Dear Ian:

So we basically agree.

In the ONE HOLE experiment, the Hilbert depends not just upon the screen on which particles will materialize, but also upon the energy-momentum of these particles. So it’s Hilbert (screen, energy-momentum). Hawking radiation depends upon QFT and the Schwarzschild radius…. Black Holes have made space real in some sense. This being said, whether Minkowsky’s “spacetime” has meaning is an open question (Einstein did not like the notion; I used to view it as meaningless and confusing, but now I am not so sure)…..

The fact the Uncertainty Principle got busted recently confirms that one has to be very careful with all of this. The great debate is whether QTT is right or not …as De Broglie and Einstein thought. QTT people are basically replaying the debate with Bohr and company with greater experimental detail. They claim spectacular results. I don’t contest the thrilling results, but the method, QTT. I used to believe Einstein-De Broglie… But now I am sort of on the other side, with NONLOCAL pilot waves…

Patrice

LikeLike

]]>To: patriceay@cs.com

Sent: Sat, Jun 19, 2021 2:53 pm

Subject: Re: difference classical – quantum answer

Dear Patrice,

My comment was essentially that Hilbert space is a mathematical means of assisting calculation of what happens, but it does not cause it. There is no physical entity called “Hilbert space”. Your last sentence covers my view well.

In Newtonian physics, there was no space either. Space was just some sort of background on which the objects were placed, and in Galilean relativity, their velocities were measured in the frame of reference of one of them. “Space” was something like the canvas upon which the painting was done, but in this case only the painting was physical. Of course QFT states space IS physical in that it is full of fields, but if so, really the fields should be added to the space. The answer to your one-slit example depends on geometry, but it cannot depend on which mathematical way you look at it, which it would if the Hilbert space were a real entity.

Ian

LikeLike

]]>Dear Ian:

Thanks for the comment. Here is my answer:

Hmmm… Call them A and B. So you say (distorting a bit…) A and B are entangled by a conservation law in either case (that’s the way I have always looked at it), no difference. In classical, once one has measured A, one knows B…. As long as one knew I, the initial point of interaction of A and B. But in Quantum, one can’t know I. Thus the analogy to the quantum situation is doing classical without I.

Given an experimental situation, a Hilbert space is imposed by the geometry. Basically, it works this way:

1) Experimental setup.

2) Computing what the waves will do in such a setup, getting an eigenbasis for Hilbert space H.

3) When a “particle” enters, it is constrained to mostly show up according to the eigenbasis.

Illustration: the ONE slit experiment, diffraction. One has one slit and a distant screen. Given long enough a time, and enough particles, they will tend to end up in a central area and then bands, as Huygens said. So the wavy Hilbert constraints the outcome of the trajectories (supposing there were trajectories as the quantum trajectory theory, QTT has it). Maybe the concept “Hilbert” is superfluous: the geometry of waves constrains.

LikeLike

]]>I disagree. In classical physics, entanglement is caused by applying a conservation law. At that point, in the EPR type thought experiment you usually know the momentum of both particles provided you know the coefficient of elasticity, and of course you know the momenta of the particles in the given frame of reference prior to the collision that entangled them. First year physics students usually get some sort of question along these lines. The problem with quantum mechanics is you don’t know the initial values in this type of situation, so you do not know the outcome until you make a measurement.

Similarly, I suggest that using a Hilbert space is a mathematical procedure to use, but it does not determine the physics – it is merely a calculation procedure. It does not alter the physics.

LikeLike

]]>BTW Darwin is neither the “father of evolution” nor the one who suggested culture influenced evolution (as Livescience pretends). Lamarck did all this, sixty years earlier and Darwin and Lyell had to go to Scotland to be taught evolution, as it was unlawful in England. To pretend otherwise is systemic racism and constitute scientific fraud. https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/evolution-lamarcks-discovery/

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Ian Miller: Seems to me that, since the potential energy is on the right side of the equation, everybody should have seen it. It is an interesting case of the quantum emperor having no clothe whatsoever…

LikeLike

]]>Ian Miller

The Bohm-Aharonov effect actually arose from Bohm’s pilot wave interpretation, and in a poll of physicists, the pilot wave scored no votes.

The Casimir effect needs a little more than a comment here – must do that some time.

LikeLike

]]>Yes, indeed. However a true universal genius can’t be universal when no one knows about her, the fate of many women in the last 6,000 years. When some moderators conspire to bar geniuses from Facebook, at this point in civilization, they block genius as something society would get cognizant of, period. BTW, intelligence tend to be universal: someone scoring high in a particular dimension, say music, would tend to score high say in reading or math. This is even used pedagogically.

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>