"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:0HoQg.6350$%i.2632@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4n9bddF9a5haU1@individual.net...
[had to start a new thread as my server rejected the reply because
reference line was too long]
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in message
news:kNIPg.7664$xg7.4147@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"FrediFizzx" <fredifizzx@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4n4boeF8lp9jU1@individual.net...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <stoshu@bellsouth.net.pa> wrote in
message
news:Un4Pg.10322$rE5.5617@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"Timo Nieminen" <timo@physics.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.50.0609150916020.421-100000@localhost...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
I found this:
http://marcus.whitman.edu/~beckmk/QM/grangier/Thorn_ajp.pdf
In section II D and in the next to last paragraph on page
1212
it seems to describe the mathematical basis of
anti-correlation.
I am not familar with the math though.
Will look as time permits, and might comment here later if
appropriate.
Otherwise, I'll just read.
Yeah, I was hoping you could explain some of it.
Obviously it is not your job to give physics lessons
to every yahoo on the usenet but I figured you and
I and others would find it interesting.
The math has a similar form to the vectors/bra-kets.
They mention annihilation and creation operators
which I have heard of but don't fully understand.
(But I figure they are similar to things I've already
dealt with.) And then the colons. I wonder what
they mean.
It tells you right in the text what the colons mean. Normally
ordered.
Basically, it means create before you annihilate.
I was just looking at the wiki page on creation and annihilation
operators. A lot of new stuff for me there.
The quantized EM field always had creation and annihilation
operators.
I am generally familiar with differential wave equations.
But I am not familiar with creation and annihilation operators.
When QFT was devised, then "fermion" fields also have them. In
application to a bound system like a hydrogen atom, then they are
basically "ladder" operators where you have quantized energy levels.
The ordering of these operators are important due to the math
involved
with them gives different results. a is lowering operator used as a
ladder operator and a+ is a raising operator. Look up "quantum
harmonic
oscillator" on wiki or the web and you will find some better
explanations dealing with creation and annihilation operators.
I did look that up. And wiki is a great resource.
As I was reading, there were links upon links leading
to explanations of things that I am not familiar with.
I look forward to following all those links.
Timo and I have been going at this for a while. I think
maybe we need a break.
If you are really interested in this stuff, do yourself a favor and
get
Griffiths' "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" and a tutor (at least
at
first to get you thru some of the preliminary math). I actually
thought
I was going to start with Milonni's book but found out I had to get
Griffiths' textbook and a couple of tutors first to even start to
understand Milonni. The reason I mentioned Milonni's book first
below
is that it is so interesting that it will make you want to learn
more.
;-) At least it did for me.
Hmm. Well, tutors aren't exactly practical for most
of us.
Well then, just get Griffiths' textbook and I am sure you can get some
help on the groups here if stuck on a problem. I think he does a really
good job of explaining QM with full math and you will have all of what
you need in a good sequence instead of trying to follow links on the
web. It really is a prerequisite to a better understanding of QED and
its photons.
It eliminates the
zero point EM field. I believe the brakets in this case are
expectation
values. For more about the math of this you could see Milonni's
"The
Quantum Vacuum: An Introduction to QED". But it looks like on
page
1212 they are relating intensity operators to photon number
operators
which are defined in this case by n = a+a.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
Hmm. Zertons?
Yeah, kind of like our alternative to the Higgs boson. From our
more
macroscopic perspective, a complex composite that has zero mass,
spin,
But looking at your paper it sounds equivalent to an ether.
Sort of. We only retain the medium concept of an ether and have it be
relativistic. Following Volovik's lead in his book "The Universe in a
Helium Droplet" page 461 sect. 33 Conclusion;
"According to the modern view the elementary particles (electrons,
neutrinos, quarks, etc.) are excitations of some more fundamental medium
called the quantum vacuum. This is the new ether of the 21st century.
The electromagnetic and gravitational fields, as well as the fields
transferring the weak and the strong interactions, all represent
different types of collective motion of the quantum vacuum."
But it is for sure not a matter medium. We are just researching more in
depth what the quantum "vacuum" might actually be. Volovik gives some
real good analogies comparing with quantum liquid condensed matter
scenarios. He figures they produce all physics except for hbar. We are
going after what produces hbar at a more fundamental level.
It looks like 'zertons' have a position. If they can have a
position then there would be a reference frame.
Violates GR?
Since zertons "live" in another spacetime essentially hidden from us,
they have no position wrt our spacetime. I don't think it is a
situation of violating GR in the so-called effective theory. GR is
still valid in our spacetime macroscopically but can't "cover" both
spacetimes. A Super-GR would be needed. Which I suspect might also
give us a quantum theory of gravity.
charge. Hopefully we are going to have a revised paper that
clarifies
our scenario soon. But the zertons "live" in another spacetime in a
dual spacetime scenario so effectively hidden from us anywise.
I can accept dimensions other than the obvious 3+1.
There were hints of that even before string theory
came along. But your 'another spacetime' sounds
verkehrt (wrong) to me. Spacetime is the 3+1. Any other
dimensions would not be part of the 3+1, i.e. not
'spacetime'. What justification do you think you have
for positing 'another spacetime'?
It started just from a straight interpretation of Quantum Field Theory
and assuming virtual particles are real. If virtual "particles" are
real, then could there be "less than virtual" particles? If so, then
"less than virtual" implies that they would have to be "out of our
world" so to speak. The concept of a quantum "vacuum" itself screams
for there to be another spacetime intersecting with ours. Then we also
have the Randall-Sundrum RS1 type of models. A dual spacetime concept
itself is not really all that new. Dirac's Sea would have to be dual
spacetime scenario. Of couse we know as originally presented, Dirac's
Sea doesn't work. We are basically modifying it to see if it might
work. So if the two 3+1 spacetimes are partially intersecting, it seems
like there might be what appears to us as extra dimensions. And they
don't have to be curled up and Planck length size. But they most likely
are dynamic. I figure they run from about atomic scale to whatever the
smallest "size" might be in quantum land.
FrediFizzx
Quantum Vacuum Charge papers;
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.pdf
or postscript
http://www.vacuum-physics.com/QVC/quantum_vacuum_charge.ps
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601110
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
