You are here:
Home Jack Sarfatti's Blog Blog (Full Text Display) Meaning of gauge invariants update jan 17 2014

Jan
18

Tagged in: gauge theory, Bohm

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 17, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From:Basil HileyDate:January 17, 2014 at 3:11:50 AM PSTTo:Ruth KastnerSubject:Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory

Whenever I see the term “Bohm picture" my heart sinks. Bohm never had one picture. I have never had one picture. Our starting point was that we did not find the majority view on quantum mechanics held in the 50s and 60s began to touch the questions we felt deserved answers. Yes we could recite the formal mantra and get results that agreed with experiment but we wanted more. There were too many questions that could not be framed in the available mathematical language physicists had at their disposal then. For me the main question was “Why had the observer become central to the theory?” The universe existed before there were observers and the quantum formalism could not handle that situation.It those days the appeal was to find a “realist” interpretation, but what was the meaning of the term “realist”? There were two extremes: there is no 'realist picture', just the mathematics or at the other extreme we take the classical view as basic and just change it a little, say, by adding hidden variables. What Bohm discovered while playing with the WBK approximation was that up to the first and second approximation we could still maintain the notion of a particle following a trajectory. At what stage of the approximation do we abandon the notion of a particle? There is nothing in the formalism to give us an answer, so don’t truncate the series. Following that line Bohm was led to propose his 52 model. It is remarkable how far that idea offers a way into quantum phenomena.Please note for Bohm and for myself this is only the beginning and leads to number of questions.Firstly: if we take the idea of a classical particle, an object that exists as a solid entity in it own right independent of everything else, then there should be some ‘ultimon’, but there doesn’t seem to be any ‘ultimon'. To every particle there is an anti-particle and we know what happens when they meet! Where is the little rock? There doesn’t seem to be one. The nucleon is a hive of activity. Remember QM was introduced to explain the stability of matter.Secondly: Bohm immediately noticed that his analysis did not cover the photon. The classical limit in this case is the field. Already in the appendix of his 52 paper, he proposed that the field and its conjugate momentum should be treated as the two beables. With one of our students Pan Kaloyerou, we later took this analysis much further. We illustrated the principles lying behind the ideas using a scalar field and later Pan treated the em field. Where was the photon in this approach? What we found was that the energy is stored in the field and can, at best, be quasi localised in an excited state of the field. In our paper (Phys. Reps. 144 (1987) 349-375) we show how the notion of a photon arises as the energy absorbed by an atom. The non-linear, non-local super quantum potential sweeps out an quantum of energy, sufficient to excite the atom to one of its higher energy states. This gives the impression that photon exchange has taken place. We noticed further that the field does not need to contain energy in fixed units of hν. This is where coherent states come in. We also explained how this enables us to explain two-slit interference without the photons travelling along trajectories. NB Photons do not travel on trajectories! We even explained the interference of two independent lasers as observed in the Pfleegor-Mandel experiment. The details are contained in our paper and a later paper by Pan Kaloyerou.Thirdly: Since there is no ‘ultimon’, where do we start? We touched on this question in the last chapter of the Undivided Universe. However since then I have taken the story a lot further. I assume that we must start with activity or process which can be described by what I call the algebra of process. I have recently presented these ideas in Process, Distinction, Groupoids and Clifford Algebras: an Alternative View of the Quantum Formalism, in New Structures for Physics, ed Coecke, B., Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 813, pp. 705-750, Springer (2011). There I show how the basic symplectic and rotational symmetries emerge and can be linked up with the von Neumann-Moyal non-commutative algebraic approach which shows how the Bohm approach emerges from the heart of what are now called quantum algebras that were originally discussed under the title 'Heisenberg matrix mechanics'. We now have the mathematics available to see exactly how to develop the quantum ideas without being trapped in the standard Hilbert space formalism.Basil.On 17 Jan 2014, at 02:14, Ruth Kastner <rekastner@hotmail.com> wrote:Basically I'm just pointing out that position beables are not field currents, and it's field currents that exchange virtual photons. So not sure about your interpretation of your interesting result, nor whether position beables really apply to Glauber states. But I'll wait and see what Basil has to say.

Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory

From: jack

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:27:55 -0800On Jan 16, 2014, at 3:47 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:Everettian picture is opposed to Bohm picture. Classical field configs corresponding to Glauber states don't involve virtual particle exchanges between Bohmian particles describable by S. The latter are not field currents.That's not true. In superfluid helium the macro-quantum coherent Glauber state order parameter is a reservoir for incoherent bosons. Indeed there is only about 8% bose-einstein condensate in the ground state of Helium II.In any case I do not think is a formal problem in the theory.The math argument I gave I think is very convincing.In the EM caseAis a Glauber coherent state order parameter of virtual near field photons of all three spin 1 polarizations f =/= ck+ real photons f = ck of only transverse polarizations in the far field.S is the quantum phase of the fermion charge, not of the boson condensate.hGradS is obviously a longitudinal polarized momentum transfer between test charge and its coincident EM vector potential (order parameter)A.It is the cancellation of the hGradSterms in the formal gauge transformation algebra that describes exchange of virtual photon momentum between particle hidden fermion variable and classical boson field.It is this cancellation that keep canonical momentumP= mdr/dt + (e/c)Agauge invariant.hGradS/&t is the action/reaction "force"&E&t < hIn the gravity analog hGradS is replaced by the coincident LNIF -> LNIF' frame transformation XdX for exchange of virtual graviton acceleration betweengeodesic test mass m and non-tidal gravity-acceleration field {Levi-Civita Connection}.XdX/&t is a "jerk" as in EM radiation reaction, but here its the gravity analog.

From: jack

Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 15:36:23 -0800

To: RuthParallel universes that phase communicateDavid DeutschHowever bosons have super quantum potential and no problem for themClassical field configurations are already Glauber states

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2014, at 2:57 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

How can particles have definite positions if they might not even exist?

From: jack

Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 13:30:01 -0800

To: RuthEven nonrelativistically one can have uncertain knowledge of what total particle number is.I see no problem here either conceptually or formally.The rules are that of Finkelstein's quantum logic

Sent from my iPad

On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Ruth Kastner

wrote:

Basil as I understand it has acknowledged that particle position beables are not the right beables for a relativistic version of the Bohmian theory. Basil do correct me if I am wrong...

From: jack

Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:56:11 -0800

To: RuthI dont think what u say about coherent states is trueI am sure Basil Hiley has a counter argument?Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 16, 2014, at 12:39 PM, Ruth Kastner wrote:

Ah OK I see that by adding dS you are in effect including a Bohmian 'quantum potential' term as the gauge here. So yes, it does act as an additional effective force on a putative Bohmian particle that is otherwise behaving classically. Thisis of course how the Bohmian theory regains quantum predictions based on assuming the existence of particles pursuing

deterministic trajectories.

Interesting, although as you know I don't buy the existence of Bohmian particles ;) For one thing, assuming a persistent particle is inconsistent with coherent states that must always have an indefinite number of particles.

From: jack

Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory

Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 10:45:04 -0800

To: RuthOn Jan 16, 2014, at 10:11 AM, Ruth Kastner wrote:Jack that is very interesting. But wouldn't such an exchange give rise to an additional force on the charge--implying a change

in observed E field?

I don't understand your question.The argument below has nothing to do with Jim's gravity theory. It's pure QED.The result of the local gauge invariance is in this simple casemd^2r/dt^2 = eENewton's second lawfromP= mdr/dt + (e/c)AdP/dt = md^2r/dt^2 + (e/c)dA/dtE= - (1/c)dA/dtUnder an internal symmetry local U1 gauge transformation - that conserves electrical charge generating U1(x)mdr/dt -> mdr/dt + hGradS(e/c)A ->(e/c)A- hGradSS = phase of particle's quantum wave function (Bohm)This is simply an exchange of longitudinally polarized virtual photon momentum between particle (e,m) and classical fieldAwhich takes time &tIt is the quantum field mechanism for near field electrical contact force.Under these virtual gauge transformation dP/dt = 0, which is the action-reaction principle.IfAexerts near field contact force hGradS/&t on e, then e has equal and opposite back-reaction force on A and vice versa.This is intuitively obvious, elegant beautiful and I have never seen it explained this way before, so I claim it as an original insight in the LOCAL physical meaningof all internal symmetry transformations and how they connect to spacetime conservation-symmetry laws.An analogous argument for gravity - is not momentum transfer but proper tensor acceleration transfer between test particle and Levi-Civita LNIF field in time &t,i.e. the kinematical jerk d^3r/dt^3 - mathematically it's the XdX term in the LC LNIF transformation, where X = GCT{LNIF} -> {LNIF'} = XXX{LNIF} + XdXThe origins of LNIF and LNIF' are PHYSICALLY COINCIDENT ALWAYSROVELLI EXPLAINS THIS NICELY IN HIS CH2 QUANTUM GRAVITY FREE ONLINE LECTURESd^2r/ds^2 -> d^2r'/ds^2 = Xd^2r/ds^2 + XdXThis keeps proper acceleration of the test object invariant!D^2r/ds^2 -> D^2r'/ds^2 = Xd^2r/ds^2 + XdX - XXX{LNIF}X^-1dr/dsX^-1/dr/ds - XdX= XD^2/ds^2The "jerk" transferred between test particle and gravity acceleration field (first order non-tidal Newtonian field LC connection of EEP)is simply XdX/&t from virtual spin 2 graviton exchange. It's not a momentum transfer as in all spin 1 gauge theories.IN EFFECTi.e. D^3r/ds^3 = 0THIS ALSO EXPLAINS WHY ONE NEEDS THE STRESS ENERGY PSEUDO-TENSOR.Alex Poltorak's PhD was based on a common misconception

> Subject: Re: Addinall's assessment of Jim's theory

> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 05:05:03 -0800

> To: bdj10@cam.ac.uk

>

> Yes of course, also it corresponds to charge conservation

> But I am talking about a direct local physical meaning to

>

> A -> A' = A + (hc/e)dS

>

> hdS is virtual photon momentum exchange between charge kinetic momentum and field momentum (e/c)A

>

> Sent from my iPad

>

> > On Jan 16, 2014, at 1:56 AM, Brian Josephson <bdj10@cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> >

> >

> >> On 16 Jan 2014, at 05:22, Jack wrote:

> >>

> >> gauge invariance is usually treated very abstractly as a purely mathematical device

> >> There is a picture of it in terms of fiber bundles but not in terms of physics

> >

> > In the case of electromagnetism, there is a direct physical correlate, the Eherenberg-Siday-Aharonov-Bohm effect.

> >

> >

> > Brian

> >

> > ------

> > Brian D. Josephson

> > Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge

> > Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project

> > Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK

> > WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

> > Tel. +44(0)1223 337260/337254

> >