Duda Jarek
Senior Members
Content count
284 
Joined

Last visited
Community Reputation
10 NeutralAbout Duda Jarek

Rank
Baryon
Contact Methods

Website URL
http://th.if.uj.edu.pl/~dudaj/

How quantum is waveparticle duality of Couder's walking droplets?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Physics
Sure, it misses a lot from real physics, like it seems impossible to model 3D this way, also clock here is external while in physics it is rather internal of particles (de Broglie's, zitterbewegung): https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/386715/doeselectronhavesomeintrinsic1021hzoscillationsdebrogliesclock But these hydrodynamical analogues provide very valuable intuitions about the real physics ... 
How quantum is waveparticle duality of Couder's walking droplets?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Physics
Oh, muuuch more has happened  see my slides with links to materials: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kxvvhj0cnl1iqxr/Couder.pdf Interference in particle statistics of doubleslit experiment (PRL 2006)  corpuscle travels one path, but its "pilot wave" travels all paths  affecting trajectory of corpuscle (measured by detectors). Unpredictable tunneling (PRL 2009) due to complicated state of the field ("memory"), depending on the history  they observe exponential drop of probability to cross a barrier with its width. Landau orbit quantization (PNAS 2010)  using rotation and Coriolis force as analog of magnetic field and Lorentz force (Michael Berry 1980). The intuition is that the clock has to find a resonance with the field to make it a standing wave (e.g. described by Schrödinger's equation). Zeemanlike level splitting (PRL 2012)  quantized orbits split proportionally to applied rotation speed (with sign). Double quantization in harmonic potential (Nature 2014)  of separately both radius (instead of standard: energy) and angular momentum. E.g. n=2 state switches between m=2 oval and m=0 lemniscate of 0 angular momentum. Recreating eigenstate form statistics of a walker's trajectories (PRE 2013). In the slides there are also hydrodynamical analogous of Casimir and AharonovBohm. 
How physics can violate Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 ?
Duda Jarek posted a topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
While the original Bell inequality might leave some hope for violation, here is one which seems completely impossible to violate  for three binary variables A,B,C: Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 It has obvious intuitive proof: drawing three coins, at least two of them need to give the same value. Alternatively, choosing any probability distribution pABC among these 2^3=8 possibilities, we have: Pr(A=B) = p000 + p001 + p110 + p111 ... Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) = 1 + 2 p000 + 2 p111 ... however, it is violated in QM, see e.g. page 9 here: http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/notes/chap4.pdf If we want to understand why our physics violates Bell inequalities, the above one seems the best to work on as the simplest and having absolutely obvious proof. QM uses Born rules for this violation: 1) Intuitively: probability of union of disjoint events is sum of their probabilities: pAB? = pAB0 + pAB1, leading to above inequality. 2) Born rule: probability of union of disjoint events is proportional to square of sum of their amplitudes: pAB? ~ (psiAB0 + psiAB1)^2 Such Born rule allows to violate this inequality to 3/5 < 1 by using psi000=psi111=0, psi001=psi010=psi011=psi100=psi101=psi110 > 0. We get such Born rule if considering ensemble of trajectories: that proper statistical physics shouldn't see particles as just points, but rather as their trajectories to consider e.g. Boltzmann ensemble  it is in Feynman's Euclidean path integrals or its thermodynamical analogue: MERW (Maximal Entropy Random Walk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_entropy_random_walk ). For example looking at [0,1] infinite potential well, standard random walk predicts rho=1 uniform probability density, while QM and uniform ensemble of trajectories predict different rho~sin^2 with localization, and the square like in Born rules has clear interpretation: Is ensemble of trajectories the proper way to understand violation of this obvious inequality? Comparing with local realism from Bell theorem, path ensemble has realism and is nonlocal in standard "evolving 3D" way of thinking ... however, it is local in 4D view: spacetime, Einstein's block universe  where particles are their trajectories. What other models with realism allow to violate this inequality? 1 reply

1

Experimental boundaries for size of electron?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Sure, it isn't  fm size is only a suggestion, but a general conclusion here is that cross section does not offer a subfemtometer boundary for electron size (?) Dehmelt's argument of fitting parabola to 2 points: so that the third point is 0 for g=2 ... is "proof" of tiny electron radius by assuming the thesis ... and at most criticizes electron built of 3 smaller fermions. So what experimental evidence bounding size of electron do we have? 
Experimental boundaries for size of electron?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Sure, so here is the original Cabbibo electropositron collision 1961 paper: https://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.124.1577 Its formula (10) says sigma ~ \beta/E^2 ... which extrapolation to resting electron gives ~ 2fm radius. Indeed it would be great to understand corrections to potential used in Schrodinger/Dirac, especially for r~0 situations like electron capture (by nucleus), internal conversion or positronium. Standard potential V ~ 1/r goes to infinity there, to get finite electric field we need to deform it in femtometer scale 
Experimental boundaries for size of electron?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
Could you give some number? Article? We can naively interpret crosssection as area of particle, but the question is: crosssection for which energy should we use for this purpose? Naive extrapolation to resting electron (not Lorentz contracted) suggests ~2fm electron radius this way (which agrees with size of needed deformation of electric field not to exceed 511 keVs energy). Could you propose some different extrapolation? 
Experimental boundaries for size of electron?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
So can you say something about electron size based on electronpositron cross section alone? 
Experimental boundaries for size of electron?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
No matter interpretation, if we want boundaries for size of electron, it shouldn't be calculated for Lorentz contracted electron, but for resting electron  extrapolate above plot to gamma=1 ... or take direct values: So what boundary for size of (resting) electron can you calculate from crosssections of electronpositron scattering? 
Experimental boundaries for size of electron?
Duda Jarek posted a topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
There is some confidence that electron is a perfect point e.g. to simplify QFT calculations. However, searching for experimental evidence (stack), Wikipedia article only points argument based on gfactor being close to 2: Dehmelt's 1988 paper extrapolating from proton and triton behavior that RMS (root mean square) radius for particles composed of 3 fermions should be ~g2: Using more than two points for fitting this parabola it wouldn't look so great, e.g. neutron (udd) has g~ 3.8, \(<r^2_n>\approx 0.1 fm^2 \) And while classically gfactor is said to be 1 for rotating object, it is for assuming equal mass and charge density. Generally we can classically get any gfactor by modifying chargemass distribution: \[ g=\frac{2m}{q} \frac{\mu}{L}=\frac{2m}{q} \frac{\int AdI}{\omega I}=\frac{2m}{q} \frac{\int \pi r^2 \rho_q(r)\frac{\omega}{2\pi} dr}{\omega I}= \frac{m}{q}\frac{\int \rho_q(r) r^2 dr}{\int \rho_m(r) r^2 dr} \] Another argument for point nature of electron is tiny crosssection, so let's look at it for electronpositron collisions: Beside some bumps corresponding to resonances, we see a linear trend in this loglog plot: 1nb for 10GeVs (5GeV per lepton), 100nb for 1GeV. The 1GeV case means \(\gamma\approx1000\), which is also in Lorentz contraction: geometrically means gamma times reduction of size, hence \(\gamma^2\) times reduction of crosssection  exactly as in this line on loglog scale plot. More proper explanation is that it is for collision  transforming to frame of reference where one particle rests, we get \(\gamma \to \approx \gamma^2\). This asymptotic \(\sigma \propto 1/E^2\) behavior in colliders is well known (e.g. (10) here)  wanting size of resting electron, we need to take it from GeVs to E=511keVs. Extrapolating this line (no resonances) to resting electron (\(\gamma=1\)), we get 100mb, corresponding to ~2fm radius. From the other side we know that two EM photons having 2 x 511keV energy can create electronpositron pair, hence energy conservation doesn't allow electric field of electron to exceed 511keV energy, what requires some its deformation in femtometer scale from \(E\propto1/r^2 \): \[ \int_{1.4fm}^\infty \frac{1}{2} E^2 4\pi r^2 dr\approx 511keV \] Could anybody elaborate on concluding upper bound for electron radius from gfactor itself, or point different experimental boundary? Does it forbid electron's parton structure: being "composed of three smaller fermions" as Dehmelt writes? Does it also forbid some deformation/regularization of electric field to a finite energy? 
Fourdimensional understanding of quantum computers
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Quantum Theory
Thanks, I would gladly discuss. The main part of the paper is MERW ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximal_Entropy_Random_Walk) showing why standard diffusion has failed (e.g. predicting that semiconductor is a conductor)  because it has used only an approximation of the (Jaynes) principle of maximum entropy (required by statistical physics), and if using the real entropy maximum (MERW), there is no longer discrepancy  e.g. its stationary probability distribution is exactly as in the quantum ground state. In fact MERW turns out just assuming uniform or Boltzmann distribution among possible paths  exactly like in Feynman's Eulclidean path integrals (there are some differences), hence the agreement with quantum predictions is not a surprise (while still MERW being just a (repaired) diffusion). Including the Born rule: probabilities being (normalized) squares of amplitudes  amplitude describes probability distribution at the end of halfpaths toward past or future in Boltzmann ensemble among paths, to randomly get some value in a given moment we need to "draw it" from both time directions  hence probability is square of amplitude: Which leads to violation of Bell inequalities: top below there is derivation of simple Bell inequality (true for any probability distribution among 8 possibilities for 3 binary variables ABC), and bottom is example of their violation assuming Born rule: 
Fourdimensional understanding of quantum computers
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Quantum Theory
After 7 years I have finally written it down: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0910.2724v2.pdf Also other consequences of living in spacetime, like violation of Bell inequalities. Schematic diagram of quantum subroutine of Shor's algorithm for finding prime factors of natural number N. For a random natural number y<N, it searches for period r of f(a)=y^a mod N, such period can be concluded from measurement of value c after Quantum Fourier Transform (QFT) and with some large probability (O(1)) allows to find a nontrivial factor of N. The Hadamar gates produce state being superposition of all possible values of a. Then classical function f(a) is applied, getting superposition of a> f(a)>. Due to necessary reversibility of applied operations, this calculation of f(a) requires use of auxiliary qbits, initially prepared as 0>. Now measuring the value of f(a) returns some random value m, and restricts the original superposition to only a fulfilling f(a)=m. Mathematics ensures that {a:f(a)=m} set has to be periodic here (y^r \equiv 1 mod N), this period r is concluded from the value of Fourier Transform (QFT). Seeing the above process as a situation in 4D spacetime, qbits become trajectories, state preparation mounts their values (chosen) in the past direction, measurement mounts their values (random) in the future direction. Superiority of this quantum subroutine comes from futurepast propagation of information (tension) by restricting the original ensemble in the first measurement. 
Immunity by incompatibility – hope in chiral life
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Biology
A decade has passed, moving this topic from SF to synthetic life: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiral_life_concept One of the most difficult tasks seemed to be able to synthesize working proteins ... and last year Chinese have synthesized mirror polymeraze: Nature News 2016: Mirrorimage enzyme copies lookingglass DNA, Synthetic polymerase is a small step along the way to mirrored life forms, http://www.nature.com/news/mirrorimageenzymecopieslookingglassdna1.19918 There are also lots of direct economical motivations to continue to synthesize mirror bacteria, like for mass production of mirror proteins (e.g. aptamers) or Lglucose (perfect sweetener). So in another decade we might find out that a colony of mirror bacteria is already living e.g. in some lab in China ... ... taking us closer to a possibility nicely expressed in the title of WIRED 2010 article: "Mirrorimage cells could transform science  or kill us all" ( https://www.wired.com/2010/11/ff_mirrorlife/ )  estimating that it would take a mirror cyanobacteria (photosynthesizing) a few centuries to dominate our planet ... eradicating our life ... 
Do nonlocal entities like soltions fulfill assumptions of Bell theorem?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Quantum Theory
There is a recent article in a good journal (Optics July 2015) showing violation of Bell inequalities for classical fields: "Shifting the quantumclassical boundary: theory and experiment for statistically classical optical fields" https://www.osapublishing.org/optica/abstract.cfm?URI=optica27611 Hence, while Bell inequalities are fulfilled in classical mechanics, they are violated not only in QM, but also classical field theories  asking for field configurations of particles (soliton particle models) makes sense. It is obtained by superposition/entanglement of electric field in two directions ... analogously we can see a crystal through classical oscillations, or equivalently through superposition of their normal modes: phonos, described by quantum mechanics, violating Bell inequalities. 
Do nonlocal entities like soltions fulfill assumptions of Bell theorem?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Quantum Theory
Regarding Bell  we know that nature violates his inequalities, so we need to find an erroneous assumption in his way of thinking. Let's look at a simple proof from http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/paper.pdf So let us assume that there are 3 binary hidden variables describing our system: A, B, C. We can assume that the total probability of being in one of these 8 possibilities is 1: Pr(000)+Pr(001)+Pr(010)+Pr(011)+Pr(100)+Pr(101)+Pr(110)+Pr(111)=1 Denote by Pe as probability that given two variables have equal values: Pe(A,B) = Pr(000) + Pr (001) + Pr(110) + Pr(111) Pe(A,C) = Pr(000) + Pr(010) + Pr(101) + Pr(111) Pe(B,C) = Pr(000) + Pr(100) + Pr(011) + Pr(111) summing these 3 we get Bell inequalities: Pe(A,B) + Pe(A,C) + Pe(B,C) = 1 + 2Pr(000) + 2 Pr(111) >= 1 Now denote ABC as outcomes of measurement in 3 directions (differing by 120 deg)  taking two identical (entangled) particles and asking about frequencies of their ABC outcomes, we can get Pe(A,B) + Pe(A,C) + Pe(B,C) < 1 what agrees with experiment ... so something is wrong with the above line of thinking ... The problem is that we cannot think of particles as having fixed ABC binary values describing direction of spin. We can ask about these values independently by using measurements  which are extremely complex phenomena like SternGerlach. Such measurement doesn't just return a fixed internal variable. Instead, in every measurement this variable is chosen at random  and this process changes the state of the system. Here is a schematic picture of the Bell's misconception: The squares leading to violation of Bell inequalities come e.g. from completely classical Malus law: the polarizer reduces electric field like cos(theta), light intensity is E^2: cos^2(theta). http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~phy225h/experiments/polarizationoflight/polar.pdf To summarize, as I have sketched a proof, the following statement is true: (*): "Assuming the system have some 3 fixed binary descriptors (ABC), then frequencies of their occurrences fulfill Pe(A,B) + Pe(A,C) + Pe(B,C) >= 1 (Bell) inequality" Bell's misconception was applying it to situation with spins: assuming that the internal state uniquely defines a few applied binary values. In contrast, this is a probabilistic translation (measurement) and it changes the system. Beside probabilistic nature, while asking about all 3, their values would depend on the order of questioning  ABC are definitely not fixed in the initial system, what is required to apply (*). 
Do nonlocal entities like soltions fulfill assumptions of Bell theorem?
Duda Jarek replied to Duda Jarek's topic in Quantum Theory
I don't know The discussion about Bell inequalities for solitons has evolved a bit here: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/dononlocalentitiesfulfillassumptionsofbelltheorem.153000/ 4 replies

1