fringes "light cancels out by interference".

    How can energy "cancel out" like that, is the PRINCIPLE OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY VIOLATED in the dark fringes?

    The probability of finding a photon at any location, x, along the screen width is proportional to (sin ax)^2.

    Using a scintillation counter (photomultiplier tube) you can detect most photons arriving, one at a time.

    They simply don't arrive at the dark fringes. It is FALSE to claim as Young did that the interfere when arriving on the screen.

    The "interference" caused by the two slits is only significant when the slits are so close together compared to the wavelength of the light that some of the energy goes through BOTH slits, so the interference arises by photon energy going through BOTH slits, not by photons arriving out of phase at the screen.

    This is EXPERIMENTAL FACT, not crackpot guess. I saw the experiment. Sadly Chalmers died a few years ago, but he tried to get Penrose to take an interest (however Chalmers was accused of heckling at a lecture Penrose gave, I believe?).

    Think about a radio wave. You do not need a radio aerial the same size as the transverse wavelength. All you have to ensure is that the receiver circuit including the aerial will resonate: which depends on the FREQUENCY. Therefore, by adding to the aerial base a "loading coil" (induction coil principle), you can receive frequencies which appear to be associated with transverse wavelengths which are incompatible with the size of the aerial.

    Since radio waves are electromagnetic radiation, we can apply this knowledge to the double slit experiment. Part of it goes through each slit, and the recombination of the diffracted parts retains the same frequency by is deflected. This is the mechanism behind the double slit experiment.

    Best wishes,