Bob_for_short

That's my problem - to make them inetract. I do not know how.

Do those quarks have time to have several collisions to thermalize? If yes, then this quark-gluon plasma is as a whole at rest and it should decay in all directions equally.

As you know, positrons were predicted theoretically. They were necessary part of the theory and thus were supposed to exist. Often they say that bare particles absorb infinities and this makes the theory work. Some say they are predicted by the theory. I wonder whether somebody has ever been awarded for discovery of bare particles as such? Or this important discovery was left out?

Yes, the incident wave-train can get weaker if it is accompanied with the radiated wave and the resulting wave amplitude (=> energy-momentum) becomes smaller. I just do not see it immediately.

EDIT: I can emit a half-period long wave from a radio-transmitter: [math]E(t)=E_0 sin(\Omega t), 0 < t < \pi/ \Omega [/math]. Then the final charge velocity will be clearly different from zero: [math]ma=F(t), v(t>\pi/ \Omega)=\int_{0}^{t}F(t')dt'=\frac{2qE_0}{m\Omega}[/math]. In addition, the charge itself radiates some new wave during acceleration period. The radiated energy is only a small fraction of [math]\frac{mv^2}{2}[/math]. What can guarantee that the total energy remains the same?

No, it is not Compton. Just a regular electrodynamics problem. How energy can change? Via destructive interference? How to show it?

Let us suppose that we have a known electromagnetic wave-train of finite size propagating in a certain direction. On its way there is a probe charge. This EMW is an external field for the charge. The EMW has a certain energy-momentum (integral over the space). After action on the probe charge the wave continues its way away. In the end we have the energy of the initial wave (displaced somewhere), the kinetic energy of the charge (hopefully it starts moving), and the energy of the radiated EMF. Thus the total energy is not conserved, is it?

I submitted another note on unknown things in a well known domain; this time about the orbital momentum of particles in atoms. See http://www.science20.com/qed_reformulation_feasible/blog/unknown_physics_particle_orbital_momentum First I made a conceptual error when put R=0, but later on I gave a detailed derivation to show where the error was admitted and why this was an error (see here). Vladimir.

It's easy. Any meaningful picture contains many points - pixels, if you like. So one point (pixel) is not sufficient to describe the picture of a complex thing. But we may construct this picture point by point, OK? Each point belongs to the whole picture but is insufficient to represent it. Now, the wave function squared is the whole picture and each separate, elementary quantum mechanical "measurement" is a pixel of the whole picture. The wave function does not collapse while measurement. On the contrary, each "elementary" measurement is the information bit retrieval, if you like, necessary for description of a complex thing.

I am skeptic about big bang but time is very observable thing. It cannot be separated from matter. Ask experimentalist who monitor parameters. They use clocks. Time, if you like, is a periodic process with a sufficiently short period to label different stages of the observed transient to the required by you accuracy. Using time is using at least two different in "periods" physical processes: one is "slow" (a phenomenon being observed) and the other is "quick" (used as a clock).

We do not have many wave functions but one sole (total) that represents the occupation numbers of different states (particles). Particles are just excited states of this wave function. If there is no particle, the wave function is in it ground state. On the other hand, the amplitudes of populations may be considered as "wave functions" of particular particles. It is these amplitudes that grow up and fade out in reactions. These amplitudes are responsible for probabilities of reactions. If a particular amplitude is equal to zero, it does not mean the total wave function is zero.

The prior wave functions fade out, the new one grows up. The easies way to see it is to consider the occupation numbers of different states. Occupation numbers change at a given total energy, momentum, angular momentum and maybe some other conserved quantities. Kind of balance equations.

I do not think so. For example, a decaying "particle" is first entire and after a while it decomposes into pieces. No friction is necessary to describe it.