Hi Good Elf,

I ran across something, but I need to know what direction you are going with the _Aharonov-Bohm Effect _, 55% on this, but turn up the heat just a little.

Best regards,
yquantum

Hi yquantum,

The major problem I have with Feynman's sum over paths method is that it allows, no necessitates, paths that travel in a reverse temporal direction. Unless we live in a virtual reality, I don't think that time travel is possible, even on the quantum level.

z

Hi thezman,

Must hurry, I know I do not need to respond immediately but I want to on this

. I received a thread notification from one person, then you came up and while I was getting ready to answer you, another came up. I want to think on this, we know it works in QED. typo

But let me ask you this, will try and get with the others later,does not the spooky phenomena, entanglement, etc.fall into the theories of the QM, unintuitive packet?

Best regards,

I would like to continue this, if time allows,

yquantum

Even taking the strict quantum view of this (and not the ever so easy classical one) you still have to ask yourself, is it really FTL travel if no information info can ever be sent? Since its impossible to know the state of the electron's spin before measurement, its impossible to use it to send info.

i think another example of this is if you had an ant walking in front of a very bright light. if its shadow reached over a light year, and if the ant was walking faster than a year, its shadow would be moving faster than light, but again, no info can be sent this way so is it really ftl travel?

hope i didnt butcher that analagy (sp probably), but i thing it gives an idea.

Later gents.

Hi a guy,

OK but just for your consideration?

- But from any one point of view, reference of the speed of light is both constant and fixed. - but work is being done in the area of particle physics & many sites deep in the ground looking for, (talk about that another day), so who would dare say never!



The shadow caused concerned, in your statement with SR, if I may I will pass on this issue, only to say if you could find a very recent study on the theory of - Fixed ©, it might shed some light [could not pass it up, sorry] on your question. I do not think your are comparing collapsed wave, superposition, or spooky action with © for many bring that in as a yardstick which I understand, we use as a measurement,© & (t) but then it gets tricky if we are not careful, but these are the tools right now, yes there is an information process in progress which brings in the (space/time/speed © enigma), and most find themselves in a paradox. I will end this part if it is OK.

Einstein had the idea about © and the fixed speed; he consulted a physicist named H. A. Lorentz (Dutch) then a mathematician, H. Poincare' (French) if you look into the result then you will find, and I want to cover my #%$, nothing is written in Dark energy, eh! but the paradox is completely removed at this (t) HA, there I go again.

B r
y

Hi yquantum,

Good Elf Posted on Apr 5 2005, 03:34 PM

Just "fool'in" around with this. The thought occurs to me that if charge is a "knot" in spacetime (AB Effect) and it has "spin" (it does). If it spins fast enough it will close spacetime "off" around it. Since there is only two types of charge (+ve and -ve) this "spin" will have a "special" kind of symmetry. Two valued. So it must a kind of 3D spin (Laevo/dextro type - enantiomorphs - Tweedledee and Tweedledum). It this kind of "exotic" spin is occurring in the spacetime dislocation it would tend to close off spacetime around it in 3D not just 2D as it would if this was a wagon wheel spinning about an axis where the velocity was near the speed of light at the rim where the circumference (2*pi*r) -> 0 but "inside" the rim at less than r this would revert to normal dimensional space (where the knot is) where r -> 0. In this case the "knot" would not be visible in our 3 Dimensions. Out of sight out of mind eh! In there it could be "miles" across. Who is to say?

Reminds me more of Alice in Wonderland and the Cheshire Cat. The only thing left of this "Schroedinger's Cat" is its "smile". The charge and spin.

We would see no extension of the electron "particle" in our dimension - "hidden variables" again. Pinched over to a point not curled up as it might be in all those "other" theories. A visual analogy occurs to me take a toy rubber balloon, blow it partially up and "give a section of it a twist". Internally, from inside the balloon, you see the point where it is "pinched off" and you know on the other side of that "pinch" there is a whole "new balloon". But you can't see it from your side of the pinch. It also occurs that other than the pinch it may not be possible to determine anything except "quarks" beyond that pinch. Still the AB Effect will extend from the "pit" into our Universe. More "Quantum Realism".

You can "unravel" the electron's knot with the right "system"... a positron. Then Tweedledee and Tweedledum (electron/positron) will completely "unravel" the spacetime knot (knot to anti-knot - old magicians trick) releasing the matter-antimatter energy. Otherwise you can go whistle. You can never get the energy out without that "system".

Cheers

Very interesting thoughts Good Elf. And very lucid and clear, even to an amateur such as myself. Good stuff for pondering.

One question though... Wouldn't relativity require us to perceive this near-light-speed-spinning entity to have a very large mass? Electron mass is pretty tiny, from what I can remember.

You're invoking relativity for the length-contraction we perceive... How do you think relativity affects what we should perceive of the mass of your spinning electron (or positron)? And how does that compare to the energy released in an annihilation? Do you think there would be completely "new" math/physics involved that we don't know of yet?

Hi Waterbreath,

Thanks for getting back to me. This idea is not fully developed. Consider this one of those "funny" ideas that may not have "legs". Just rattling off about this if the electron is spinning at some radius at "light speed" it will undergo infinite length contraction, infinite time dilation and "possibly" that increase in mass. I really do not"appreciate" the idea that the mass increases ponderably. That is I take the view that there is an increase in "system" energy but this does not lead to an increase in ponderable mass. You "might" think that this is one and the same phenomenon. I can't help but be highly suspicious. For instance when a space traveler travels near to the speed of light in a space ship external observers "see" that increased mass but is this "ponderable" mass from the point of view of the space traveler? In "his" frame of reference he is at "rest" According to Einstein that is a very valid frame of reference because all inertial frames of reference are equivalent.. It's the rest of the Universe that is spinning past him. I think this is "energy" in the system not mass. It is what you would need to "pump" into the system to get the "particle" to travel at that speed relative to you and it is the energy given up to the rest of the system if you brought the particle to rest relative to you. Many relativity interpretations would have you believe this is irrelevant. I don't think so.


The books will balance at least the energy-momentum 4 vector will. I always think that the most important frame of reference for special and general relativity is the frame the observer is currently in. When that observer looks to other frames it becomes "difficult" and I could go through all that but I think you already know.

I will say this is a pre-Copernican View of the Universe where man, the observer, insists that all reference frames must have him as their point of reference at the center of a Platonic System. There is an equally valid point of view that according to Einstein... relative to that high speed space ship... we are the ones with increased ponderability not them. Who is right? Clearly each observer knows best about his own frame of reference and what other frames of reference are speaking of is "conversion factors" between the system.

Alternatively you would find that just standing up the astronaut would have a massive cerebral haemmorage or heart attack due to his relativistically increased blood pressure and he would die. This would not happen according to Einstein since in all inertial frames of reference the same laws of physics will apply - unchanged.

This is all High Energy Accelerator Mythology. You also have to look at the problem that modern accelerators "go round in circles" and this causes other Lab level forces. But remember "incrementally"... small sections of those racetracks are "linear" and instantaneously they are inertial frames of reference (well sort of). And all inertial frames are equivalent. Anyway these particle beams are "falling freely" under the influence of those accelerating fields and they describe "electromagnetically" the shortest distance between points. So they are "partially" inertial.

Cheers

Ah, yes, I remember discussing this before... That the perceived mass is just an interpretation of the fact that we must add more energy to get the same amount of acceleration when already at a high speed, and not necessarily an indication of what is actually happening...

Now I can see why you said that the space "inside" the electron is effectively "closed". With the relativity effects going on, we don't know what's going on inside there. I still wonder if there is anything else interesting we could calculate using the annihilation energy of an electron-positron pair, assuming the "relativistic spin" scenario.

Greeting WaterBreath, Good Elf,

Taking a break - how I want to escape, so this will be my quantum tunneling for a few.



Like I said I am taking a break, too many people, too many questions. But this hit a good nerve, WaterBreath I might have missed your true meaning of the question and if so, my humblest!

WE know that they are identical, let me use a photon if I may. It is as likely to be in one momentum state as the other. The two-photon system created by the annihilation of what you asked (electron & positron) pair is then defined by the two particle state, right.

Short version ((I 0 >) state or ket vector), is the photon vacuum state. That two operators are combined in this way is due to the fact that the photons are INDISTINGUISHABLE, so we cannot identify a single photon with either of the two on-particle states. This is a problem.

POINT: Entanglement of the photons. WaterBreath Good Elf, and what use to drive me crazy is the question you asked, it is great but we know they have this startling property that each photon has equal probability go going to the right or the left. It is the photon, not the state that is detected - it interacts with the detector and I believe this is the critical paradox to your question how can we calculate.

Guys I do believe and SOON not giving any trade secrets away, so many have ways and the kitchen tools to test this paradox, but I am an optimist - I must admit, yes we will understand more of what is going on in this "relativistic spin," scenario.

And what we can do with it is going to be unbelievable I believe, just think about it. That is what it is all about, right! Application!

I wanted to be funny and say as the famous, Fermat's and his 'Last Theorem,' a conjecture that states that the equation is written on my PDA, but? Well I know he did not write PDA. HA!

Hope you guys have a good one with this, if I missed the mark. I will slow down and read slower.

Got to got to go back, I do not mind being wrong, but if I missed the point then I need to slow down. That is in the spirit of good QM. So please let me know! This has been great just to drink my Java and cross the pond of wonder! Thanks even if?

Best
y

Salutations yquantum,

Your style gives you away. What the -*(Y#- are you doing on this side of the pond. You do not even sleep half the time. My friend it is tea time. We are just concerned, dear friend, we know because someone close to you told us about this site.

Ski, climb some mountains. TAKE A BREAK. Like you need to do this.

Fellow searchers of the unintuitive,
Like if they only knew if you do not stop I just might ?
R.?, K.? and all who respect you so highly !

Hi Turingmachine,

Sorry, you must be talking about someone else. I am just a happy to be here person. You sound like a friend someone would be fortunate to have!

But when I learn how to ski or scale some cliff, I will take the advice you gave your friend! Deal!

Hope you fine him or her? Best of luck!

Best regards,
yquantum

Is he a wave? or is he a particle?
That elusive yquantum is a definite article!