Interested in comments on a paper

[KipIngram]

I've been perusing this paper the last couple of days:

 

http://inspirehep.net/record/871519/files/arXiv%3A0809.2904.pdf

 

The author seems to be taking issue with the whole notion of regarding the quanta of quantum fields as "particles." It's all a bit over my head, though, so I thought I'd see if that take on the paper is essentially correct. I'm also interested in comments on the paper in general. Does it seem to hold together, be pointing in a reasonable direction, and so on.

 

I think he's saying that "particle like behavior" is a consequence of system wave functions becoming entangled with the environment's wave function (decoherence). And that because of that it really doesn't make sense to talk about the "particles" as though they're "there" before that decoherence occurs.

 

But I could be way off in the weeds.

 

Thanks!

Edited April 12, 2017 by KipIngram

[Mordred]

I will look at the paper in greater detail later on. Though a quick peruse of the paper has some validity. Particles being in essence field excitations. When you quantize a particle the excitation is under a boundary confinement.

[mantraphilter]

I've been perusing this paper the last couple of days:

 

http://inspirehep.net/record/871519/files/arXiv%3A0809.2904.pdf

 

The author seems to be taking issue with the whole notion of regarding the quanta of quantum fields as "particles." It's all a bit over my head, though, so I thought I'd see if that take on the paper is essentially correct. I'm also interested in comments on the paper in general. Does it seem to hold together, be pointing in a reasonable direction, and so on.

 

I think he's saying that "particle like behavior" is a consequence of system wave functions becoming entangled with the environment's wave function (decoherence). And that because of that it really doesn't make sense to talk about the "particles" as though they're "there" before that decoherence occurs.

 

But I could be way off in the weeds.

 

Thanks!

 

you are correct, but then everybody seems to think I am a crackpot. we'll see who laughs last.

The reason I started this thread was because I needed help understanding the language used in describing phenomena in physics in order to wright something coherent that could be understood by the amateur physics community. My first attempt was very confusing even to me after reading it again, the concept didn't quite show through the language. A few patient people, who replied to the thread, hopefully, helped me to overcome this barrier, so I tried to rewrite the paper to be more easily understood.

[swansont]

 

you are correct, but then everybody seems to think I am a crackpot. we'll see who laughs last.

The reason I started this thread was because I needed help understanding the language used in describing phenomena in physics in order to wright something coherent that could be understood by the amateur physics community. My first attempt was very confusing even to me after reading it again, the concept didn't quite show through the language. A few patient people, who replied to the thread, hopefully, helped me to overcome this barrier, so I tried to rewrite the paper to be more easily understood.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

You didn't start this thread, and the paper in question was written by H. Dieter Zeh at Universität Heidelberg, Germany. Since you're posting from Michigan, I am going to assume you are just very confused.

 

In any event, posting to advertise your pet theory in anyone else's thread is considered thread hijacking. Don't do it.