Events, Intervals and Speed

Discussions on classical and modern physics, quantum mechanics, particle physics, thermodynamics, general and special relativity, etc.

Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby BurtJordaan on May 24th, 2020, 12:51 am 

Bangstrom, I think you are still thinking about the wrong paper. Here is a lengthy quote with my emphasis. I have also attached the full arXiv.pdf for convenience, should you want to look at the paper as a whole, including their references.

Quantifying Absorption in the Transactional Interpretation R. E. Kastner∗ , John G. Cramer† June 19, 2018 wrote:
3 Conclusion

It is shown herein that emission and absorption processes are quantitatively well-defined
in the transactional (direct-action) picture
, and are essentially the same as in the standard
theory of quantum electrodynamics, except for the replacement of the quantized field by
the response of charged currents jj to an emitting current ji. Such emissions and responses
cannot be predicted–they are inherently indeterministic. But the physical circumstances of
their occurrence can be defined and quantified by identifying the coupling constant between
interacting fields (e in the case of the electromagnetic interaction) as the amplitude for
generation of an OW (Fock state |ki) or CW (dual Fock state hk| ), both being required
for the existence of a ‘real photon,’ which in the direct-action picture is described by a
Fock state projection operator |kihk|.
Virtual photons are identified as the basic timesymmetric connections or propagators between currents, which do not prompt responses, do not precipitate the non-unitary transition, and thus remain an aspect of unitary (forcebased) interactions only.

Thus, virtual photons (time-symmetric propagator) convey force
only, while real photons (projection operators, quanta of a real-valued field) convey real
10energy and break linearity.
The latter is just an expression of what Einstein noted long
ago: real electromagnetic energy (the actualized photon |kihk| ) is emitted and absorbed
as a particle (projection operator with definite spatial momentum ~k) [16]. It has been
shown herein that the product of the amplitudes of emission and absorption constitute
the squaring process for obtaining the probability of either radiative process considered
separately, thus demonstrating that the Born Rule arises naturally in the direct-action
theory of fields, in which both processes must always occur together (i.e., there is never
emission without absorption, and vice versa).

Finally, any quantized field theory can be re-expressed as a direct action theory, as
shown by Narlikar [17]. Therefore, any field for which the basic Davies model holds is a
component of the transactional model, and transfers of real quanta of those fields can be understood as the result of actualized transactions. (However, there is an asymmetry between
gauge boson fields and their fermionic sources, and in general such sources participate in
transactions indirectly, by way of boson confirmations [18]). While the direct-action theory
has historically been regarded with distrust, it is perfectly self-consistent; and it should also
be noted here that as recently as 2003, Wheeler himself was advocating reconsideration of
the direct-action picture [19].

Bangstrom wrote:The transfer of a quantum of energy (Cramer unfortunately calls it a photon) is instant and complete with the collapse of the superposition state. The interaction is nonlocal and simultaneous at both ends with no need for a physical object, as either a particle or a wave, to pass through space transporting energy from one electron to the other.

I'm aware of your personal theory about this aspect, but as I said to Faradave above, you should shift over to Personal Theory for discussions of that.

Again, TI is not about "collapse of the superposition state", it is about the real transmission and absorption of e.m. energy by means of photon exchange between non-entangled atoms. Just like your WiFi signal comes to your device.

BTW, Cramer still seems quite happy with the terminology 'photon' here...
Attachments
1711.04501.pdf
Quantifying Absorption in the Transactional Interpretation R. E. Kastner∗ , John G. Cramer
(155.86 KiB) Downloaded 34 times
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby bangstrom on May 24th, 2020, 3:44 am 

BurtJordaan » May 23rd, 2020, 11:51 pm wrote:Bangstrom, I think you are still thinking about the wrong paper. Here is a lengthy quote with my emphasis. I have also attached the full arXiv.pdf for convenience, should you want to look at the paper as a whole, including their references.

Quantifying Absorption in the Transactional Interpretation R. E. Kastner∗ , John G. Cramer† June 19, 2018 wrote:
3 Conclusion

It is shown herein that emission and absorption processes are quantitatively well-defined
in the transactional (direct-action) picture
, and are essentially the same as in the standard
theory of quantum electrodynamics, except for the replacement of the quantized field by
the response of charged currents jj to an emitting current ji. .


The essential difference between Faradave’s and my "personal" theories is that they are consistent with Cramer’s TIQM and your personal interpretation is not.

For instance, can you explain the meaning of jj and ji in the first sentence that you underlined or show where the theory mentions anything about a photon traveling through space at speed c.
The energy exchange ends and becomes evident to observers with the loss of superposition and there is no more to it. I don’t agree with your understanding of virtual and real photons but that is a minor issue.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby BurtJordaan on May 24th, 2020, 6:50 am 

bangstrom » 24 May 2020, 09:44 wrote:For instance, can you explain the meaning of jj and ji in the first sentence that you underlined or show where the theory mentions anything about a photon traveling through space at speed c.

The currents jj and ji are defined on pages 4and 5, eq's. 5. to 8.

1711.04501.pdf pp 5 wrote:We can now make use of standard results from quantum electrodynamics (QED) regarding ‘emission’ and ‘absorption’ processes; all we need to do is to recall that any occurrence
of the field Aµ(x) represents the combined effect at x of all currents jj. This includes
the Coulomb field (zeroth component, A0), which is not quantized in the Davies theory,
but we are interested in radiative phenomena (emission and absorption), corresponding to
quanta of the field. For the latter to occur, we require a response to a current ji from at
least one other current jj such that cancellation/reinforcement of the appropriate fields is
achieved, thus creating a ‘free field’ corresponding to a photon Fock state |ki (it is actually a projection operator as shown below). Without the appropriately phased absorber
response, we have only non-quantized virtual photons, represented by the time-symmetric
propagator (first term on the right hand side of (4)), as opposed to Fock states (second
term on the right hands side of (4)). A useful way to conceptualize this distinction is that
‘virtual photons are force carriers, but only real photons are energy carriers.’

As for the 2nd part of you question, they mention real photons repeatedly. "Traveling through space at speed c" is what real photons do - no scientist expects to have to define a photon or what 'energy carriers' mean.

Bangstrom wrote:The energy exchange ends and becomes evident to observers with the loss of superposition and there is no more to it.

If there is any loss of superposition, it is during the handshake actions with advanced and retarded waves, without any energy transfer. Then follows the normal transfer of energy through real photons. Not my interpretation: this is contemporary science - what you say is not, unless I have missed your point completely.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby TheVat on May 24th, 2020, 10:42 am 

Just curious... how would lightsails work if photons aren't really particles or particle-like in their propagation? I am not arguing any position, not being up on this subject, but wonder how that would work.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby BurtJordaan on May 24th, 2020, 11:55 am 

TheVat » 24 May 2020, 16:42 wrote:Just curious... how would lightsails work if photons aren't really particles or particle-like in their propagation?

Particle-wave duality and the momentum of radiation make it physically irrelevant which one of the two we use for the calculation of the pressure on solar sails. However, experiments like two-slit light interference indicate that light travel as waves and is detected as particles. It is simpler to explain solar sail pressure when considering light as photons, but it does not really matter.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby bangstrom on May 24th, 2020, 1:17 pm 

BurtJordaan » May 24th, 2020, 5:50 am wrote:
The currents jj and ji are defined on pages 4and 5, eq's. 5. to 8.

The values of the currents jj and ji are used but not defined in the article or you would know what they are. The currents only work if the electrons are in immediate contact or acting nonlocally over distance. This is why a photon carrying energy from one electron to the other is not necessary.

BurtJordaan » May 24th, 2020, 5:50 am wrote:
As for the 2nd part of you question, they mention real photons repeatedly. "Traveling through space at speed c" is what real photons do - no scientist expects to have to define a photon or what 'energy carriers' mean.

In Cramer’s theory, a “photon” is a single quantum of energy and not something that travels through space as in the classical photon theory. This is why it is unfortunate that Cramer calls it a “photon” because that leads to so much confusion.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby bangstrom on May 24th, 2020, 1:29 pm 

TheVat » May 24th, 2020, 9:42 am wrote:Just curious... how would lightsails work if photons aren't really particles or particle-like in their propagation? I am not arguing any position, not being up on this subject, but wonder how that would work.

Light sails would work in space but just barely. There is a tiny amount of recoil when an electron loses or gains energy. It was once thought that light sails should work like the vanes in a Crooks radiometer but a radiometer is driven by thermal transpiration which is a stronger effect working against the direction of light pressure. Thermal transpiration requires the presence of air molecules.

A radiometer will rotate like a solar sail in a near-perfect vacuum if the vanes can overcome the resistance but the rotation is in reverse of the normal direction.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Taking a Pole

Postby Faradave on May 24th, 2020, 2:34 pm 

BurtJordaan wrote:I am talking about real 4-spacetime. It is flat and undistorted if we are taking SR spacetime…
As regards Special Relativity, That's not what Rindler says:
"Such maps necessarily distort metric relations and one has to compensate for this distortion." p.90

That's not what Feynman says:
"Although the geometry of space-time is not Euclidean in the ordinary sense, there is a geometry which is very similar, but peculiar in certain respects [refers to minus sign]." p.97

That's not what Wikipedia says:
"A very important pseudo-Euclidean space is Minkowski space, which is the mathematical setting in which Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity is formulated."

BurtJordaan wrote:Why do you bring maps into it?
Because your diagram needs the asymptotes (a.k.a. "light cones") to exhibit zero magnitude.

Treating the earth as a sphere, every surface location is a pole in relation to its associated diameter. There can be a Mercator projection for every longitudinal direction from each pole. All those maps show the pole as projected contact (with infinite coordinate designations), which are a single actual point. As on a globe, our spacetime model needs a c-dependent pole available at every event.

Physics uses models. To model zero interval separation realistically, I offer a curved-space, radial-time model. A temporal 4-field radiates unidirectionally (outward only) from the singularity of the Big Bang. In the rest frame of the cosmos (isotropic background radiation), an enclosing 3-surface is curved-space (a simultaneity) at any particular age of the cosmos.

Importantly, for every location on any spatial 3-sphere, there exists a tangent interval 3-plane. That event is thus, identified by zero interval separation in every XYZ direction (corresponding to those of space) at that cosmic age. A future (expanded) 3-sphere offers a corresponding event differing only by ∆t. As the cosmos ages, spatial arcs tend to local flatness and the relation between ∆t, space (say ∆x), and interval (∆d) get closer and closer to a recognized equation for spatial intervals: ∆x² = ∆d² + ∆t². After 13.8 billion years, I think that makes a respectable model.

tangent interval plane.png
A radial temporal 4-field emanating from the Big Bang is enclosed by 3-sphere (space now) and at a later (∆t) cosmic age (future space). For any 4D event (e.g. pink dot now), there can be modeled a tangent interval 3-plane (shown as a disk).

Image
With increasing relative speed the cosmos shortens in the direction of motion (x). At speed c, when ∆t = ∆x, there is zero interval separation from the emission event. Persistent tangency of the interval 3-plane (including zero intervals), despite varied relative motion, exhibits its invariance (including c).

BurtJordaan wrote:[This is the] (physics) section. …start a thread under Personal Theories
I've worn out yet another welcome {…sigh}. Enjoy your thread. Back to the lab for me. (I've still got that flying car to finish. After three small fires, I needed the break. – Thanks!)
User avatar
Faradave
Active Member
 
Posts: 1984
Joined: 10 Oct 2012
Location: Times Square (T2)


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby BurtJordaan on May 25th, 2020, 1:15 am 

bangstrom » 24 May 2020, 19:17 wrote:The values of the currents jj and ji are used but not defined in the article or you would know what they are. The currents only work if the electrons are in immediate contact or acting nonlocally over distance. This is why a photon carrying energy from one electron to the other is not necessary.

I thought currents jj and ji were adequately defined if one reads the two pages and inspects the equations (or better, read the whole paper and references therein). If still not clear, the currents are simply the RF current (ji) of the accelerated (charged or excited) electrons in the emitter (sending a virtual offer wave backwards in time) and the RF current (jj) of all the responding electrons (virtual confirmation waves) of potential absorbers.

This is the handshake process, which happens a-temporally and non-locally, with offer and conformation waves and hence comprises no energy transfer - they call it direct action through virtual photons. Its only purpose is to sort out which absorber will get the real photons (energy transfer) later. This in a nutshell, is what Kastner and Cramer (2018) wrote - I hope you don't deny that Cramer was party to the paper...

It seems to me that you are sticking to an old TIQM paper of Cramer, which was updated a few times in response to valid critique. Their latest interpretation is called RTI for relativistic TI. This science is evolving rapidly a.t.m.
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Taking a Pole

Postby BurtJordaan on May 25th, 2020, 11:52 am 

It looks like Faradave is leaving for his flying car, but for other readers that might be interested in the science behind the controversy, the following.

Faradave » 24 May 2020, 20:34 wrote:
BurtJordaan wrote:I am talking about real 4-spacetime. It is flat and undistorted if we are taking SR spacetime…, [but it can be curved in GR]

As regards Special Relativity, That's not what Rindler says: ....

I completed the quote with the [] brackets to show its context. I was not referring to mappings. Minkowki spacetime is flat for all inertial observers in a non-accelerating, non-gravitational field scenario. This means spacetime paths (geodesics) for all inertial objects (and for light) are gun-barrel straight.

Faradave » 24 May 2020, 20:34 wrote:Physics uses models. To model zero interval separation realistically, I offer a curved-space, radial-time model. A temporal 4-field radiates unidirectionally (outward only) from the singularity of the Big Bang. In the rest frame of the cosmos (isotropic background radiation), an enclosing 3-surface is curved-space (a simultaneity) at any particular age of the cosmos.

I have commented on the problems of this model many times before. It does not yield a realistic cosmological model. It can only work for an expansion factor rate (da/dt) that is constant, which is not what we observe.

I think this thread has run its course, so I am not going to post here again, but others are welcome to continue.

Ps: Faradave, success with you 'flying car'. If it was not tongue in the cheek, I would love to hear about it in the engineering sub-forum...
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby TheVat on May 25th, 2020, 1:22 pm 

BurtJordaan » May 24th, 2020, 8:55 am wrote:
TheVat » 24 May 2020, 16:42 wrote:Just curious... how would lightsails work if photons aren't really particles or particle-like in their propagation?

Particle-wave duality and the momentum of radiation make it physically irrelevant which one of the two we use for the calculation of the pressure on solar sails. However, experiments like two-slit light interference indicate that light travel as waves and is detected as particles. It is simpler to explain solar sail pressure when considering light as photons, but it does not really matter.


Thanks, I was wondering if the transfer of momentum, or "push" effect, was easy to misconstrue in a classical image and I guess it is. I have had to shed old notions of momentum when dealing with massless "particles. "
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby bangstrom on May 25th, 2020, 4:20 pm 

I will also need a few days to rewire my cyclotron for ftl signaling.

BurtJordaan » May 25th, 2020, 12:15 am wrote:
I thought currents jj and ji were adequately defined if one reads the two pages and inspects the equations (or better, read the whole paper and references therein). If still not clear, the currents are simply the RF current (ji) of the accelerated (charged or excited) electrons in the emitter (sending a virtual offer wave backwards in time) and the RF current (jj) of all the responding electrons (virtual confirmation waves) of potential absorbers.

That is basically right except the energy transfer, as it appears to observers who see a spacetime interval between signal and sink, is not limited to radio frequencies. Specifically, the calculations refer to the rotation of a magnet and its ability to induce a current in a conductor. The current jj is generated by the first pass of a magnetic pole and the second current ji is generated by the passing the opposite pole.

With light energy, the electrons at signal and receiver function as rotating magnets so the same calculations apply. The first current is generated in the first quadrant of the electron’s polar rotation and the second is generated by the other pole in the third quadrant when the current vectors lie on the same 180 degree plane. The calculations are derived from complex numbers in Euler’s Formula for a circular rotation.

The energy transfer takes place when current vectors are in opposite directions where one vector acts as a push and the other is a pull. The magnetic field of the participating electrons is extremely short. That is why the exchange must take place over distance when both electrons are in superposition.

The transfer of energy only takes place when the vectors are precisely in phase such that one electron can emit a quantum of energy and the other can simultaneously receive the same quantity of energy. Both electrons are equal participants in the exchange unlike in classical theory.

The implication is that the electrons can only exchange a quantum of energy as a single quantum jump during that tiny window of time when they are precisely in phase. This view is not consistent with a later exchange of energy as in classical photon theory.

BurtJordaan » May 25th, 2020, 12:15 am wrote:
This is the handshake process, which happens a-temporally and non-locally, with offer and conformation waves and hence comprises no energy transfer - they call it direct action through virtual photons. Its only purpose is to sort out which absorber will get the real photons (energy transfer) later. This in a nutshell, is what Kastner and Cramer (2018) wrote - I hope you don't deny that Cramer was party to the paper...


I am sure they never wrote about a later transfer of energy. That would be redundant to the theory. More importantly, a later transfer of energy through space at speed is not consistent with recent quantum experiments involving Wheeler’s delayed choice or the quantum eraser experiments.

BurtJordaan » May 25th, 2020, 12:15 am wrote:
It seems to me that you are sticking to an old TIQM paper of Cramer, which was updated a few times in response to valid critique. Their latest interpretation is called RTI for relativistic TI. This science is evolving rapidly a.t.m.


Kastner’s change was to take Cramer’s transactional process from a spacetime background to Hilbert space and it includes Heisenberg’s concept of “potentiae” that exist alongside actual reality in space and time. She did mot change the instant action of the theory. There is no change in the timing between the old and new theories.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 797
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Events, Intervals and Speed

Postby BurtJordaan on May 27th, 2020, 5:19 am 

For the benefit of readers who might have been left confused by all the different individual interpretations above, here are the diagrams and annotations by John Cramer himself, in 2009, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226312851_Transactional_Interpretation_of_Quantum_Mechanics

But first a short quote from his later paper The Quantum Handshake Explored, 2017.

The Transactional Interpretation of quantum mechanics, inspired by the structure of the quantum wave mechanics formalism itself, views each quantum event as a Wheeler-Feynman “handshake” or “transaction” process extending across spacetime that involves the exchange of advanced and retarded quantum wave functions to enforce the conservation of certain quantities (energy, momentum, angular momentum, etc.). It asserts that each quantum transition forms in four stages: (1) emission, (2) response, (3) stochastic choice, and (4) repetition to completion.

Stage 1:
Fig 1- uploaded by John G. Cramer wrote:An emiter produces a retarded wave (solid) toward an absorber and an advanced wave (dashed) in the other time direction.

Image

Stage 2 & 3:
Fig 2- uploaded by John G. Cramer wrote:An absorber responds with an advance wave (dashed) back to the emmitter and a retarded wave (solid).

Image

Stage 3 & 4: (some overlapping)
Fig 3- uploaded by John G. Cramer wrote:Schematic of the completed transaction. Extra waves cancel, leaving an advanced-retarded “handshake” that transfers energy h ω and momentum hk from emitter to absorber.

Image

The straight dotted line is part of the lightcone of a Minkowski diagram. The handshakes occur atemporarily in the "quantum world", while the energy transfer occurs temporally in the "real world".

If in doubt about this statement, also look at this image from the same document:

Fig 5- uploaded by John G. Cramer wrote:Space-time schematic of a nonlocal “V” transaction for visualizing the polarization-entangled Freedman-Clauser EPR experiment. Offer waves ψL and ψR (blue/solid)

Image
Last edited by BurtJordaan on May 28th, 2020, 1:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Added link to 2009 paper
User avatar
BurtJordaan
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 2854
Joined: 17 Oct 2009
Location: South Africa
Blog: View Blog (9)


Previous

Return to Physics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests