Prev: Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for anylength of time.
Next: The New Engima -- Dork Flow!
From: marcofuics on 10 Mar 2010 03:34
On Mar 9, 10:01 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:

> Photons have no position operator associated to them. See for instance

I know, and this fact is almost accepted as true by phy community...


> Simple proof of no position operator for quanta with zero mass and nonzero
> helicity. 1980: J. Math. Phys. 19, 1382-1385. Jordan, T.F.

Yes

> This is also true for some massive particles, e.g. Dirac electrons, which
> always move at c.

????? Are U sure? Can u check the sentence?
@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Massive particles, e.g. Dirac electrons, which always move at c.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Maybe are U referring to Weyl neutrinos? zero-rest-mass????

From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 10 Mar 2010 07:41
dlzc wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:38:28 -0800:

> Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:
>
> On Mar 9, 2:01 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> marcofuics wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:14:45 -0800:
>>
>> > In my opinion only massive particles could be positioned, not
>> > massless. Massless particle does move at speed of light c; so it is
>> > unreachable by whatever
>> > observational-frame.. then for this reason each observer sees it
>> > moving at the same c speed. This means that for massless particles
>> > talk about position has no sense. Any idea?
>>
>> Photons have no position operator associated to them.
>
> That's OK, Marco was not interested in a QM treatment at this time, if
> you'd have bothered to read before sniping.

Everyone can see that my reply contains the OP in full
without any snip.

Everyone can also see that, however, you have sniped my message... :-D

> David A. Smith



--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 10 Mar 2010 07:53
marcofuics wrote on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 00:34:10 -0800:

> On Mar 9, 10:01 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>
>> Photons have no position operator associated to them. See for instance
>
> I know, and this fact is almost accepted as true by phy community...

Unlike people at those nws, they are the kind of people that accept
experimental results and theoretical proofs as the linked below.

>> Simple proof of no position operator for quanta with zero mass and
>> nonzero helicity. 1980: J. Math. Phys. 19, 1382-1385. Jordan, T.F.
>
> Yes

If you have an analysis of what the above proof is wrong or not valid
in general, just show it.

>> This is also true for some massive particles, e.g. Dirac electrons,
>> which always move at c.
>
> ????? Are U sure? Can u check the sentence? @@@@@@@@@@@@@
> Massive particles, e.g. Dirac electrons, which always move at c.
> @@@@@@@@@@@@@
>
> Maybe are U referring to Weyl neutrinos? zero-rest-mass????

Nope. I have a rare tendency to be rather precise.

As is well-known the Dirac equation of relativistic quantum mechanics
predicts that Dirac electrons move at the speed of light.

Dirac, Schrödinger, Feynman... all them knew that, and it is explained
in textbooks and papers. Feynman computes the speed of a Dirac electron
in his textbook in QED and even try to explain why is +-c.

Dirac in his Nobel lecture wrote:

"the velocity of the electron at any time equals the
velocity of light."

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1933/dirac-lecture.pdf

This odd result is one of the reasons which the Dirac equation is not
*more* considered a valid wave equation and as said in my previous post,
the reason which x is not an observable in quantum field theory but
a mere unobservable parameter.

Remark: quantum field theory has not solved the problems of localization
merely ignored them. The problems are solved when relativistic quantum
field theory is substituted by a more rigorous and general theory.

This is all reviewed in

"Theories reducing to quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics doesn't"

which is now under preparation

http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/drafts.html



--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
From: dlzc on 10 Mar 2010 14:53
Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:

On Mar 10, 5:41 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
<nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> dlzc wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:38:28 -0800:
> > On Mar 9, 2:01 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
> >> marcofuics wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:14:45 -0800:
>
> >> > In my opinion only massive particles could
> >> > be positioned, not massless.  Massless
> >> > particle does move at speed of light c; so
> >> > it is unreachable by whatever
> >> > observational-frame.. then for this reason
> >> > each observer sees it moving at the same c
> >> > speed. This means that for massless particles
> >> > talk about position has no sense. Any idea?
>
> >> Photons have no position operator associated
> >> to them.
>
> > That's OK, Marco was not interested in a QM
> > treatment at this time, if you'd have bothered
> > to read before sniping.
>
> Everyone can see that my reply contains the OP
> in full without any snip.

Sniping, as in posting "Nope" to each statement I made to the OP, with
no helpful context. Not "snipping" / "removing" content that does not
apply to the OPs question.

> Everyone can also see that, however, you have
> sniped my message... :-D

Yes, the entire record is on display.

David A. Smith
From: "Juan R." González-Álvarez on 10 Mar 2010 15:40
dlzc wrote on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:53:50 -0800:

> Dear "Juan R." González-Álvarez:
>
> On Mar 10, 5:41 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> dlzc wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:38:28 -0800:
>> > On Mar 9, 2:01 pm, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
>> > <nowh...(a)canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> >> marcofuics wrote on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 05:14:45 -0800:
>>
>> >> > In my opinion only massive particles could be positioned, not
>> >> > massless.  Massless particle does move at speed of light c; so it
>> >> > is unreachable by whatever
>> >> > observational-frame.. then for this reason each observer sees it
>> >> > moving at the same c speed. This means that for massless particles
>> >> > talk about position has no sense. Any idea?
>>
>> >> Photons have no position operator associated to them.
>>
>> > That's OK, Marco was not interested in a QM treatment at this time,
>> > if you'd have bothered to read before sniping.
>>
>> Everyone can see that my reply contains the OP in full without any
>> snip.
>
> Sniping, as in posting "Nope" to each statement I made to the OP, with
> no helpful context. Not "snipping" / "removing" content that does not
> apply to the OPs question.

Ahhh, I stand corrected about "sniping" wich I miserably read as
snipping with a typo, my apologies :-D

About your other message, well, "nope" is that kind of kindly response
that *your "pearls* deserve:

"No quantum object has a "position", only a measurement of position with
an uncertainty."

"Because it is difficult to measure a position [for photons], only means
it is not at rest."

"Quantum mechanics does not care about position, speed, path, or
duration."


--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/

BLOG:
http://www.canonicalscience.org/publications/canonicalsciencetoday/canonicalsciencetoday.html
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Clocks in relative motion cannot remain synchronized for anylength of time.
Next: The New Engima -- Dork Flow!