Quantum logic and its implications on physics

• Zahra Molaee

  When do we use noncommutative spaces in physics?

  Any examples?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (2)

  • 
    Mykola Stetsko replied

    Phase space in quantum mechanics is a noncommutative one

    3 days ago
• Jagadesh Rao

  A doubt in planck's quantum law.

  E=hv, then , if v,frequency has changed to any arbitrary value, then energy could also be in any arbitrary value know? i don't clearly understand, could anyone explain it to me in a lucid manner?

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (41)

  • 
    Sanjay Sood replied

    You are asking a very good question. Yes the frequency, in principle, can be any value and so it would appear that the energy could have any value too. But nature, at the quantum level, allows onlyYou are asking a very good question. Yes the frequency, in principle, can be any value and so it would appear that the energy could have any value too. But nature, at the quantum level, allows only a discrete set of allowed values for energy. So one can have a discrete spectrum of energy eigenvalues. This is true even for very hot atoms. As the atom gets hotter it would have a whole lot of energy eigenvalues associated with its rotational and vibrational motion in addition to the energy eigenvalues associated with electron transition. All of these eigenvalues are discrete but rotational and vibrational ones are so closely spaced, that they seem to form a continuum that lies between any 2 energy eigenvalues associated with electron transition. At extremely high temperatures, the energy difference between all these eigenvalues becomes negligible and a transition to continuous levels can be assumed to take place.

    3 days ago
• Hans van Leunen

  Quantum logic versus classical logic

  The main difference between quantum logic and classical logic is the fact that in quantum logic the validation of a proposition can completely destroy the validity of another proposition. The mainThe main difference between quantum logic and classical logic is the fact that in quantum logic the validation of a proposition can completely destroy the validity of another proposition. The main difference in the lattice structure is that quantum logic is a weakly modular lattice while classical logic is a modular lattice. While the structure of the mathematical representation of classical logic is rather simple, the mathematical representation of quantum logic is a very complex construct. This construct is so flexible that most of quantum mechanics can be modelled in that structure. Nearly everybody understands Venn diagrams. A good mathematical background is required to understand Hilbert spaces. In practice the Hilbert is not sufficient. It must be extended into a rigged Hilbert space. However, the logic is only connected to the Hilbert space. The natural number system in the Hilbert space is formed by the quaternions.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (3)

  • 
    Shahidur Rahman Sikder replied

    Logic (1) As a result of the science such: Universe came from beginning of the absolute zero or from the 1-D. And present position- everything is the result by evolution/variable from the 1-D. ThatLogic (1) As a result of the science such: Universe came from beginning of the absolute zero or from the 1-D. And present position- everything is the result by evolution/variable from the 1-D. That is to say: We are come from single-dimension yet- We are mankind- have imagination power, have distress and enjoyment so how possible it! Consequently lawfully, possibility- lifeless position is something happen. Most Important theory about the Universe creation or creator or religious- can be found at http://t.co/OQDPbAg

    24 days ago
• Jeffrey Z. J. Zheng

  New Variant Logic Simulation Mechanism on Quantum Interferences Published in Journal Modern Optics

  An original theoretical construction provides a solid foundation to support Afshar experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment that show the violation of Bohr Complementarity PrincipleAn original theoretical construction provides a solid foundation to support Afshar experiments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afshar_experiment that show the violation of Bohr Complementarity Principle in modern optical interactive experiments. http://www.quantiki.org/news/variant-simulation-system-using-quaternion-structures
• Danish Hasnat

  quantum logic mimics computational aspects of AI(current) by reducing complexity

  quantum logic is not free from "godel's theorem" or from the fact that there is a computational bound to every system(algorthimic) and if we can prove for -[p=np] is t or f which is independent ofquantum logic is not free from "godel's theorem" or from the fact that there is a computational bound to every system(algorthimic) and if we can prove for -[p=np] is t or f which is independent of any computational system .which means that complexity is important and quantum mechanics prohibits noise free channels even for qubits which makes a qubit type computer prone to contructional malfunctions .later ..................

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (4)

  • 
    Sarge Rogatch replied

    Here is a polynomial-time - O(N^5) - algorithm solving Graph Isomorphism problem:Here is a polynomial-time - O(N^5) - algorithm solving Graph Isomorphism problem: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sarge_Rogatch/blog/45524_Fix2_polynomial-time_algorithm_solving_Graph_Isomorphism_problem . It is correct almost everywhere. If you find someone who pays for this work, I will provide further details and make the last few steps. I am about to publish the first approximation to P=NP solution soon - welcome to read that.

    Feb 14, 2012
• Sithamalli Balasubramanian

  How many electrons in uranium?

  How many electrons in (say) Uranium?-First of 3 notes We “know” the answer. It is 92 for Uranium. The question resolves itself into three parts: 1. What is the experimental basis for the conclusionHow many electrons in (say) Uranium?-First of 3 notes We “know” the answer. It is 92 for Uranium. The question resolves itself into three parts: 1. What is the experimental basis for the conclusion and where are the electrons located? 2. Are the electrons permanent denizens of the atom? 3. There should be 92 protons in the nucleus. Where are these located? We shall be addressing these questions serially. The conclusion that I would be driving at is that in all these counts Quantum model for atomic structure fails to explain experimental observations. Skb. 1. Experimental basis for atomic number. The concept of atomic number as the number of extra-nuclear electrons depends on the work of Moseley in Rutherford’s laboratories almost a century ago. The theoretical basis is derived from the Bohr Theory of the hydrogen atom as modified and strengthened by the wave theory of electron. These are text-book matters. (Arthur Beiser, Concepts of Modern Physics, Tata-McGrawHill, 2004; W. E Burcham, Elements of Nuclear Physics; Longman, 1979) The Bohr model predicted that the square of number of electrons (Z 2) in any atom is proportional to the frequency of radiation emitted by it. A plot of Z2 against frequency should be a straight line. This was not the case for the Moseley X-ray frequencies. However a plot of (Z-1)2 against frequency was a straight line. So it was surmised that one electron from ‘1-s’ shell (closest to the nucleus) “fell” into the nucleus under the experimental conditions giving an effective atomic number of Z-1. I am not questioning the worth of Moseley experiments. I accept that it was of first grade quality in conception and execution. The young man’s life was unfortunately cut short by WW-I. His experiments were hailed as confirmation of the Bohr concept of the nucleus as point charge with an electron cloud around it. The nucleus as a heavy central unit was indicated by Rutherford’s work. But the “fall” of an electron into the nucleus was still a difficult proposition to justify. A clever method was soon found out to resolve this problem. If Z (instead of Z2 ) is plotted against square root (√ ) of frequency, a straight line was obtained. (cited in, Dyson 1990 N. A. Dyson, X-rays in atomic and nuclear physics, 2 Ed. Cambridge Univ. Press 1990.) This conclusion is questionable since it compresses the ordinates in a convenient manner. As I like to say, “An electron was falling into the nucleus till 1980; it no longer does so after the date.” There are other objections to the interpretation: 1. The location (disposition) of the extra-nuclear electrons had not been explained in a logical manner. 2. The electronic effects are dependent on the nature and number of substituents of the central atoms in binary compounds. They appear to vanish completely in some hexafluorides including that of Uranium. 3. A recent report in Scientific American India says that X-rays are produced when one unrolls scotch tape from a spool. Such low energy generation of x-rays would throw doubt on the high energy status of X-rays in the “Electromagnetic Spectrum” of radiation. In turn it shows that we understand very little about X-rays. We should not use such uncertain concepts to arrive at an important conclusion like atomic number. Moseley results still show that there is a gradation in the x-ray frequencies in the order predicted by mass numbers of the atoms. To that extent the experiments confirm the intuitive arrangement of elements in the Periodic table. But a quantitative interpretation is not tenable. The location of the electrons in the extra nuclear space: There are only three dimensions in Space, the x, y, z axes of co-ordinate geometry. Pauli’s Exclusion Principle would limit each dimension to two electrons. With two more electrons in first shell the extra nuclear space can logically accommodate only ten electrons or up to Neon. Beyond that only quantum specialists can understand. It is all imagination promoted by mathematics. We had seen the delusional element in the imaginary number of the wave function. The shapes of D-orbital sub-units and beyond are bizarre. This is not an emotional or aesthetic objection. The theory fails completely to account for the shapes of electron orbitals in real space. It also fails to explain the bonding patterns in several elements dealt with in the paper on unitary model and the critique. Skb. PS: A pdf version of this note is available on demand. In this version some symbols like the square may not be transmitted properly.
• Sithamalli Balasubramanian

  What is polarization of light?

  What is polarization of light? I am not able to attach the drawings to illustrate this. i am giving this note in my profile. Polarization is an important experimentally observed property of lightWhat is polarization of light? I am not able to attach the drawings to illustrate this. i am giving this note in my profile. Polarization is an important experimentally observed property of light that had been ignored in physics. It cannot be dealt with by mathematics. Polarization is important because it shows the presence of chiral components in light. Quantum Mechanics cannot accept the presence of chiral components because chirality cannot be dealt with mathematically. Polarization had been misunderstood by early wave-theorists. In essence polarization phenomenon proves the existence of chiral components in light. This is anathema to Quantum Mechanics. Light is “polarized” when it is passed through a Nicol Prism. Nicol prism is a transparent calcite (Calcium Carbonate) crystal cut in a particular fashion. Three beams exit from the prism. The first is the original ray slightly refracted beam as in other transparent media like glass. This is not polarized. Two other beams emerge in orthogonal planes. Both are polarized in opposite senses. One beam is in the plane of paper or parallel to it and the other is in a plane perpendicular to it. The second beam gives rise to two images of a dot under the prism. (This is what is called “double refraction or birefringence). There is a Wikipedia section on birefringence. The polarization along the orthogonal or perpendicular plane to paper is called plane polarization. (In the wave theory plane polarization meant arranging/ordering the waves in all planes into a single plane called the plane of polarization.) Wave theory ties itself in knots to explain the presence of two chiral beams in what is called circular polarization. The light wave itself is said to be rotated in a helical fashion either right-handed or left-handed. Thus the two beams observed in circular polarization become an artifact of the instrument. It is our view that the two beams are originally present in light. Polarization separates the two beams. In plane polarization only one beam is studied and in circular polarization both beams are brought into the same field of observation. A B C Polarization drawing Fig. A shows the chiral components of light in red and in blue. They are chiral to each other. B shows the arrangement of the Nicol prism in plane polarization. The red beam is allowed through. The blue beam is blocked. In “circular” polarization the two beams are arranged at an angle of 45° to the arrangement in B by a “quarter wave” plate. It rotates the arrangement of the beams in B by 45°. This enables both beams to be observed serially. C shows the Nicol in circular polarization. Left ward rotation of the Nicol by 45° would allow the red beam to pass through, blocking the blue beam. Rightward rotation of the Niol by 45° would allow the blue beam through but block the red beam. In a system with multiple chiral centers the two beams would be rotated to different degrees, a resultant of different rotations by the multiple centers. The difference between the rotations of the two beams is known as circular dichroism. The important point to note is that there is nothing “circular” in circular polarization. In plane polarization only one beam is used for the study. In the other, both beams are used. Anisotropy in polarized light absorption is designated linear di-chroism which is a misnomer. (The prefix ‘di’ indicates two.) Skb.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (2)

  • 
    Sithamalli Balasubramanian replied

    I am sorry I am unaware of these topics. They are details that, I feel, do not concern my posting. If they have relevance please point that out. i am not a specialist in light. i had dealt withI am sorry I am unaware of these topics. They are details that, I feel, do not concern my posting. If they have relevance please point that out. i am not a specialist in light. i had dealt with polarization from a general angle. Thanks, Skb.

    Jan 25, 2012
• Omar Fathy

  THE electron !

  what is the electron ?!..what is the nature of this creature ?!?!..a material particle..with wave properties .?!..what a conflicting term ... creature moves in all directions at almost thewhat is the electron ?!..what is the nature of this creature ?!?!..a material particle..with wave properties .?!..what a conflicting term ... creature moves in all directions at almost the same time !!??!..so why do not we do it ?!?!...i think we live in a "FAKE" theories and beliefs !!...."confusion"....?!????!?!

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (7)

  • 
    Sithamalli Balasubramanian replied

    I am sorry the attachment could not attached.

    Jan 24, 2012
• Omar Fathy

  the 11 dimensions !

  what are the 11 dimensions !!?!..i 've read that they are proved mathimatically ...but what about their physical existence ..or what they mean ..or what they refer to ??1

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (6)

  • 
    Sara Hockey replied

    It is just beautiful math.

    Jan 19, 2012
• Hans van Leunen

  If axiomatic physics is possible, what would be the axioms?

  It is clear that the fundaments of contemporary physics contain cracks. This situation would be cleared when a consistent set of axioms can be found on which a useful and consistent model ofIt is clear that the fundaments of contemporary physics contain cracks. This situation would be cleared when a consistent set of axioms can be found on which a useful and consistent model of fundamental physics can be based. For example the set of axioms that constitute the base of classical logic could be used as a starting point. This set can then be extended and/or adapted. Classical propositional logic is defined by a complete and consistent set of axioms.

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (8)

  • 
    Hans van Leunen replied

    @Thomas You might want to read http://www.crypts-of-physics.eu/ConciseHilbertBookModel.pdf

    Jan 10, 2012
• Peter James

  > Questions about the existence of Space <

  1. We know that space exists because of the distances and the objects' coordinates, the speed of the objects, the movement, etc. 2. We also know that there's an accelerated expansion of the1. We know that space exists because of the distances and the objects' coordinates, the speed of the objects, the movement, etc. 2. We also know that there's an accelerated expansion of the Universe. 3. We know that objects with mass are curving the space-time continuum. My question is, would space still exist if there were no objects with mass to deform it? Or if there was no mass of objects? In a Universe with no objects with mass, what would space look like? So, is there any interaction between >space< and >any other thing<, besides the deformation caused by mass? And the more thrilling question [which I thing will not be answered too soon], what exactly is the NATURE of space? what makes space exist and what does it look like when there's no space? And if have a theory on this, how can it be proved [experimentally]? Any answer would be appreciated :)

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (2)

  • 
    Hans van Leunen replied

    Can you indicate how you arrive from local fractional functional analysis to the existence of space?

    Jul 13, 2011
• Meseret Tiruye

  The Lower Bound of Energy

  Do we have a lower bound for energy, and why? What is the minimum energy in our universe?
• Hans van Leunen

  Hilbert book model essentials This model is a simple model of physics that is strictly based on the axioms of quantum logic. Quantum logic is very similar to classical logic, but one of the axiomsHilbert book model essentials This model is a simple model of physics that is strictly based on the axioms of quantum logic. Quantum logic is very similar to classical logic, but one of the axioms of quantum logic is weaker than the corresponding axiom of classical logic. This concerns the modular law. The direct result of this weakening is that quantum logic has a lot more complicated structure than classical logic. Where classical logic can be displayed with a simple representation consisting of Venn diagrams, will quantum logic correspond to a complicated mathematical model that has the same lattice structure. This model consists of the set of the closed subspaces of an infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space. Hence that quantum physics is usually carried out within the framework of a Hilbert space. However, because also other types of Hilbert spaces exist, not always a separable Hilbert space is used for that purpose. An example is quantum field theory. This derogation can lead to contradictions that must be solved by a renormalization of the solution thus obtained. But, there are better ways to address fields that keep the direct relation with quantum logic intact. Such a different approach is applied in the Hilbert book model. The Hilbert book model uses the broadest choices that can be made for this separable Hilbert space. The most important freedom of choice that still exists is the number system with the help of which the inner product between Hilbert vectors can be defined. This number system may consist of real numbers, complex numbers or quaternions. This last one is the widest choice and offers the most flexible opportunities. For this reason, the Hilbert book model also allows quaternions as eigenvalues of operators and as the values of fields and coordinates. Both quantum logic and the corresponding separable Hilbert space offer no place for fields and can only offer a static representation. Neither quantum logic nor the separable Hilbert space can adapt the equivalent of local time. In addition the operators that work in separable Hilbert space do not possess eigenspaces that have the properties of a continuum. The eigenspaces of these operators have a countable number of eigenvalues. It is not possible to use these ingredients in order to form continuous equations of motion. So it is no wonder that physicists look to the capabilities of other Hilbert spaces. That happens especially in quantum field theories. Such a step breaks the direct relationship with quantum logic. However, there are other solutions to this dilemma. Every separable Hilbert space is part of a Gelfand triple. This construct features operators that possess eigenspaces with the structure of a continuum. For that reason the Gelfand triple is also falsely called a "rigged Hilbert space". However, it is not a real Hilbert space. It's a sandwich, where a separable Hilbert space is part of. The next step is that the eigenvalues of operators in the separable Hilbert space link to the continuum background eigenspace of corresponding operators in the Gelfand triple. This link will not be one on one. We allow the link to be inaccurate in a stochastic way. In other words, a probability distribution is added that for the eigenvector of the operator in the separable Hilbert space selects an exact value that at a test event is taken from the continuum background eigenspace. Instead of directly applying a probability density distribution we use a quaternionic probability amplitude distribution. However, the square of the modulus of this distribution is a probability density distribution. We can separate the amplitude distribution into a charge density distribution and a current density distribution. For a while the interpretation of these charges and currents will be left in the middle. In the described way we achieve several goals at one blow. It opens the possibility to apply continuity equations. Continuity equations are also called balance equations. The equations of motion of the charge-bearing quanta are in fact continuity equations. By using this approach, we have created the possibility to analyze the movement of these quanta, whatever those quanta may be. This interpretation also determines the kind of operator that is involved. It is an operator that delivers an observable, which changes dynamically in the realm of a background continuum space. We now have a powerful weapon in the hands to describe the behavior of quanta. Unfortunately, neither the separable Hilbert space that is extended with quaternionic probability amplitude distributions, nor the similarly extended quantum logic can represent anything else than a static status quo. Since the charge distributions and flow distributions are known in the form of probability distributions at least something is known about how the following static status quo will look. Thus, the somewhat extended model is still a static model and not a dynamic model. The solution is obvious. It consists of an ordered sequence of consecutive static models. Each static model consists of a sandwich in the form of a Gelfand triple and the stochastic but static links that exist between the separable Hilbert space and the Gelfand triple. The picture that emerges is that of a book where the consecutive pages represent successive sandwiches. The page number acts as a progress counter. It is a global working counter. It adds a parameter that represents the Hilbert space wide progress to each Hilbert space in the Hilbert book model. So this parameter is not our common notion of time, but the progression counter has certainly much relation with it. This model shows that no direct relationship exists between the progression parameter and the position of a quantum. The progression is represented by a Hilbert space wide parameter. The position is an eigenvalue of a corresponding operator. Only when the quantum moves, a relationship emerges between these quantities. A uniform movement can be described by a Galileo transformation or, when a maximum speed exists, by a Lorentz transformation. We now have a dynamic model that can display the movement of quanta and can describe the behavior of related fields. The beauty of this model is that it is literally based on pure logic. Only mathematics is used in order to extend that foundation. The main extra ingredient is the stochastic link between eigenvalues in the separable Hilbert space and eigenspaces in the Gelfand triple. For more details see: Http://www.crypts-of-physics.eu/OntheoriginofdynamicsBoek2.pdf

  Recent replies ⋅ Show All (2)

  • 
    Hans van Leunen replied

    The cause of gravitation The cause of the gravitational field is almost invariably seen as a single mass or a group of mass carriers which have a common center of gravity. We are faced with theThe cause of gravitation The cause of the gravitational field is almost invariably seen as a single mass or a group of mass carriers which have a common center of gravity. We are faced with the gravity field because things have weight or due the fact that acceleration confronts us with inertia. From deeper knowledge, we learn that the gravitational field is associated with the curvature of the space that surrounds us. In our immediate environment the effects of curvature(other than weight) are barely noticeable, but there are places in the universe where the curvature is much stronger and causes significant effects. From these experiences the false idea may emerge that the gravitational field acts as the cause of curvature. However, that is a reversal of affairs. The gravitational field is no more and no less than the accurate administrator of the curvature of the local space. Therefore the value of the gravitational field is not a simple number. It is a tensor that exactly represents the local curvature by using a matrix of characterizing numbers. This matrix can vary from place to place. We can go a step further and argue that the gravitational field designates the points on which the cause of the curvature seems anchored. Actually, these point-shaped mass carriers do not need to exist. It means that there may also be other causes to be coined for the curvature. An example is formed by an anomaly in the local geometry that is surrounded by a different structure of the normal curvature. A black hole can be considered as such a geometric abnormality. A black hole is surrounded by a very strong curvature field such that information can no longer pass the skin of the hole. Therefore the hole can as well be completely empty. What happens to the material that is sucked up by the black hole? Well, that will be ripped apart into its smallest possible parts. Part of the debris is used to widen the skin of the hole. The other part escapes from the absorption process and is reflected back. The hole gets bigger, but that only becomes visible via the enlargement of the skin. The surface of the skin gives an indication of the mass, which the hole represents. The curvature around the black hole is in correspondence with this mass. However, the hole itself is empty. If this picture is correct, then nature might perform this trick more often. What to say of the idea that all elementary particles that have a mass, contain in their inner a small geometric abnormality that is responsible for the gravitational field of the particle. The question results of what causes this abnormality. The physical fields that belong to a particle determine what is present in the domain of that quantum. These fields are quaternion valued probability amplitude distributions. The square of the modulus of these distributions is a probability density distribution of the presence of the quanta considered. At places where nothing is allowed to be present, in fact a geometric abnormality emerges in the form of a hole. The hole represents the mass of the particle. The gravity field is thus a very different type of field than the fields that belong to the quanta. What about inertia? This effect is caused by the collaboration of all geometric abnormalities. The most distant abnormalities play the largest role. Further away, the influence of a single abnormality falls off quickly with distance, but the number of participating abnormalities increases much faster with that same distance. Moreover, the influence of differences level out due to averaging over an increasing number of contributions. It looks as if a uniform background attracts the local object from every direction. Because the forces come in equal size from all directions nothing happens. In a similar way nothing will happen as long as the object moves in a uniform manner. If the object accelerates, then according to field theory, this goes hand in hand with the presence of an additional gravitational field that counteracts the acceleration. So it is not surprising that physicists cannot reconcile the electromagnetic fields and the weak and strong binding fields with the gravitational field. Apparently the gravitational field is a field that is caused by the other fields. All other fields are quaternionic probability amplitude distributions that belong to quanta.

    Nov 10, 2011
• Mariusz Szczepek

  h= ²√к²- (к/ 2Pi )² jak to tłumaczyć?

  Jest to moja autorska praca. Szukam krytyki

  http://ludwiczek.salon24.pl/361513,i-co-wy-na-to-plaszczaki-czesc-2