David Smith

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: The Semantic Interpretation of Quantum Theory #14471
    David Smith

    Yes, QFT and QED are different. They arise in QED. I didn’t write it with the intention of it being for experts. The distinction between QFT and QED isn’t important here.

    I suggest that you read up on perturbation theory and loop corrections in the Feynman calculus. Until then, this discussion is futile.

    You are thinking in terms of the current mathematical formulation, trying to draw a distinction between phase and group velocities. I am not. This needs a little bit of philosophy of science.

    There is no place for philosophy in science. If you suggest something at odds with accepted scientific consensus, then you should provide a mathematical formulation to prove it. After that, you should suggest an experiment that can reproduce any prediction made by your theory. If not, the theory has no ground to stand upon.

    BTW, in the SR paper written by Einstein, there is a discussion that the speed of light could be infinite in one direction and c/2 in another.

    “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1905)” contains no such discussion. Rather the isotropy of space with respect to the speed of light is taken as the very basis for the paper. Such isotropy was proven by the Michelson-Morley Experiment almost 30 years before this paper. The observations made in this experiment have been reproduced multiple times in the 150 years since then, using far more accurate techniques, with isotropy now verified up to 18 decimal places. This claim is utterly wrong.

    I don’t truly follow what you are implying, but I think the point about the difference between phase and group velocities being accepted, the problem won’t go away, one experiment or another.

    Read this: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1504.06059v1.pdf
    It is a comment on the experiment. If you read it, you would understand why the problem in the quoted experiment has a rather simple explanation. It does not, as you claim, disprove SR/GR/QFT.

    They do not add information to that light. However, the SR thought experiments talk about observations of moving objects. The question is: Are these observations those of plain light, or light that carries information?

    Now since your entire argument hinges on the structure of light, and that in turn seems to be derived from the paper of Giovannini et al., I do not think you have read that paper at all. What you call structure is just the wave function. We know already what “information” it contains. The equation for a Bessel wave is given in the ArXiv comment.

    And I’m talking about physics in which a single photon can give you the length of an object.

    No arguments here. Just type out the wave function of a single photon that contains the information of the length of the object it was emitted from. And it should be able to tell the viewer how such a photon was emitted from both ends of the object, as you claim. I will concede the point if you do so.

    in reply to: The Semantic Interpretation of Quantum Theory #14468
    David Smith

    This is the paper by Giovannini that you have referenced in your blog: [1411.3987] Photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light (arxiv.org)

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)