answer to a comment full of interesting questions. Your questions, anonymous reader, are all very relevant. Today, I try to develop a response to the first five.
1) in a uniformly accelerated system, what is the value of the speed of light as it travels parallel to the acceleration vector? Ac is it different? Can you get to observe a null value? Does this have anything to do with the impossibility of a photon does not escape a black hole?
All the paradoxes associated with special relativity and general understanding should always consider how reference system is the observer. When you say "in a uniformly accelerated system" is implicit that you're out it and therefore we consider accelerated. Another observer in the system will consider you as fast. The speed of light is always the same in both (by postulate). Thus appears an unexpected phenomenon. Time seems to run at different rates depending on the reference system that we place ourselves.
try to be more explicit. We are going to build a clock. This watch is composed of two parallel mirrors and opposites. A photon is bouncing from one to another constantly. Every bounce in the mirror corresponds to a click. That is my unit of time: the interval between two clicks. I have my watch and see how you click-click-click. But another observer in an accelerated system is watching me closely and looks at my watch. Imagine the situation well. This observer sees my two mirrors and myself fast. Imagine them going from left to right in front of you, to accelerate. Since light always goes at the same speed, the route of the photon between rebound follows a zig-zag path that is growing. To the observer, my clock is slow clicks: click-cliik-cliiik-cliiiik. My time was slow, as seen by him. However in my system time goes on as usual.
This is the effect of "infinite red shift" in the fall into a black hole. A clock that falls on it seems infinitely slow.
2) Does interaction between two photons (real) together? Deliver " These virtual particles? If yes, is there any condition in which a photon suffers Autocamp? Yes
Two electrons interact by exchanging photons. The diagram represents what is more or less like this: __ __
__O__
horizontal lines of input and output photons, which form the circle is an electron / positron (in fact any fermion with electric charge). The idea is this: a photon becomes an electron-positron pair, the electron goes to the other photon, and continues to circulate until it is annihilated by a positron. This is a quantum fluctuation. This interaction is fourth order in quantum electrodynamics and, therefore, suppressed by a factor (1 / 500) ^ 4. Is a very subtle but very well known and verified.
3) Is it incompatible with Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to say that we know exactly the speed of light without having to completely delocalized photon in space? Or is the variable that is often affected by uncertainty, since it determines the time? Take
photon energy. The conjugate variable is time. Would require a measure that would lead an infinite time to have infinite precision in the output of energy. Any measure in a laboratory employs a finite time and is associated with an uncertainty in energy. The spectral lines are as thick you can not violate the principle of indeterminacy.
4) If for some reason there were hidden variables, quantum computing "would remain as such? If so, would you change something in it?
If there are hidden variables that describe correctly all the quantum mechanics, we would have a classical way to understand quantum superpositions and entanglement. Without them there would be no advantage in a quantum computer, because in fact be classic. It is not the place to analyze it, but there are many experiments that rule out hidden variable theories in emphatic fashion.
5) If A = "position of a particle, and B =" probability of A ", grammatically it is accepted that B is derived from A, or B is a subset of A. However, I get the feeling that quantum mechanics says that B is more fundamental than A. If so, would it not have to rebuild some grammatical concept to be A which is derived from B?
Right. Quantum mechanics gives the wave function, ie the probability amplitude of finding a particle of being at one point. With this wave function can predict the probability of finding the particle in one place and also the measure any other property that we want (time, energy, etc). The concept of wave function is thus more basic than explicit probabilities then we want to measure. Perhaps we should change the grammar to express this idea but I confess that I misunderstood your question.
Another day we continue with the other five questions!
Regards, ji.
