geordief

I just had the quantum interactions (or any interaction involving a quantum particle if a quantum particle can interact with a macro system ) I was wondering whether ,within the quantum system it was possible to define the tocks of time by the interactions that occur. Is there any way ,within that system to distinguish btw a "long" interval between interactions and a small interval? Can the interval ,whether long or short be considered in any way as a unit of "quantum time" (in any useful way)?

Thanks So ,if we know the spin attribute of a photon as it leaves a measuring device on the Earth do we know what a similar device on the Moon will measure provided there are no interactions along its path? And if there is an interaction along the path will that measurement be the same as it would have been on the Moon?

A particle (which in QFT is a wave travelling through a field) can only be measured at the beginning and the end of its journey. In between ,if it is measured then the journey is different .(shorter) If ,for a test particle where the initial conditions are identical(can that be guaranteed, I wonder?) and the particle is then measured at different times from its starting point do we get identical measurements? I mean ,if we have an observer on the Moon and we ,on the Earth** fire a particle with known attributes at them do we know precisely what their measurements will be ? And ,suppose an observer half way between Earth and Moon intercepts the same ( or an "identical") particle will they be guaranteed to make the same measurement as the measures on the Moon? Or do the potential measurements along the line of the particle's line of transit vary with distance from the source? **if the source on the Earth and the receiver on the Moon can be imagined as being at rest wrt each (which they aren't of course but let's just suppose they are -or find other places that are,if that is a problem)

What would be the maximum number of these eigenfunctions for any particular system?

Biden is saying that USA will never recognize Russia's annexation of ( those that parts of)Ukraine. If Trump is reelected is that what he will do?

Well I only have a sketchy understanding of parts of the quantum model itself .Perhaps I was wondering whether the model was treating these "dimensions " in more or less the same way as we treat dimensions in the macro world or at least in a very similar way. (Dimensions in the macro world are also a model,aren't they?The macro world and the micro world are ,in reality the same place-there is only one universe**) **unless that can be disputed😀

Well I have only just gained any understanding of this area at all and so any new knowledge of the model is quite a boost. I think I may have already gleaned from the little I have read that even the ,4 spatiotemporal dimensions can be modeled in this Hilbert phase space . Maybe this use of Hilbert space to model reality gives another sense of what dimensions are,but would I be right to feel that the 4 spatiotemporal dimensions are a different beast to the other eigenstates(if that is the term) even if the Hilbert space model treats them the same?

I am learning that Hilbert space is .very central to QM. Does that mean that every aspect (,or attribute?) of a quantum system (I think one has to use the term "system" rather than "object") exists in something like it's own dimension?

A Russian faction trying to force Putin's hand?

Yes it helps. Next stop I will be a particle physicist

Am I right to understand that these correlations only occur when thousands of measurements of entangled particles are taken? It is a statistical outcome? Or has this measurement been made with just 2 entangled particles and the outcome is predictable on each occasion?

Maybe it was someone else (or my memory has wind blowing through the attic) No matter. Is there a "father" of the maths in QM? (like Minkowski for GR I think)

I think it was @joigus who may have pointed out recently that for an understanding of quantum effects one must rely on the mathematics rather than any physical demonstration.(or words to that effect?) Since,in my case it seems unlikely I will at any time soon gain such mathematical understandings could I ask instead maybe for a general description of what those mathematical tools were and how it came about that they were seen to be necessary to address the problem? Was it a gradual process of mathematical progress or were there one or two breakthrough moments ?

So lack of empathy would be a stronger factor than outright hatred(or less strong dislikes)? It has to be dehumanising ?(I think it was common for vanquished peoples to be enslaved but there would surely be some respect for a defeated foe)

Maybe that is how it sounded to you.Certainly not the sentiment I meant it to express. Good people can be lucky as can bad people. People of any kind can benefit from luck. When I think of slavery I think of a very strong kind.The kind where you are hunted down by the "legitimate" forces if you attempt your freedom. Sure there are gradations but I didn't have that in mind.

I am listening to someone singing "We shall not be moved" Very moving and my first inclination is to suppose that the moral and physical strength of that oppressed group was the overriding factor in the changes that brought an end to slavery in Europe and the USA. On reflection I am wondering if I was naive and whether there were other factors that brought about those changes. Can anyone say what they think might have been the main factors? It wasn't a case of economic change that made the practice less profitable,was it? Or the new communication technologies that shone a light on what was happening? It doesn't seem to me that our common wisdom has to increase as time passes and the generations follow each other. Did those African slaves just get lucky at that juncture or was slavery always living on borrowed time?

Would they not have to have been very brave to have openly opposed the war before this? Russia feels like an open prison to me A pit of despair.

thanks(I doubt I will ever get near understanding most of that). Can I ask ,though whether entanglement is an on/off process (for a system of two "objects" or whether it might be possible for there to be any grey area even if below the level of conceivable detectability? , If not ,might it be possible to model entanglement spreading through a system of more than two objects?

Is that why Communism didn't take off in India? Too much of a strain picking up the spaghettified remains from the pavement? https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220920-how-indias-lattice-buildings-cool-without-air-con

Can all systems be described by one wave function(as I think I may have heard)? Can systems generally also be separated into separate wave functions so that the inseperability you are talking of is really just specific to entangled particles?

Can it be said the the two subsequent objects were one (dynamic) object at the entaglement?

Yes ,a great entertaining lecture from Sean Carrol and most of it very new to me (some of it just providing "internal" context. Amusing how he presents QFT as some kind of an ugly duckling of physics.It is indeed the last part of that general area that I realized I should (could) look at. "All the world's a Field" could be a catchy tune I will have to play it a good few times more now when I get the time

I Thanks,I will take a look at that pinned thread as it does seem very much a propos.

Do the particles exist when their state is undefined? Or do they only exist when there is an interaction? I think this may have been answered earlier but if the state of one entangled particle is measured does it matter when the state of the other is measured? Could it be centuries later so long as there had been no other interactions in the meantime ? Also you mentioned the global fields: Would I be right to think that these global fields arose at the earliest epochs that have been modeled and that they have been "evolving" ever since ,like some kind of physical cosmic organisms ?

Your dance of choice seems to be some interpretation of the Sidestep.I will leave it there and talk to my hand..(think you omitted the "it" :it makes a bit more sense with it)