Stephen Paul King (email@example.com)
Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:52:48 -0500
Dear Matti and friends,
"Matti Pitkänen" wrote:
> Dear Hitoshi et al,
> > >
> > > In TGD framework there are several time developments.
> > >
> > > a) "Time development" U in single quantum jump (I am speaking
> > > about TGD now) defining S-matrix is considered. It seems that there
> > > is not need to assign Schrodinger evolution to this time development:
> > > just S-matrix characterizes it. S-matrix conserves four-momenta.
> > I think this S-matrix is the one we have discussed before?
> > > Negentropy Maximization Principle need not be consistent with momentum
> > > conservation and could force final states to consists of wave packets
> > > around average momentum.
> > > b) Time development by quantum jumps. Poincare invariance guarantees
> > > conservation of four-momentum in quantum jump, that is U connects
> > > states with same Poincare quantum numbers. This is what particle
> > > physicist needs. NMP might imply that momentum is not precisely
> > > conserved in the sequence of quantum jumps so that the evolution
> > > of the Universe is not restricted by momentum conservation.
> > Is this a composite one consisting of many jumps in a)?
> Yes. Each quantum jump decomposes to Psi_i-->UPsi-->Psi_f..
> > >
> > >
> > > c) Geometric time development defined by absolute minimization
> > > of Kaehler action. One can assign to spacetime sheets classical
> > > momenta and they are conserved.
> > Then you have two kinds of time as you have claimed?
> Yes. Geometric time and experienced subjective time.
So am I correct in thinking of geometric time as the "ict" parameter in
SR and the subjective time as the evolution from one entire Minkowskian
manifold to another via quantum jumps/computations?
> > >
> > > The basic problem is how quantum mechanical Poincare quantum numbers
> > > relate to the momenta and energies measured in laboratory using
> > > classical physics notions.
Is it necessary to consider classical notions as universal?
> > > a) In TGD framework one can assign to quantum particles
> > > four-momenta. Quantum state corresponds to a superposition of spacetime
> > > surfaces. Quantum particle corresponds to spacetime sheets moving on
> > > this
> > > surface classically so that one can assing to particles
> > > also classical momenta and velocities.
> > If these momenta are classical, they are free from the uncertainty
> Basically. Note however that 3-surface rather than point like particle
> is the basic dynamical object.
How is the use of 3-surfaces get around the uncertainty principle?
> > Then in your context how is the uncertainty principle understood?
> Uncertainty principle is realized at configuration space level: for the¨
> position of 3-surface in imbedding space basically rather than for
> position of pointlike particle in 3-space.
> Momenta (or ´Diff^4 invariant momentum generators' ) act on
> space of configuration space spinor fields and
> momentum eigenstates cannot be completely localized
> in configuration space. One could also define position
> coordinates for 3-surface as group theoretical parameters:
> the position coordinate is x if point is obtained from
> fixed reference point by applying group operation exp(xp)
> to it.
What is the ontological status of the space of configuration space
spinor fields? How is this "acting" of momenta on the "space of
configuration space spinor fields" parametrized? This looks to me like
an implicit absolute time!? The notion of "fixing" of "reference points"
is an important part of Hitoshi's theory, but I don't recall right now
how and if this relates to your thoughts here!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:39 JST