 |
There are currently, 163 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here
| |
| |
Was Einstein wrong?
Posted on Thursday, April 14, 2005 @ 10:51:17 GMT by rob
|
|
According to a young astronomist at Cambridge University, Dr Michael Murphy, the speed of light may not be as constant as most are led to believe, thus rocking the foundation of Einsteins Special Relativity:
"It could turn out that special relativity is a very good approximation but it's missing a little bit. That little bit may be the doorknob to a whole new universe and a whole new set of fundamental laws."
Read whole story here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1456747,00.html
|
| |
|
Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
| |
Average Score: 3
Votes: 1
| |
|
|
No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register |
|
Re: Was Einstein wrong? (Score: 1)
by mojo on Friday, April 15, 2005 @ 13:34:14 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) | Hi,
Both the electron charge and c are components of the FSC.
These may both be affected by values of the permittivity and permeability of the vaccuum.
The permittivity and permeability of the vaccuum. may be affected by fluctuations in the basic field matices of space/time (quantum fluctuations of the vaccuum).
Over time these fluctuations (or their average values) may change abruptly as a function of time and of the local mass density as well as possibly other parameters.
mojo |
|
|
Was Einstein Right? (Score: 1)
by vlad on Sunday, April 17, 2005 @ 16:42:29 GMT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.zpenergy.com | Message: HSG yahoo group
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 23:24:02 -0000
From: "john_e_barchak"
Subject: QM: States of Belief?
In the Sept 04 issue of Scientific American is an article "Was
Einstein Right?" in which Chris Fuchs deals with that question in
relation to quantum mechanics. The following is from that article:
"Instead of presuming to reconstruct the theory from scratch, why
not take it apart and find out what makes it tick. That is the
approach of Fuchs and others in the mainstream of studying the
foundations of quantum mechanics.
They have discovered that much of the theory is subjective: it does
not describe the objective properties of a physical system but rather
the state of knowledge of the observer who probes it. Einstein
reached much the same conclusion when he critiqued the concept of
quantum entanglement--the "spooky" connection between two far-flung
particles. What looks like a physical connection is actually an
intertwining of the observer's knowledge about the particles. After
all, if there really were a connection, engineers should be able to
use it to send faster than light signals, and they can't. Similarly,
physicists had long assumed that measuring a quantum system causes it
to "collapse" from a range of possibilities into a single actuality.
Fuchs argues that it is just our uncertainty about the system that
collapses."
In support of his thesis that QM is not an objective view of
reality, and that quantum states and (at least some) quantum
operations are taken to be states of belief rather than states of
nature, we have the following:
Unknown Quantum States and Operations, a Bayesian View
Christopher A. Fuchs and Ruediger Schack2
Quantum Information and Optics Research, Bell Labs, Lucent
Technologies, 600-700 Mountain Avenue, Murray Hill, New Jersey
07974, USA ,Department of Mathematics, Royal Holloway, University of
London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK
(26 February 2004)
37 pages, 3 figures, to appear in "Quantum Estimation Theory,"
edited by M.G.A. Paris and J. Rehacek (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004)
Abstract
The classical de Finetti theorem provides an operational definition
of the concept of an unknown probability in Bayesian probability
theory, where probabilities are taken to be degrees of belief
instead of objective states of nature. In this paper, we motivate
and review two results that generalize de Finetti's theorem to the
quantum mechanical setting: Namely a de Finetti theorem for quantum
states and a de Finetti theorem for quantum operations.
The quantum-state theorem, in a closely analogous fashion to the
original de Finetti theorem, deals with exchangeable density-
operator assignments and provides an operational definition of the
concept of an "unknown quantum state" in quantum-state tomography.
Similarly, the quantum-operation theorem gives an operational
definition of an "unknown quantum operation" in quantum-process
tomography. These results are especially important for a
Bayesian interpretation of quantum mechanics, where quantum states
and (at least some) quantum operations are taken to be states of
belief rather than states of nature.
The entire paper is found at:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/0404/0404156.pdf
All the best
John B. |
|
|
|
|
