-

Cambridge

http://www.sp.phy.cam.ac.uk/~dar11/pdf/


-

-

Schroedinger lecture


http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/news/seminars/Schrodinger/Lecture1/Lecture1.html


--


http://www.tcd.ie/Physics/news/seminars/Schrodinger/index.html

-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-01-15 10:01:47 --

-

Genesis of Eden Diversity Encyclopedia

[ The Exotic Quantum World

We are living in a quantum universe, not a classical one. Most people however are still living in the classical Newtonian world which expired at the beginning of the twentieth century. Our world is very subtle and much more mysterious than the "building blocks" view of the universe would indicate. Many people lead their lives at the macroscopic level as if quantum reality were only true for atoms and somehow not true for larger things like people and thier immediate enivronment, but the correspondence principle by which the quantum world is supposed to fade into the classical world never works out for a host of reasons.

Chaotic, self-critical and certain other processes may inflate quantum effects in unforseen ways to the macroscopic level. The physics underlying conscious interaction with the physical world may likewise depend both on quantum effects, criticality and chaos in its functioning. The entire universe itself may be a self-consistent interconnected whole which has emerged from a single quantum wave function, therefore it is non-classical in its entire descrïption. For these reasons it is necessary for us to understand how the quantum works and how it may differ from our classical view of order, solidity, determinism and mechanism.]


http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/quant1/quant.htm


-  

--Last edited by saucer on 2007-01-26 14:27:54 --

Iseason;  You might take a look at this Link!

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/FOUNDATIONS/04/found04.html

ferme  

--Last edited by ferme on 2007-01-26 14:31:18 --

> I'm unclear on how superselection could explain apparent interactions
> between a classical spacetime metric and quantum matter (matter curves
> spacetime, spacetime determines matter evolution) - I thought that the
> classical sector was immune to what goes on in the quantum sector?


That's the no-go theorem, which makes the classical modes essentially
external. I reproduce that conclusion in the "On the Quantum Dynamics
of Moving Bodies" cite. A unitary or automorphic evolution locks out
the classical modes from the dynamics.

Diosi resolved it in his 2000 paper.



> Phys. Rev. A 61 22108 Diosi et. al. 2000


But I'm skeptical that it's actually a problem, in the first place.
(A) in an open quantum system you have a horizon which effectively
forces superselection on you ("horizon coarse graining"). If the
Universe is such that no universal state space can be defined (e.g.,
particularly if it's not globally hyperbolic) then you're reduced to
treating all quantum systems as open. In effect, the universe becomes
an open system. (B) in a system coupled to a heat bath, you get a
similar kind of interweaving of superselection sectors in the overall
system. They're inherited from the classical modes contained in the
thermal system. Bear in mind that outer space, itself, is in a thermal
state at a positive temperature of around 3K.

Interestingly, both of these arguments turned out to be reflected on
the other Diosi and Halliwell references found from the cites listed,
as well as from the publication list on Dioisi's own web page


I'm still not too up on Diosi's 2000 resolution. He uses coherent
states and shows how to hybridize a classico-quantum theory in the
context of a somewhat (but not completely) general example, such that
communication goes in both directions (including spontaneous
decoherence brought about by superselection/reduction).


Diosi and Halliwell are both closely tied to the Decoherent Histories
idea. I didn't notice that until after the comment I made about the
generalized Heisenberg-Picture Lueder rule. The rule is, itself, an
instance of the formula you write for decoherent histories.


The hypothesis is then that if you can weave Sardanashvily's "fermion
complex" idea into the Feynman S-matrix picture, you'll be doing
decoherent histories on external fermion lines. There may be a
transition point, in fact, which blurs the distinction between
"intenral" and "external" lines, which will then run close with
Penrose's idea of a kind of mean time to superselection. But now
Sardanashvily gives you the actual mechanism: the vierbein field is a
Goldstone Higgs field that partitions out the vacuum sectors. This is
the symmetry breaking field associated with the reduction of world
GL(4) to fermion SL(2,C) (the 10 Goldstone modes corresponding
ultimately to the 10 components of the metric).


If you can do decoherent histories on the external legs of the Feyman
diagrams then you have a golden path (to use a term by Diosi) to
implementing the von Neumann "projection postulate" directly from the
non-linear interaction terms in field theory, itself. This will
buttress the general intuition that the free fields are the nexus of
the wave aspect of quanta and of Schroedinger evolution, while the
interactions are the nexus of the measurement process.


Hall and Reginatto (quant-ph/0509134) is tied to the Diosi, Halliwell
group, as seen by the reference list. Diosi has been going in that
(and a large number of other) directions in his recent papers.



> It is often claimed that nonlinear modifications of quantum mechanics
> must be nonlocal - a recent review is given by Luecke in
>    http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9904016.


Whatever's non-linear has to be coming about from the interactions
which, ultimately, brings you back to the vertices in the Feynman
diagrams. I don't like the idea of posing non-linearity ab initio, for
that reason. It should be coming from the interaction part of QFT. The
transition from internal to external is locked up in pertubation
theory with the passage over to the asymptotic limits S_{in} and
S_{out}. Here, the distinction is blurred somewhat.

The general idea is this. You can think of a relative state as being
associated with each compact spacelike surface. If two such surfaces
bound a compact spacetime region, then the transition of the state
between the two surfaces will pick up all the vertices contained
within the region. In an idealized setting of a well-defined
spacetime, the two surfaces can then be thought of as two segments of
Cauchy surfaces that coincide outside the compact region.


If the spacelike hypersurfaces are (V+) and (V-), the region bounded
W, then the boundary will be dW = (V+) - (V-). The boundary state will
be
  S = |v+> (x) <v-|
(which allows cancellation of internal boundaries), where (x) denotes
the tensor product. In a well-behaved spacetime, (V+) and (V-) are
segments of Cauchy surfaces (C+) and (C-) which coincide outside the
compact region W. Thus, (C+) = (V+) + (C), (C-) = (V-) + (C), and dW =
(C+) - (C-). So, the state is idealized as a transition from (C-) to (C
+). This evolution is parametrized by a time-like flow with W as its
support. This generates a homotopy (C(t): t = 0 to 1), with C- = C(0),
C+ = C(1). This reduces further to a local flow V(t), with V(t) =
(C(t) intersect W), V(0) = (V-) and V(1) = (V+). The boundary shared
by the V's is dV(t) = H = the horizon. The cutoff from the Cauchy
state on C(t) to the local relative state on V(t) thus takes place on
the horizon.


Now you remove the pretense about there being a globally hyperbolic
spacetime that embeds W and treat the relative states associated with
V(t) in their own right, without reference to any Cauchy surfaces
C(t). This is the cutoff that introduces the classical modes into the
system contained within W.


The corresponding S-matrix is that obtained by turning off the
interaction on the boundary dW, so that you have a pair of "free
field" states associated with (C+) and (C-) or relative states
associated with (V+) and (V-).


The mean time to superselection means there's a blurring of which
vertices contained within W are treated as internal and which as
external. This transition, however, is no longer the asymptotic limit
S_{in} and S_{out} but occurs at finite time, relating to Penrose's
idea of a mean time to superselection.


From: googlegroups.com  

--Last edited by saucer on 2008-02-15 10:33:01 --

Hi guys
Singular particle theory crosses all time and space and size barriers but cannot affect any but itself.
In fact if this sort of seperation must exsist in order for everything to be in 'chaos' but happen in an order at every level.
  imagine that the distant galaxy that explodes will affect us every bit as much as an atom changing state. For while the event takes place across the galaxy, the same particle must revisit the atom to keep it real.
  because we see the galaxy as a big event , we think that an enormous ammount of energy is required.But as you have pointed out , all that is required is a larger number of occurances of the same base energy.
  if it is true that the same base level of energy controls the events within the chaos, then the propagation of events needs be via cloning.Since cloning itself would require the particle to create something from nothing, it must create the cloned image in an ordered disorder.
  There is a solution to my problem with the particle being 1. everywhere at once 2.motion to travel in a universe that it creates itself .

  The solution is that the particle size is the of the area of the universe. in order to create an "occurance", the particle reduces its volume to its's smallest possible state.This is always the same and creates a constant.
  Each new occurances is in a new position within it's original volume.There is now no need for Newtonian motion at all since the reduction in volume simply creates the next occurance.
  Having gone there, the time between volume and reduction will give an average universal time limit, which has to seperate each occurance by at least that much difference.

Cheers
Iseason

-

Schroedinger Hydrogen Eq


http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/hydsch.html




-

QM world

If successful scientific theories can be thought of as cures for stubborn problems, quantum physics was the wonder drug of the 20th century. It successfully explained phenomena such as radioactivity and antimatter, and no other theory can match its descrïption of how light and particles behave on small scales.

But it can also be mind-bending. Quantum objects can exist in multiple states and places at the same time, requiring a mastery of statistics to describe them. Rife with uncertainty and riddled with paradoxes, the theory has been criticised for casting doubt on the notion of an objective reality - a concept many physicists, including Albert Einstein, have found hard to swallow.

Today, scientists are grappling with these philosophical conundrums, trying to harness quantum's bizarre properties to advance technology, and struggling to weave quantum physics and general relativity into a seamless theory of quantum gravity.  

--Last edited by saucer on 2009-03-28 15:03:28 --