Full text loading...
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
1. A. Hobson, “ There are no particles, there are only fields,” Am. J. Phys. 81, 211–223 (2013).http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.4789885
2.For example, in non-relativistic quantum mechanics it is well known that momentum is represented by a differential operator , but this is meaningless at any point where a wave-function is discontinuous. In Sec. V of Ref. 1, Hobson refers to two rigorous “no-go theorems” purporting to demonstrate that the existence of localized particles leads to a contradiction between special relativity and quantum mechanics. While such proofs may be mathematically correct, the premises about localization, as we have indicated here, are unphysical.
3.The most recent and highly publicized experiments were the measurements of the speed of neutrinos produced at a target in CERN, and detected 730 km away at Gran Sasso. The width of the neutrino wave packet was approximately 10 cm (localization length), as determined by the width of the pulse of protons that produced the neutrinos at CERN. Initial experiments appeared to indicate that the neutrino speed was faster than the speed of light, but these results turned out to be incorrect; see, M. Anonello et al., “ Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the ICARUS detector at the CNGS beam,” Phys. Lett. 13, 17–22 (2012).
4.In Sec. IV A or Ref. 1, Hobson writes: “This shows that a quantum can interact locally with atoms, but it doesn't show that quanta are point particles. A large object (a big balloon, say) can interact quite locally with another object (a tiny needle, say). The localization seen in the two figures is characteristic of the detector, which is made of localized atoms, rather than of the detected quanta. The detection, however, localizes (“collapses”—Secs. IV B and IV C) the quantum.”
5. M. Nauenberg, “ Quantum wavepackets on Kepler elliptic orbits,” Phys. Rev. A 40, 1133–1136 (1989);http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1133
5. M. Nauenberg, “ Wave packets: Past and Present” in The Physics and Chemistry of Wave Packets, edited by T. Uzer and J. Yeazell (Wiley, New York, 2000), pp. 1–29.
6. M. Arndt, O. Nairz, J. Vos-Andreae, C. Keller, G. van der Zouw, and A. Zeilinger, “ Wave-particle duality of C60 molecules,” Nature 401, 680–682 (1999).http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/44348
7. O. Nairz, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, “ Quantum interference experiments with large molecules,” Am. J. Phys. 71, 319–325 (2003).http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.1531580
8. D. Bohm, “ A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables I,” Phys. Rev. 85, 166–179 (1952);http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.85.166
8. D. Bohm, “ A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables II,” Phys. Rev. 85, 180–193 (1952).http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.85.180
9. J. Bell, “ On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox,” Physics 1, 195–200 (1964).
9. J. Bell, Reproduced in Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge U.P., 1987), pp. 14–21.
Article metrics loading...