This thesis is a study of the notion of time in modern physics, consisting of two parts. Part I takes seriously the doctrine that modern physics should be treated as the primary guide to the nature of time. To this end, it offers an analysis of the various conceptions of time that emerge in the context of various physical theories and, furthermore, an analysis of the relation between these conceptions of time and the more orthodox philosophical views on the nature of time. In Part II I explore the interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics in light of the suggestion that an overly Newtonian conception of time might be contributing to some of the difficulties that we face in interpreting the quantum mechanical formalism. In particular, I argue in favour of introducing backwards-in-time causal influences as part of an alternative conception of time that is consistent with the picture of reality that arises in the context of the quantum formalism. Moreover, I demonstrate that this conception of time can already be found in a particular formulation of classical mechanics. One might see that one of the central themes of Part II originates from a failure to heed properly the doctrine of Part I: study into the nature of time should be guided by modern physics and thus we should be careful not to insert a preconceived Newtonian conception of time unwittingly into our interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism. Thus, whereas Part I is intended as a demonstration of methodology with respect to the study of time, Part II in a sense explores a confusion that can be seen as arising in the absence of this methodology.This thesis is a study of the notion of time in modern physics, consisting of two parts. Part I takes seriously the doctrine that modern physics should be treated as the primary guide to the nature of time. To this end, it offers an analysis of the various conceptions of time that emerge in the context of various physical theories and, furthermore, an analysis of the relation between these conceptions of time and the more orthodox philosophical views on the nature of time. In Part II I explore the interpretation of nonrelativistic quantum mechanics in light of the suggestion that an overly Newtonian conception of time might be contributing to some of the difficulties that we face in interpreting the quantum mechanical formalism. In particular, I argue in favour of introducing backwards-in-time causal influences as part of an alternative conception of time that is consistent with the picture of reality that arises in the context of the quantum formalism. Moreover, I demonstrate that this conception of time can already be found in a particular formulation of classical mechanics. One might see that one of the central themes of Part II originates from a failure to heed properly the doctrine of Part I: study into the nature of time should be guided by modern physics and thus we should be careful not to insert a preconceived Newtonian conception of time unwittingly into our interpretation of the quantum mechanical formalism. Thus, whereas Part I is intended as a demonstration of methodology with respect to the study of time, Part II in a sense explores a confusion that can be seen as arising in the absence of this methodology.

Jan 1, 20111 citation

Physical Photons: Theory, Experiment and Implications

Geoffrey Hunter, Robert L. P. Wadlinger

NATO ASI series. Series B : PhysicsJan 1, 19875 citations

Quantum Theoretical Concepts of Measurement: Part II

James L Park

This portion of the essay concludes a two-part paper, Part I of which appeared in an earlier issue of this Journal. Part II begins with a careful study of the quantum description of real experiments in order to motivate a proposal that two distinct quantum theoretical measurement constructs should be recognized, both of which must be distinguished from the concept of preparation. The different epistemological roles of these concepts are compared and explained. It is then concluded that the only possible type of “quantum measurement theory” is one of little metaphysical interest and that quantum measurement seems problematical only when viewed from an overly narrow classical perspective.This portion of the essay concludes a two-part paper, Part I of which appeared in an earlier issue of this Journal. Part II begins with a careful study of the quantum description of real experiments in order to motivate a proposal that two distinct quantum theoretical measurement constructs should be recognized, both of which must be distinguished from the concept of preparation. The different epistemological roles of these concepts are compared and explained. It is then concluded that the only possible type of “quantum measurement theory” is one of little metaphysical interest and that quantum measurement seems problematical only when viewed from an overly narrow classical perspective.

Philosophy of ScienceDec 1, 19689 citations

A Novel Concept for Mass as Complex-Mass towards Wave-particle Duality

R. C. Gupta, Anirudh Pradhan, Sushant Gupta

In the present paper a new concept is introduced that: `mass is a complex quantity'. The concept of complex-mass suggests that the total mass M of a moving body is complex sum of: (i) the real-part (grain or rest) mass $m_{g}$ establishing its particle behaviour and (ii) the imaginary-part mass $m_{p}$ governing its wave properties. Mathematically, the complex mass $M = m_{g} + im_{p}$ ; the magnitude $\mid M \mid = (m_{g}^{2} + m_{p}^{2})^{1/2}. The theory proposed here explains successfully several effects such as `Compton effect' and `refraction of light' which could not be explained otherwise by a single theory of wave or particle. Also explained are `Doppler effect for light', `photo-electric effect', `Uncertainty principle', `Relativity' and `supersymmetry'In the present paper a new concept is introduced that: `mass is a complex quantity'. The concept of complex-mass suggests that the total mass M of a moving body is complex sum of: (i) the real-part (grain or rest) mass $m_{g}$ establishing its particle behaviour and (ii) the imaginary-part mass $m_{p}$ governing its wave properties. Mathematically, the complex mass $M = m_{g} + im_{p}$; the magnitude $\mid M \mid = (m_{g}^{2} + m_{p}^{2})^{1/2}. The theory proposed here explains successfully several effects such as `Compton effect' and `refraction of light' which could not be explained otherwise by a single theory of wave or particle. Also explained are `Doppler effect for light', `photo-electric effect', `Uncertainty principle', `Relativity' and `supersymmetry'

arXiv:1001.4647Jan 26, 20101 citation

The Quantum Mechanics of Photons

Daniel J. Rogers

Synthesis lectures on quantum computingJan 1, 20105 citations

m_{g}

establishing its particle behaviour and (ii) the imaginary-part mass

m_{p}

governing its wave properties. Mathematically, the complex mass

M = m_{g} + im_{p}

; the magnitude $\mid M \mid = (m_{g}^{2} + m_{p}^{2})^{1/2}. The theory proposed here explains successfully several effects such as `Compton effect' and `refraction of light' which could not be explained otherwise by a single theory of wave or particle. Also explained are `Doppler effect for light', `photo-electric effect', `Uncertainty principle', `Relativity' and `supersymmetry'