juanrga

First, what has this to do with what I said? Second, we do not estimate sizes; we measure sizes [*]. Size S is a special case of a scientific quantity: S={S}. If measurement of the size of an object gives S, this quantity does not depend on with what you compare it, because comparison with another object must give the same size: S = aA = bB. What varies in the comparison with different objects is the proportionality constant: a or b respectively. [*] Instead "size" is better to say length, height, or some other physical quantity representing size. But I will continue using "size" since this was the original word used by the other poster.

Such questions are tricky. An electron in a box of side L can occupy the entire volume of the box according to quantum mechanics. But at the other hand, the electron (at least in the Standard Model of particle physics) has not volume itself. Finally, it is generally agreed (although this is still open to debate) that distances below the Planck length are unphysical.

If those supposed 'universes' are physically linked to our universe then they cannot be other 'universes' but parts of the same universe.

If they exist and are not linked to ours in any physical way, it is all like if they do not exist. And if they exist and are linked to our in some physical way then they are not different universes but parts of the same universe.

From your post "time is strictly local." Once again local time is not global time. Your words: "Galilean relativity which was provided from the ever famous Maxwell's Equations." Time is not a numerical parameter but a physical quantity. Your words: "The Lorentz Tranformations and [...] allow you to shuffle space and time coordinates freely in such a way that the meaning of the spacetime continuum is that it is timeless". Your words: "The Minkowski metric is a three dimensional space and one imaginary space dimension". And your new claim is also wrong. A metric is not a spacetime. You said more: "and its formalism into Minkowski spacetime, it does not seem to be fundamental in a quantum field argument." Contrary to your claims there is a timeline before the 70000 years http://en.wikipedia....of_the_Big_Bang Your exact words were: Einstein once said, ''that for those who believe in quantum physics, knows that the distinction of past and future are just stubborn illusions.'' You invented the first part of the quote. Einstein never said that you put within the "". It says: "It is often said that in general relativity time does not exist." But even if we accept the it "is often said", this is unrelated to my writing above. The definition is not that. Even critics of string theory accept the derivation of quantum field equations. Calling it a wave function and using a similar symbol does not mean it was a wave function. GR is not your theory.

Shankar is a beginners' text, which gives an introduction to QM. More advanced texts correct the "flaws" and "nonsense" in books as that. You said that a particle is a wave. A pair of minutes before you said that your "very first post in this thread" was #16. Both statements are untrue.

What part of "did exist in the past" and "will exist the next year" you still confound with "now"?

1) When someone points your mistakes and nonsenses (s)he is not "making personal attacks". 2) Personal attacks is when you call others "crackpots", "liars", "charlatans"... including to people who is not here for defending himself. 3) You have been given references: papers, books... Avoiding yourself from reading them and repeating the same nonsense forever is not going to change anything about physics. 4) Nobody said that the CERN website link gives the definition of particle used in physics. Once again you do not read. 5) Doing good philosophy is not a requirement for doing science.

Nobody said "just". You are who again put in other words that never said. Very typical. Moreover, you also said that the wave function was real and physical, which is also completely wrong.

You said that a particle is a wave. Your very first post was not #16. Rest of misconceptions corrected before.

The first quantum field theory principle? And who said you that biology has been reduced to quantum field theory? But you have not cited even one simple problem. Barbour has not eliminated time t from physics, he has only eliminated dt from some simple equations. The above equation continue depending upon time t, although it is not explicitly written. Local time does not have to be confused with global time. Physicists use different symbols when both are to met in the same equation. Maxwell equations are not Galilean relativistic equations. Time was never a "numerical parameter" in Newtonian theory. Special relativity does not shuffle space and time but maintain both physically different. Neither it says that spacetime is 'timeless'. A metric is not a space. Neither time is "one imaginary space dimension". The trick to use "iT" instead "t" was an earlier trick to made that some formulae look more symmetrical in a 4D formalism. It is unneeded and pretty abandoned today in classical relativity. Quantum field theory is build over a quantum Minkowski spacetime. The timeline of the cosmological evolution of universe predicted by relativity has been tested in the radiation era. Spacetime events do not take place in time but in spacetime. He tried, but he has not advanced in that program. You have invented this quote. He never said what you put within "". General relativity contains true time evolution and this fact is emphasized in the 3+1 formalism designed to deal with dynamical situations. The term "arrow of time" used in physics has a radically different meaning than you pretend. It of course does not mean that time looks as an arrow. When the field equations are properly quantized we obtain something similar to what string theory obtains. The analogy with the Schrodinger equation is only based in visual analogies because people uses symbols that other people uses. [math]|\Psi>[/math] is not a wavefunction, not even close. The classical limit does not give general relativity. And Everett Many Worlds is nonsense, as has been shown. The no conservation of energy in GR has nothing to do with cosmological expansion.

When you look to any star in the sky, you are not seeing the star at the present time. The more far away the star the more young you see it. Why would be different for the rest of Universe?

Sure that mammoths did exist in the past and sure that a new gadget will exist the next year.

I will reply to that what you insist on repeating and will ignore what was corrected before. I will try to give short answers and use plain terms: 1) Insulting others will not hide your mistakes and glaring nonsenses. 2) Gribbin is not talking about the modern statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics. He is talking about "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas" associated to "classical theory" http://en.wikipedia...._Ensemble_Ideas 3) Ballentine textbook on the modern statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct and it is considered one of best textbooks to learn QM: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ 4) You cannot pretend to cite the Wikipedia as gospel and at the same time write that "any charlatan can claim any nonsense thing". 5) The standard definition of particle has been given. 6) What other poster objected was to the use of the term "quantum particle". The term "quantum particle" is also used in textbooks. One reference was given. 7) Physicists do not have to agree with philosophers about definitions used in physics. 8) The link to a physicist blog was given because another poster was objecting to a phrase and the blog proves that more people use the phrase. 9) Wave particle duality is a "myth" or "misconception". Chose you favourite word.

Thanks! +1 for you.

As has been explained to you more several times, the Statistical Interpretation of QM is free of the technical inconsistencies and phylosophical nonsense of earlier interpretations. Everyone who has studied QM at some extension agrees on that this modern approach to QM rocks: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ Your pretension that Ballentine's formulation of QM "has been falsified and it is only of a historical significance" and, therefore, that all of us are lying is hilarious. And any scientist knows that the Wikipedia is not a reliable academic resource, because it is edited by people with consider himself expert in physics after seeing a Start Treck episode or reading a popular book about philosophy. Particle physicists must be not using the term particle in the sense you use when playing football or cricket. But they are studying electrons, photons, quarks... scientifically. Because you have decided not to learn what is a particle or what is a quantum ensemble cannot be excuse for stopping scientists from continuing their work. I am only correcting the flagrant mistakes and nonsense that you post, whereas giving basic thoughts and references for people who arrives to this thread and really want to learn QM and physics.

Same photon is moving from the space craft to the empty space. Yes, I said this to you in the quote below "There is only a kind..." The energy state is different. Yes, I said this to you in the quote above "the energy is not the same..."

No, the energy is not the same in a frame where p is zero than in a frame where it is not. There is only a kind of photons.

I will try to explain this to you again. 1) Gribbin statement is about classical ensembles. From the Wiki section entitled "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas": 2) The statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is a minimalist formulation of quantum mechanics dealing with quantum ensembles. It is not a classical theory. 1) does not apply. 3) The statistical interpretation of Quantum Mechanics has been verified in any experiment. 1) does not apply. It is a minimalist modern approach to quantum mechanics. Ballentine's book is considered by every reviewer as one of the best (some claim it is the best) textbooks to learn the foundations of quantum mechanics: http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm/ You ignore the above points and links and your sole 'argument' is that because (a) someone (a non-scientist!!) has a personal website where the name of a PDF file is "Ballentine_Ensemble_Interpretation_1970.pdf" and (b) someone in Wikipedia uses the term "ensemble interpretation" in a criticism of earlier classical ideas (ideas published before 1930) you conclude that the "Statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics" (published in Rev. Modern Physics) has been falsified. I have read all kind of silly arguments in the internet, and I only can say about the yours: WOW! Some scientists use the term "myth", others use the term "misconception"; the specific term is of no importance, the point is that wave-particle duality does not exist on quantum mechanics. Yes, particles behave as particles. There is nothing mysterious about that, in fact it is what quantum mechanics says. You have been explained why and I gave you at least a quote from a textbook saying that a particle behaves as a particle. Quantum mechanics is a physical theory and physical theories deal with the physical nature of the systems under study. E.g. we define a particle, which are its physical properties and behaviour; next we perform experiments and check the theory. There is a branch of fundamental physics, particle physics, devoted to this in exclusive.

I will repeat this one time more: Gribbin is criticizing an earlier classical ensemble interpretation (classical physics) dealing with a classical ensemble: http://en.wikipedia...._Ensemble_Ideas Gribbin is not writing about the modern statistical interpretation of QM, which deals with quantum ensembles. Why do you insist on your mistake? The statistical interpretation of QM was initiated by Born, who won a Nobel Prize for that! Ballentine and other workers have developed and extended this interpretation of QM up to its modern version. As said before the statistical interpretation is a minimalist interpretation of QM without the inconsistencies and philosophies by Bohr and others (as someone wrote: it removes "the metaphysical mumbo jumbo and focus on what the theory actually says" ). It is the shut up and calculate of empiricists. Moreover, you have been given two links with multiple reviews of Ballentine textbook, where everyone states that Ballentine is probably the best textbook on QM. In the past you cited a philosophical encyclopedia. Are you aware on what is the first textbook cited in the article on quantum mechanics on the same encyclopedia? Can you read the commentary about Ballentine textbook?

Am I allowed to be a bit skepctical? I am still waiting for promised AI (what happened finally with Kasparov accusations on IBM's Deep Blue?) and I am waiting for promised optical computers 1000 times faster than electronic ones. Also I cannot see how "a quantum computer would be able to process much of the math at the same instant instead of sequentially" in nonlinear and/or non-parallel problems.

Gribbin [*] is not talking about the statistical interpretation of QM but about a supposed ensemble interpretation. Both are sometimes confounded (as you are doing now) but they are two completely different things: one is pure QM the other is a falsified classical theory. The same quote that you give confirms this: "However, hopes for turning quantum mechanics back into a classical theory were dashed." This is the ensemble 'interpretation', which is not any interpretation, but a failed ancient attempt. In fact, you got that quote from the Wikipedia section devoted to "Earlier Classical Ensemble Ideas". At the other hand, the statistical interpretation of QM is minimalist quantum mechanics, without the inconsistencies and philosophies associated to Bohr and coworkers (I already said this to you before). If you were to study the topic that you pretend to discuss with us or if at least you were to check some facts before posting insults or nonsense, then with a pair of clicks you would go to this Amazon page http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/9810241054 with 100% of reviewers giving the maximum score and saying that Ballentine textbook on the statistical interpretation of QM is a superior presentation of QM because it is logical and rigorous, technically deep, and because it corrects mistakes, misconceptions, and myths found in other textbooks on QM. And with a pair more of clicks you would go to http://www.physicsfo...ad.php?t=276701 with every physics mentor and science advisor agreeing in that it is the best treatment of QM up to the date, with quotes such as: ------ [*] An astrophysicist with zero contributions to QM: popular books and science fiction books do not count as contributions.

Aguirre. I do not know why you replied adding your words inside a quote from mine. When clicking in the reply button your message appears in white, because technically you posted nothing (you only modified a quote from mine). I wrote: And your reply was: Regarding the first part, if you search a bit you can verify by yourself that more than a person in this planet claims that science is not a subfield of philosophy. Regarding your quote, you can find many brilliant scientists sharing their thoughts about what is the utility of philosophy for science, from short quotes as the next by Feynman: to more detailed essays such as Against philosophy. A final though: I am not to debate about philosophy in a Quantum Theory forum. No. Mainstream textbooks and links to mainstream academic websites were given since the first post. The citation to the wiki page (not anonymous user as you say) was given only when someone tried to use the wiki as support for his incorrect ideas about particles being waves. No. Since it is pure QM, it deals with non-local effects without any violation. Moreover, as the author says, explicitly, this is not a hidden variable theory. It is deBroglie pilot wave theory which is in conflict with relativity, because deBroglie took the non-existent wave-particle duality as if was something real and fundamental as you do. My advice is the same: move your philosophical ruminations to the philosophy forum.

In the part of my message that you quote I cite Ballentine well-known textbook (well-known for scientists). The material in that book is derived from papers published in theoretical journals dealing with foundations of physics (your links to basic educative journals and to philosophical journals do not count). One of those papers is http://rmp.aps.org/abstract/RMP/v42/i4/p358_1 Notice that is was published in Review of Modern Physics after that Bohr passed away. Notice that this is not the kind of philosophical obscure journal as those that you cited in the past. Nobody is claiming what you pretend. You just quoted a part from my message that says the contrary of what you pretend. I reintroduce the quote: Evidently "particle" is not a synonym for "classical particle". What is more, I introduce a warning about this in my first post in this thread and even used red font for emphasizing this important point. What SW writes here regarding the history of quantum physics (he writes about what was done/believed about 1926--1930) has nothing to do with what I wrote. But what I find more fascinating is how you pretend to use SW now when in the past you attacked to SW, for instance with your: Quantum mechanics is based in a set of postulates, none of which is Bohr's complementarity principle. There is nothing ambiguous about what he wrote in Physics Today and I quoted:

"Rest mass" is a misnomer [*] and we use the term "invariant mass" or simply "mass" (the immense majority of the literature prefer "mass"). The correct statement is "a photon has no mass". [*] It is a misnomer also for electrons; e.g., the "rest mass" of an electron moving at 0.1c is the same that when the electron is at rest.