|
To study this, one must check if alternative explanations are possible, like ship has time-gradient or lightspeed-gradient, probably not. One must seperate relativistic effects and final speed of light, which is easy by constancy. TV-Prof. Lesch on simultanity was talking about final speed I think (with trains and lightning and observers) and not relativity, I should look at it again and write him in case of mistake.
I´m not sure about this drawing, if it´s a problem that the simultaneous end of entanglement is not simultaneous in frames. Maybe half-entangled states appear which cannot be seen. Or theories can deal with it: Relational QT? Relativistic Q Field T ? The latter sounds like theory of everything, because contains relativity (general?), quanta and fields, but is surely not (because I would´ve heard of).
So the initial experiment and drawing for studying has led to search for Aharonovmeter, which is not probable. (I mean generally measuring entanglement status with or without interaction, on one particel, while other out of reach. I don´t know what entanglement-measurement she is talking about.) Instead, contradiction to spacetime+causality can be seen in my experiment at end of page, and experiment is apparently sure by state-of-art.
Problem with understanding axiom: laws of physics must be the same in all inertial systems. Which laws, "No preferred frame" "apple falls down not up" "cause first" ...
Interesting is also Lesch "Seeing twin stars clearly (without heavy doppler effects), is proof for relativity" and Zeilinger "microwave background is sort of preferred frame". Sort of.
Introduction to QT
6.3.07 Good introduction not yet found! (but wikipedia etc. has lots material for working out own studies) Studies should be much easier with clear graphic and mathematical introd. (particels, properties/behaviour, maths, concepts). I write my own intro while studying. E.g. in my experiment-concept I don´t know yet how to exactly do the arrangement and measurement, with apparatus and particles. I found a Zeilinger-Quote that experimental and theoretical descriptions contain a lot of explicit and implicit rules for correlating physical terms with reality (in order to get predictions). So I must do some more recherche to calculate costs of experiment.
I heard of an old discussion about theoretically infinite electron charge surrounded by infinite vacuum polarisation charge, and of infinite terms in QT which cancel. I assume the charge is not infinite but mysteriously connected with mass. Or it´s a mixed property of electron and vacuum with infinities only in poor mathematical description: the two objects, electron and vacuum do not interact in such a way that they throw infinities against each other, the description must be incomplete. Particels are hard to understand (no rest mass, no extension, no time..), the term seems inconsistent, but there is something.
What is the state of electron description? I think they failed decades long to collide it with "neutral electrons" or something, particels with as low diameter as electron but neutral (or photons, which free electrons send but do not absorb as I heard), so the statement is "no diameter found". Earlier, QT demanded Dirac-sea or something. So I wonder how real virtual photons are, just maths or something there and if it makes a difference. Young scientists on TV try to make pictures of electrons entering molecules and stated that momentum is more important than previously thought...
Maybe the electron mass consists of energy (potential) and so can´t collide with other masses, must read more.
When studying, I try to see the QT stuff as things which are really out there.
A probability cloud in a volume means, there is something real and it can´t be described in a smaller volume. So obviously there is a cloud (without edge) which turns into a particel when it´s time (decay) or when hit (measurement).
The clouds have interesting, mathematical-like behaviour, why not. I don´t know yet where the problem is. See e.g. Zeilinger "only few people understand indeterminism is really out there", but lots of talking out there. So I try to promote careful studies to avoid the common error proneness of physicists. I start with picturing clouds (volumes) which are influenced by their paths (interaction-free-measurement), by paths of other clouds with same result or so (superposition, strange rules for adding of probabilities), and by paths of other clouds met earlier (entanglement), and see if picturing works. (collapse of wave function, complementarity, exchange particels, etc)
Alternative: clouds are not real, only trajectories, particel jumps to position when time. But cloud reacts to circumstances differently from trajectory I guess.
Can the randomness be pictured as a field throwing dice (how often), or as statistics of inner dynamic which allows predictions, probably not (=hidden variable?, disproved?).
Planck Zeilinger: "The Wirkungsquantum and its size should follow from easy fundamental axiom, which are missing in QT." Maybe maths helpful, infinitesimal impact leads to contradiction because of properties of real (rational) numbers ?
fotoelectr.effect
Wave function, pictures
statistics
double slit - Do e hit the frame with slits, or do all go through as waves and hit screen ?
empty waves leere Wellen
Heisenberg-Introduction
How is a particel without defined velocity and where is it. (15.3. see QM,Wikipedia -I guess the next position measurement after exact position measurement is totally unsafe, but how is position measurement then done. )
No-broadcast theorem
No-communication theorem
Bell´s theorem
Kochen-Specker-Theorem
Quantum decoherence
EPR-Paradoxon
GHZ-Paradoxon
Quantum teleportation
Aharonov-Bohm Effect
Applications of General Aharonovmeter:
- Superluminal communication - Measuring end of entanglement means bit sending possible.
- Looking into future ? - Laser-driven spacecraft with few particels on board, entangled with particels on earth, reaches other solar system in 50 years and sends information about system property. Because in space-craft frame only 1 year has gone by, info reaches earth 49 years before system is reached in earth frame ? See also rat experiment. How about photon: If photon entangled with mass goes 1sec. and then ends entanglement, is then de-entangling of mass observed when photon starts, because of no time in photon frame.
- Looking into black hole? - If force gradient not too strong for 1 mm³ microship with entangled particels, it may send information from inside. Gravity slows down time, so cube mm should never reach center in external frame. (Using photons instead mm³?)
- Real teleportation of particels ? Ahameter maybe equivalent (or undergroup) to influencing randomness. From what I´ve read, position of particel can be blurred out totally, next appearance can be anywhere (except with time measured momentum becomes fuzzy and so draws back position probability from all over the universe). So if randomness-influence is applied, particel can be ordered to position at will ?
different Ansätze, theories, discussion:
-Spontaneous Localization
-Bohm, Dürr
-relativistic quantum field theorie
-psycho exchange particels (psychische Austauschteilchen)
Only few people have seen psycho exchange particels, they are substance and one can see how they contain mood, intent, options, etc.. They are obviously real, though discussion is very limited. They are seen with the whole brain instead eyes, and contain much more information than pictures. The seeable information density is like when you dream a story, that fills book, but dream only takes a few seconds. Usually people feel when someone has an influence on another, but they can´t see the influence-matter and how it hits and have difficulties with exact predictions of result. The feeling of influence and truth is already a little bit like seeing it, and uses similar brain activities.
This reminds me of an article, mutations were necessary for speech, then the mutations spread. Then much later (60000years ago) they realized they can speak, so rel.suddenly they could all speak, much faster than mutations can spread. Similarly, the structures for psycho-matter seeing are mostly there and may be used widely soon.
Also, the particels reminded me of strange maths-axioms. Last year I read about Gödel and understood that strange axioms apear, they remind me of algebraic axioms I developed in the early 80s, which were complicated, ugly (because simpleness was the goal), but couldn´t be discussed away. Maybe it was on occasion of maths contest, maybe I find it incl.25year-old winner foto of Perelman.
- Gödel/Einstein
A few weeks after I associated strange complicated Gödel-like axioms with psycho exchange particels, Bearden made a statement that Einstein produces Gödel-like axioms which lead to contradictions. This is a statement which can be checked and should be. I would probably need a year, someone pay for it.
Directory of C:\Eigene Dateien\PhysikCDMrz07 | Link
|
