14th Nov, 2018

formerly conicet and universidad nacional del litoral

Question

Asked 18th Feb, 2018

Deleted profile

Le us think of any precision needed detectors. But there is law: uncertainty principle between the precisions of measurements:

dx dp >h/2. But if the high precision detector in Moscow measures the momentum p, so the error is nearly zero dp=0, we can get information about position of the detected particle: it is in Moscow. However the error dx > (h/2)/dp = infinity. What is wrong? The detector in Moscow is so powerful, that within the detection process the position of the particle changes drastically. Am I correct?

Well, if you look at what I wrote, it is just a simple superposition of two different waves. Conceptually you may be right.

Solution of Dark Matter and Dark Energy is the perfect answer and the paper for this question

Dmitri Martila

amazing experience with the experts in the group and superb answers.30 Recommendations

**Get help with your research**

Join ResearchGate to ask questions, get input, and advance your work.

Quantum uncertainty has nothing to do with quality of your equipment.

\hat{x} and \hat{p} operators do not commute and do not have mutual

eigenstates so you can only measure one of them accurately regardless of your detectors.

3 Recommendations

19th Feb, 2018

1/(nearly zero) is very large => Moscow is very large.

Would you agree?

3 Recommendations

Physical reality has structure and this structure has a foundation. The foundation emerges into a consistent theory.

"Structure in Physical Reality" http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0086

It's not whether the symbology (mathematics) is consistent or not - it is whether the conceptual foundations are coherent.

Specifically, the ontological implications of locality associated with the ideas of a particle and a wave are completely intellectually orthogonal (CONTRADICTORY). Thus, to merge the particle Hamiltonian with the de Broglie wave ideas: the basis for Schrodinger's QM Equation make NO sense. But physics has been hijacked by mathematicians; so no-one cares !

- 326.74 KBIllogicality.pdf

2 Recommendations

If the particle is in Moscow, then it's position is known but momentum is not known. The momentum is represented by number of eigenstates. It has so many momenta though undetected. If we are to believe in QM as the momentum is measured very accurately dp=0, one of the eigenstates corresponding to momentum is chosen with high degree of accuracy. As the momentum is measured the particle is represented by a large number of position eigenstates. The particle is now in Moscow as well as in Washington, without being detected.

2 Recommendations

Gentlemen:

Newton's concept of instantaneous momentum (or velocity) is a fiction; he invented it to make his calculus easier. This is a basic idea that is NEVER measurable as humans cannot distinguish ZERO time separation.

Thus, QM, like CM, are both simply math games - NOT reality.

- 326.74 KBIllogicality.pdf

26 Recommendations

Dear Nalin: You deliberately missed my point that a so-called empirical science (physics) is built around non-experimental concepts at a single "instantaneous" moment of time but I see you have written several papers around this concept; not very objective, huh?

dp = 0 has plane wave as the wave function which occupies all infinite flat space. Where is this space in the case of finite Universe? Of course, all this is idealyzed approximation with the limited field of applicability. It is only description, Herb, but reality is "thing in itself".

29 Recommendations

Infinitesimals are a religious mode of thinking - the inverse of God's infinity.

Read my review of the definitive book to see how contentious this idea was when it surfaced in Europe around 1500,

- 106.12 KBInfinitesimalRev.pdf

No well accepted quantum mechanical theory has a proper foundation. This holds for QED, QCD, string theory and Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG).

For that reason these theories are based on guess work and cannot be self-consistent.

The Hilbert Book Model starts from a foundation that is well accepted as a self-consistent theory. Some groups have tried to develop this structure into a wider theory. None of these groups went as far as the Hilbert Book Model Project does. The part that is ready now is self-consistent. However, the model is still far from complete. The model for the atomic nucleus is still incomplete. The HBM explains the origins of electric charge, color charge and mass. It discovered dark matter quanta and dark energy quanta. It explains how elementary particles are structured and how photons are structured. It applies a powerful modeling platform and it developed a self-consistent set of quaternionic field equations. In this way it introduces new mathematics and new physics.

1 Recommendation

Nalin, Herb, with "invention" and "discovery" of theories not everything is unambiguous. We can not in the continuous process (which is the cognition) make an absolute dichotomy between. Theories are based on assumptions about the high probability of something (i.e. further, axioms) which, in turn, are based on previous knowledge (experience), with continuous subsequent confirmation of axioms by the consequences - successfull predictions based on theories built on them.

It's a vicious circle, the game of deduction and induction, analysis and synthesis. This has already been discussed at RG ( https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_Erwin_Schrodinger_invent_create_intuit_infer_deduce_or_discover_his_now_famous_Schrodinger_equation ).

2 Recommendations

Continuity Vs Discrete, Rationalism Vs Empiricism, Jesuits Vs Protestants, QM Vs GR, Bohr Vs Einstein, Field Theory Vs Quanta, Waves Vs. Particles. All these arise in trying to "understand" a reality that is supposed to exist independent of the human being.

They are in a way incommensurable to use a now familiar word, and no wonder that GR resists all attempts to be married to QM. Schrödinger was "successful" in writing down a "Field Equation" for QM, but it was an improper hasty marriage that has been dissolved by the Pope as well as by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Western world is immersed in dualities, based on Aristotelian two valued two fold Logic , There are many other logics and other views on "Reality" . Consistency is associated with Aristotelian Logic. The infinitesimals are only an invention (creation), which we use in writing research papers!

2 Recommendations

Hi there, Verbalists:

Rationality has been defined by your tribe as the use of WORDS on the assumption that confounds communication (talking to others) and thinking - an individual mode of responding to the world, including visual memories, impressions, feelings and intuitions as well as "talking to ourselves". Most of us are just the victims of conscious propagandizing by our societies that use the 'magic' of words to "educate" us.

PS See my review of Joe Chilton's Pierce's "Crack in the Cosmic Egg".

PPS Yes, I appreciate the irony of talking here.

- 298.07 KBOmelet.pdf

Quantum Mechanics (Schroedinger's Wave mechanics to Dirac's Electron Wave Theory) impose mathematical constraints (like single value, finite series, continuum differentials) to arrive at its SINGULAR solution of the hydrogen atom in terms of LaGuerre polynomials, separable variables, etc. These methods have collectively resisted coherent PHYSICAL interpretation of its eigenfunctions. More complex atoms (multiple electrons) have ALL resisted ALL analytical attempts for over 100 YEARS - not too impressive !!

9th Mar, 2018

@Herb,

I guess you would repeat your statement concerning multiple electrons also for multiple classical gravitating bodies. In that case it would be easier for you to understand that the limits for analytical approaches are not limits for physical and practical insight.

4 Recommendations

Dear Ulrich:

As you seem to know (but MOST do not) the three-Body problem arose in Newton's gravitational model and (as Poincare knew) occurs **whenever** THREE or more (3+) interact through ANY form of CONTINUOUS interaction; this physics **defeats** the mathematics of the differential calculus as used in classical and quantum mechanics; hence my focus on FINITE differences.

Any interpretation of quantum mechanics should be self-consistent, but you have to be careful in what you assert the theory says. The uncertainty principle does not use dp.dx; instead it says Δp.Δx > h. My interpretation of this is action is discrete, not continuous, and you cannot interact with anything with more precision than a quantum of action.

The use of the word "interpretation" is important. We start with the question, is there an actual wave or not? The Copenhagen interpretation asserts there is not. The pilot wave interpretation says there is, and I have made two additions to that, and that is sufficiently different that I call it a guidance wave. One of the differences lies in the usual statement that the wave is complex. If you think of Euler's theory of complex numbers, that is not entirely true, and it becomes real instantaneously at the antinode. I attach significance to that (again, an interpretation) which explains WHY action is discrete, and it is reasonably straightforward to derive both the Uncertainty Principle and the Exclusion Principle from that position. I outlined that in my ebook, "Guidance Waves".

@ Herb. You say "More complex atoms (multiple electrons) have ALL resisted ALL analytical attempts for over 100 YEARS". That is not exactly true. See " I. J. Miller 1987. The quantization of the screening constant. *Aust. J. Phys. 40* : 329 -346. " which gives analytical functions to a first order. It is obvious that there is something further there, but that first order approximation does require certain functional change when you try to derive analytical expressions for the covalent bond, and they appear to be there. My ebook "Guidance Waves" illustrates these.

Ian,

Please read "Structure in Physical Reality"; http://vixra.org/pdf/1802.0086v6.pdf

Gentlemen:

There are enough musicians here to form a Band: all the guys blowing their own horn, beating their own drum, blowing their own trumpet, etc.

Now, if we could only find a score to which everyone can play in tune?

3 Recommendations

It is well known that non-relativistic quantum mechanics has to be generalized.

The extension to a relativistic formulation based on Dirac's equation also needs to be, and has been, generalized to a relativistic field theory.

In field theory there is a causal propagator which is part of the uncertainty

principle for relativistic fields. Thus the field theory version of the uncertainty principle includes no influence outside of the light cone,

which resolves Dmitri's question.

In relativistic field theory wave packets for nonzero mass particles are also constrained to move at speeds less than the speed of light and at the speed of light for massless particles. There are some remaining inconsistencies in quantum field theory, but that is another question.

Frank

QED and QCD have no proper solution for the explanation of the origin of mass. This is strange because explaining the origin of mass is rather simple. It starts with knowledge that was available two centuries ago. Please read "Create Mass from Nothing"; http://vixra.org/abs/1803.0388

1 Recommendation

Why none of you say anything about the weak measurement experiment? It was shown as an apparent violation of the uncertainty principle. The trajectories of one single polarized photon at the time was tracked. This was done by using a calcite crystal. In that experiment you can see that every single photon is at two different places at the same time....ALL THE TIME. There is no intersection between trajectories. This means you should forget about the wave! The trajectories dodged the minima zones. This means that it is not that the probability to land in a minima is zero. No probability cloud! The trajectories look just as Bohm predicted! The fact that the photon is at two different places at the same time makes the particle completely non-local, thus, uncertainty in position remains. Upon detection the two trajectories collapse in just one spot and this is ruled by chance.....your thoughts!

1 Recommendation

The papers referring to weak measurements that I have seen confirm the point that what happens looks just as Bohm predicted, but there is nothing there to suggest the photon was in two places at the same time, as opposed to going from A to B at the local light speed. Also, it does not mean you should forget about waves because Bohm made his prediction based on the pilot wave. You can't use an observation predicted by premise X to discredit premise X. If you assume the trajectories go from A to B, and all photons turn up at the screen, not the source, you have not violated uncertainty, because you only know about the issue AFTER the photon is detected.

Gentlemen:

The issue is not whether the mathematics of QM is consistent or complies with experiment: it IS/DOES but it has led us into an intellectual **Dead-End**.

Symbolic theories rely on **deduction** to move forwards but human progress is driven by our least appreciated mental faculty: IMAGINATION that triggers our INTUITION. We now know (from neuroscience) that human imagination draws on some of our visual processing which is our dominant sense and reflected in the largest volume of the animal brain dedicated to visualization. Thus, QM as a purely math theory, is cut-off from our sources of inspiration, so we have stalled for almost EIGHTY (80) years with the nonsense of QFT diverting attention.

I am developing a visualizable model of QM that will satisfy Rutherford's Test - it can be appreciated by an uneducated barmaid. It can also be extended to the larger world of Multi-Electron atoms.

- 734.47 KBUET7A.pdf

2 Recommendations

Dear Herb and Ian, it is a self-interference experiment. The photons are send one at a time. Why it is so difficult to envision that the quantum particle is in two different places at once? But it is so easy to imagine a wave doing that? As you can see in that experiment there is no construction and destruction patterns....Thus, there is no wave. Your thoughts!

Omar, in the weak measurements I mentioned, yes, the photons went through one at a time, but they were tracked as going through one slit and went more or less in a straight line to the point of impact, which was a single point. When you get enough points, you get a diffraction pattern. To my point of view, that is fairly clear evidence the photon was not in two places at the same time. The wave pattern may well be spread out, but when you consider a photon, you have concentrated the energy to a near point source. I see no evidence whatsoever to suggest it is in two places simultaneously. Of anyone produced evidence I would most certainly change my mind, assuming the evidence was robust

How many times do I have to say that (Inter)Action-At-A-Distance (Far Action) is a much simpler model of reality than inventing hypothetical intermediate entities?

KEEP IT SIMPLE, GUYS. Good enough for Newton and gravity so why make

things complicated?

- 124.21 KBFarAction.pdf

28th Aug, 2018

Dear Herb and Nalin,

I am happy that I found your exchange. Can you be so kind and start sparring again.

I agree and disagree with both of you at the same time. This is amazing. I absolutely agree that we always look at the reality through the language our parents taught us (which is through words) but we have a tendency to change ever so slightly the meaning of these words, what makes it a living/natural language (in opposition to a completely formal language). Math tries to be as much formal but it is still a living/natural language. We really do not know the very nature of the reality and as I always say the present knowledge is of a measure 0, compared to imaginable knowledge which in turn is of measure 0 towards everything that we cannot even imagine. So nature of reality is quite complex. Since the reality beautifully marry General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics it may only mean that both theories (languages) are "imperfect" and are only a reflection of the deeper theory/reality. After many years of speculating I come to a conclusion that modern physics does not have a good vocabulary/meaning for matter, space, dimension, interaction, and their math reflections in terms of functions. If one believes that everything is quantized then even a use of continuous function becomes suspect so all our differential physics equations become highly suspect. If we marry this fact with that even the best physics achievement (The Standard Model) reflects only about 4% of Cosmologically observable universe we end up in trouble. Is the nature of what we do not know is the same as what we do know? Is Eugene's objection expressed as internal inconsistency between the definition of a wave with a single frequency and its requirement for infinite extent of it and the known finite size of the universe a signal that we are using too many simplifying assumptions to be internally consistent. This leads to the conclusion that assigning a deeper meaning to the QM is nonsense and whether Copenhagen interpretation or any Bohm's musings on hidden variables is somewhat missing the issue. Your thoughts?

1 Recommendation

Dear Boguslaw,

I don't think anyone would disagree that GR and QM are "imperfect" since they do not fit well together, but I find it difficult to know what to do about it because some differences are discrete. It may be that both have to be adjusted so they can meet somewhere in the middle as part of a more general overall theory. My personal view is that everything is not quantised. Action definitely is, at least if caused by electromagnetic forces, but I see no real evidence for gravitational quantisation, and electric charge is. I have a rather different interpretation of QM in which the wave is physical (like the pilot wave) but is only real at the antinodes (from Euler's complex number theory) and action is quantised because only the antinodes are real, and it equals *h* because that is the spacing between crests. For a travelling particle, the troughs are irrelevant because the wave carries directional information. I disagree that assigning an interpretation is somewhat missing the issue; in one sense it may be, but if it helps make progress, is that wrong? In my case, my view ends up with making the properties of the covalent bond in chemistry far more understandable. I think we have to inch our way forward.

Dear Boguslaw,

discrete values dont contradict continuous functions. Moreover, continuous topology leads to the discrete phase space orbits (Poincare limit cycles) in the theory of non-linear differential equations. In this case E=f(w) and may be hw in linear approximation.

Particle Mechanics may be formulated consistently using Finite Differences like Newton's Continuum mathematics (analysis). This discrete math maps the discrete Quantum of Action and reflects the discontinuous physical interactions between electrons that have been approximated by continuous Potential Energy approximations based on 18th century mathematicians.

29th Aug, 2018

Dear Eugene,

I absolutely agree with everything you said. Two remarks though:

1) If space is quantized so there is a minimal dimensional size below which physics looses sense then continuous functions loose their sense as a basic tool of physics rendering it only as an approximation.

2) The notion of an ideal photon requires (at least as an extension) an infinite sapce to retain single frequency (Fourier). Any limitation of of the universe creates a mixture of frequencies so the notion of photon gets muddled. Infinite universe is somewhat of a conundrum that leads to a possibility of multitude of infinities like energy, number of particles etc.

I disagree that the continuous topology produces Poincare results. The result is a derivative of an existence of a measure on a given space. Every formulation of stability requires infinitesimals and these are not well defined in purely topological spaces.

There is so much confusing notions. Quantization of everything is a mental exercise. If one assumes and consider only the circles that length is contained to natural numbers you have a quantized set. One can always generalize it to all circles and retain continuity of length. However, the main question remains what natural (existing in Nature) requirement caused it to be quantized.

Unfortunately, I agree and disagree with Herb. Every linear (or linearized system) can be approximated by finite differences but that still does not answer the basic question what natural condition caused this (look at the final question of the previous paragraph). So in effect what is more basic equation.

Dear Boguslaw:

I gave a physical explanation for mechanics that explains the "mysterious" behaviour of the electron that is hidden by using the continuum wave mathematics. I am a physicist first who is forced to use math to communicate with the mathematicians that have hijacked physics for years. For more details read the attached (a lot more than a book review).

- 285.30 KBFraudPhysics.pdf

1 Recommendation

30th Aug, 2018

I think that the stronger the criticism of current and old science is, the weaker its credibility is, gentlemen scholars :-)

3 Recommendations

Jerzy,

The structure and the behavior of physical reality are so complicated that no theory that is crafted by humans can properly capture it. That does not mean that at least parts of it can be described and explained properly and for a large part that can be performed consistently. A major problem is that its description can only be done properly by applying adequate mathematics. Many physicists and certainly the amateur physicists lack the required mathematical skills.

No accepted physical theory founds on a solid foundation. This lack cripples all contemporary physical theories.

Try

"Tracing the structure of physical reality by starting from its fundamentals"; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16452.07047

and study

Preprint The behavior of basic fields

The inequality dxdp>h/2 refers to a statistical effect. However if you consider a single particle e.g. a high momentum proton striking a thin photographic film, you find that this inequality is violated. Of course, we do not have any interpretation of this strange statistics which we call quantum mechanics. However it works very well and hundreds of applications are done each day for molecules and solids.

2 Recommendations

Dear AK:

You are right to remind people that QM is a statistical theory that was grounded in Classical Particle Mechanics that failed to reflect the NEW properties of the electron. So, the math gang grabbed on to de Broglie's "Conversion" trick of transforming a particle's momentum to a "wave". Then, Fourier Analysis could be invoked , along with a statistical injection of probability theory and we got agreement for average energies in the simple hydrogen atom. We have now been stuck there for over 100 years: pathetic.

- 451.36 KBUET7H.pdf

5th Sep, 2018

Dear Herb,

The more you throw your snippets the more fascinated I become. I absolutely agree that the physicists are coming in two different brands: physical reality oriented (looking for models), mathematical feasibility oriented (looking for self consistent math). Unfortunately, the latest breed won the battle. But every representative of this band should ask the question, whether the General Theory of Relativity could have been conceived by Hilbert without Einstein's lectures, even though he solved it in less than half year. What is the physical need or basis for multidimensional theories like in Supersymmetry or M theory besides mathematical "beauty".

However, I have a simple question to you. Without deep philosophical decisions (beliefs) it is very difficult to discuss what the physical theory really is. So I am asking a direct personal question. What is your understanding (basic belief) of what is the meaning of space, matter, fields, interactions etc. We many times in theoretical physics use a mock tool that has very little to do with the actual physical reality (virtual particles, versus undetectable fields that presence of which is seen only through virtuality). So what is the reality?

Bog

PS I totally agree with you that QM is a special case of SP. However, to square it away with experimental wave -like behavior we need to understand what the physical reality really is.

Dear Boguslaw,

In my opinion, before we can address what physical reality is, we have to settle the question of which of the following is true: (a) there is a particle but no wave; (b) there is a wave but no particle; (c) there is both a wave and a particle. If there is a wave, then that can be represented as a field, but if we resort to fields, which are simple mathematical constructs, then we have to state what physically the field represents. As it happens, I believe in (c), largely because it takes me places I could not get to without it, but the wave transmits energy rather than represents probability. (It does represent probability, but only because that corresp[onmds to the energy density, and hence the field gradient.)

6th Sep, 2018

Dear Ian,

I have to disappoint you. I do not have final finished thoughts on this issue. I personally believe that physics is a building in construction, and as such at every state of this construction old notions are exchanged/substituted with new ones. I personally do not believe that the physical reality as we became to accept it with particles or waves has anything to do with physical reality that I am asking about. These constructs are only an acceptable model for this particular stage. I personally do not believe at this stage of my life that physics even have a well developed idea what the dimension is. They just simply borrowed the notion from math. Unfortunately math is a human construct that tries to deal/reflect/comprehend the physical reality that I believe is intrinsically mathematized. What it means:. I give you one example. Math works only because you have a mathematician that does something to a single dimensional set (like R). Physics as being independent from an observer must deal with notions of change on its own. Physics must know that something has changed. How you introduce a change into a single dimensional set without additional dimensions or without a mathematician is a complete mystery to me. A simple differential calculus needs two variables. When mathematician introduces change he/she always invites additional variables (a numerator, a set, sigma set or any other construct). Try to imagine what physics really is in absence of a mathematician. Does X (a dimension) knows on its own that it has changed - pure nonsense. I think that you find my divagations a bit surprising. But they illustrate well how mathematics overwhelmed physics. On the other hand we know that existing reality (once we agreed to believe in its objectivity) must be mathematized because every experiment of every day life shows us that math is inherent by a simple act of measuring something. Physics is a method of measuring something. Another example, a few posts back Eugene asked me a question about solving a problem in three dimensional phase space. I do not even know what he means by that question. He obviously assumed that that we are dealing with a six dimensional space spanned by (x,y,z,px,py,pz) that by virtue of it has a measure (Lebesgua or any other measure) that allows us to use numbers instead of symbols and has well defined propagation laws. This is pure math it has nothing to do with physics (with an exception that sometimes some physical reality can be modeled by a similar construct to a certain approximation). Once we figure out what the space means maybe we have a chance to comprehend what particle or wave is as an approximation or representation of this reality. So far we dearly need new ideas as the Standard Model explains only about 4% of observable cosmology. So obviously something besides our physics exists that reflects on our reality.

Bog

2 Recommendations

Dear Boguslaw,

You don't disappoint me. My view is that maths is an important tool to describe physics, but it is only that - a tool. It is not physics. The problem when we get to a sufficiently small zone (i.e. quantum mechanics) we have a problem in that we have difficulty comprehending because it is not as we see things in our world. As for the standard model I am less than enthused about it because I don't think nature is that difficult. If you look at the number of terms in a Lagrangian in the standard model, that tells me we have gone wrong. Unfortunately, I don't know how to correct the mess.

1 Recommendation

Dear Boguslaw,

I mean differential equations (non-linear). You can see textbooks of V.I. Arnol'd for introduction. Chaos begins with the number of phase space dimensions more than two.

You correctly pointed to the key position of change in physics and necessity of second dimension for it's description.

P.S. What is SP, special case of which is QM?

The electron is a Planck sphere of 4 dimensions (particle), which rotates in three-dimensional space. This rotation generates the wave.

Is Quantum Mechanics consistent? Of course QM is consistent, if something is not, it is our understanding which is not consistent and we have to think to our hypothesizes. About the difficulties, it is not the notion of spin which explain the two subshells of a same shell, this is easy to realize with the calculation of the magnetic momentum of several compounds “see Total angular momentum and atomic magnetic moments, with G Lochak”. If the angular momentum is in the plane Oxy what is the role of the component Oz in the Dirac equation? There is a simple explanation, the quantification takes place not only with the angular momentum but also with the linear momentum along the perpendicular direction of the angular momentum. As a result all the space is quantified, and the quantum h is in fact shared between this two components of the motion into two equal parts h/2. Why just the plane of the angular momentum would be quantified?

2 Recommendations

Dear Boguslaw:

You raise valid questions about metaphysics and physics. I believe we MUST begin with ontology - proposals on what we believe are the deepest basis of reality. Since Aristotle, western science has obsessed on the **Thing** (object) concept that science (since Newton) viewed as the smallest piece of matter. I see this as the ELECTRON with only a few intrinsic properties that define its existence:

a) it interacts only with other electrons via a space/time varying interaction;

b) it responds to the interaction EVENT via inertia (action=reaction);

c) each electron interacts from a single point in space and time.

Mathematics can DESCRIBE reality but offers ZERO explanations.

I have written many papers on this (all on Academia.edu) but here's #6 that abolishes the need for the object (concept) called 'photon' OR 'light-wave'.

- 2.62 MBUET6.pdf

Dear Colleagues,

I skimmed the discussion, and no one even tried to raise a question, what "consistency" is. (Sorry if I missed someone's point.) IMHO, consistency of a physical theory is in the fact that there are never two ways of calculating a measurable quantity, producing values that experiment could distinguish. In this sense, QM is surely consistent. On the other hand, our understanding of this theory cannot be fully consistent, because, again IMHO, such "consistency of understanding" would in practice mean classicality.

1 Recommendation

Dear LI Plimak:

Consistency is a math concept, hence your answer (all about numbers).

The important question should be about "understanding". This is what the "Man-in-the-Street" wants to know; not comparisons to 14 digits between numbers. Remember, it's these ordinary folk that pay for all these privileged life styles in the Ivory Towers and Research Labs.

3 Recommendations

Dear Herb,

Good point. Indeed, "consistency of understanding" means different things in labs and in the street. (Have never been to a single Ivory Tower, sorry, even in dreams.) However, and in all respect to the man in the street, I really doubt he needs "consistent understanding of quantum mechanics". This is a privilege, or perhaps trouble, of being in a lab.

Dear LI Plimak:

'Consistency of Understanding' is the consensus on a single interpretation of what is happening in the physical world. I share the opinion of the great Ernest Rutherford, who dismissed any theory that could NOT be explained to a local barmaid (analogies are acceptable). QM has a dozen competing interpretations - pathetic. Physics is NOT a **mystery religion**; only understandable to the initiated High-Priests and certainly excluding mathematicians who do NOT understand physics.

- 1.64 MBUET7B.pdf

1 Recommendation

Dear H Spencer,

Perhaps Rutherford would have no difficulty explaining intricacies of QM to a barmaid. From my own experience as a private tutor, anything can be explained to anyone, but only until you ask that anyone to solve the simplest problem.

Seriously, "understanding" you may expect from a barmaid will never allow her to solve problems - except if she is a physics postdoc who desperately needs money. This the difference between popularization and professionalism.

3 Recommendations

The problem with QM as far as explaining is concerned is that we know that any explanation has to include a phase change, but we cannot agree on what is causing this. If we accept there is a wave as well as a particle, there is no problem with that, but that generates the new problem, where is the wave? If you assert there is no wave, as is general, and the wave function is just a mathematical construct to express a probability distribution, then you run into the problem of what causes that distribution. Oh dear - "Shut up and calculate!"

My answer to the problem is there is a wave, but it represents an energy field rather than a probability distribution. Yep - that creates its own problem. No matter how you turn and twist, so far you have to accept something that is most unpalatable, but maybe someone will eventually work out an experiment to solve this.

7th Sep, 2018

Dear Eugene,

I apologize. I should have spelled it in full. I meant Statistical Physics. I am very familiar with Chaos and Arnold's books. I love his approach. But guess what. He is a mathematician. I would strongly question his use of continuous functions for description of real physical phenomena. The only anecdote I can say is when I visited one of National Labs a very powerful physicist was chatting with me and jokingly said that another very prominent physicist is so good that he is able to prove one thing and the opposite at the same time. This is like with lawyers. If the language is natural (in opposition to formal) a careful couching of the argument allows for formulating opposite conclusions. I personally believe that Quantum Mechanics does not exist. I personally believe that there is only a discrete space and SP on it creates the results of QM. Unfortunately this cannot be the whole truth. The existence of Special Theory of relativity teaches us that the interplay between background (space) and foreground (dynamical physics) must be deeply involved with symmetries. This interplay must be dominant (which originated the modern Field Theories) but completely misunderstood. What these symmetries are really acting on (ad hoc introduced fields) or some deeper structure of space? But what this discrete space really means we do not have a clear idea. This is why I went this trip about discrediting a mathematical dimension as a physical dimension. The discretization of space must be special unlike in lattice theories, Quantum loop gravity or cellular automata. This is probably the right place to stop.

Cheers,

Bog

1 Recommendation

Dear Boguslaw,

Discrete space would mean that if we have a finite or denumerble set of measurements we could pass many experimental curves, while our physics show that we can pass just one. By more measurements at intermediate points we can improve our accuracy. Continuity, like symmetry is a basic concept of Physics. Of course people think that every thing is quantized. This is not so, e.g. the quantum states of an atom or molecule are any states represented by many particle wave functions which are square integrable. Only the eigenstatess of the Hamiltonian are discrete. These are the stable states. If you operate e.g. with magnetic fields like in electron magnetic resonance the electron states follow a continuous path and their energies are not discrete, i.e. they are not eigenstates of the Hamiltonian.

Regards

Andreas

1 Recommendation

7th Sep, 2018

Dear A.K.Theophilou,

I agree with all you said with a small exception. What you say represents the physics we know. You are expressing your deep ontological beliefs. Ontology in physics is equivalent to religion. There is no argument to change it. Fortunately, physics (besides how reality happens what we call physics too) is an experimental science. Your beliefs lead to many unexplained facts (besides that every experiment has an error and ALWAYS you can fit many curves). The litany of which I will not cite with exception of four:

1) Continous physics leads unavoidably into singularities (kudos to Eugene for his comments on phase space). You cannot liberate yourself from ultraviolet as well as infrared divergencies. You could reduce them to a single divergency by a radical use of duality but that is a different story and you should discuss it with Witten.

2) It does not even address the issue of a basic observation of a limit on speed of light or existence and origin of other "universal" constants. Of course you can believe in existing theory and other mathematical gibberish as if entire math must be realized in a real world. But the real world really does not care about the formal math, it is just mathematized in its own way (what way is the question).

3) Unavoidably leads to the concepts like infinite energy or infinite time (pure nonsense from the ontological point of view). Why not starting the discussion from provable existence of God. To add a twist I am a religious person.

4) So far produced more unknown than knowns. (Vide 4% of observable cosmologically world explained by Standard Model).

I am extremely sympathetic and supportive to all physics created so far and I am not rejecting even the crudest approximations. I am just asking the question about the nature of basic assumptions that allow us to build a better theory (better model of reality). Continuous functions physics is obviously correct (to whatever number of decimal spots) in a particular domain of its validity. You are not using Angstroms to measure a distance in transportation but miles and kilometers, and this is precisely why renormalization or conformal theories are so important (scaling in general) but you cannot sweep under the table breakdown at specific scales or the semi-fractal nature of the Universe. Your attachment to the present physics edifice is appreciated but I always say in the context like this please try to build a brick (house construction material) from known physical laws. I hope I was not too forceful.

Cheers.

Bog

1 Recommendation

Dear Mathematicians:

You are still obsessed with SPACE ever since Euclid, even when there are no **real **examples of your **perfect **spatial shapes, such as **circles**.

Physics is about Reality that is dominated by **TIME**, which we observe as change.

Go back to your own play-ground and leave physics to the temporal realists.

- 285.30 KBFraudPhysics.pdf

Yes, Boguslaw, all observations are discrete and QM states, that they are only reality. It is key point of QM. But Plato's view also exists, that reality is ideas (math). Where is strength of Plato? We can generate discrete from continuous, but never continuous from discrete.

1 Recommendation

7th Sep, 2018

Dear Herb,

Time is not equivalent to change. Actually many physical results indicate that time is relative while change is not. The best proof of it is life. Every chemical process has a notion of energy barrier attached to it. If not for existence of these barriers everything would have already collapsed and minimized, no flows would be observed therefore no life. When you evaluate any theory of chemical reactions you suddenly notice that the energy barrier is commensurate with rate which is an expression of time. Some bacteria divide every 20 minutes some other bacteria divide once in thousands of years. Do you really dare to say which one is more alive? What is a role of time in your estimation?

Coming back to Eugene.

Dear Eugene,

What you just said is pure nonsense (that discrete can be obtained from continuous but never other way around). Every measuring tool is build of atoms (discrete objects) and we are measuring using them assigning continue values. So a collection of dots create a line. Every rescaling procedure produces continuous (as an impression or a model) from discrete. Every method of deducing classical effects from quantum effects uses discrete to continue transition. So the first part of your post suddenly becomes contradictory with second part which I disputed. Besides true mathematical continuity invokes the notion of infinite divisibility which is another nonsense.Infinities are convenient math tools but imagine infinite energy which is something very concrete.

As I indicated before physicist are subdivided into two tribes physical reality oriented (like Einstein or Newton) or math oriented who believe that math originates physics not the other way around like (Witten, or Penrose). Guess which tribe discovers new math and new physics the first or the second? So it is time to admit to which tribe we personally belong and understand consequences of this allegiance.

You must excuse me but I do not want to discuss pure philosophy. In philosophy everything allowed like in art and no verification is needed. The only thing you need is appropriate following. I have areal problem with a question whether the ideas are a art of physical reality. This question translates whether math is a formal or a natural language. We can discuss this issue separately.

Cheers gentlemen

Bog

1 Recommendation

I am discussing these issues in RG for 5 years already, Boguslaw. You seems to be новичок (not poison, smile).

Collection of dots can not create a line. Any mathematician will say You this. I am speaking not about impressions, but about reality. No matter, who is first and who is second. The truth is unique.

8th Sep, 2018

Dear Eugene,

With a smile (unfortunately I am close to retirement and been active on RG for more than 6 years). Besides, I have very broad set of skills and interests.

Coming back to our discussion. I am slowly loosing you. You belong to this very classic math oriented tribe and is very difficult to drag you away from it. Your insistence on math is killing me and my argument. Math loves generalizations like, dense, compact, differentiable, and many many others that literally are never ever represented in the real world. I gave you the simplest experiment which is if you draw a set of small dots very close to each other and start walking away your impression would be a continuous line. Your response was that math does not allow that. The answer is: perfect and so what, it does not invalidate my impression of a line. This impression was behind the Euclid geometry not the existence of atoms and discrete nature of our atomistic physics. Your argument about continuity are as ontological (faith) as mine about the discreetness. There is no a middle ground in beliefs. So calling me a "novice" does not change anything in this discussion. The only question that remains is whether a new theoretical background can be created from one or the other set of beliefs. I can safely bet that you with your set of beliefs never will be able to explain the limit on speed of light as I already mentioned in one of the previous posts (I believe it was to A.K.Theophilou so please read these remarks). I am reading Herb's stuff and trying to understand the other side. Additionally, you never continued the line that a simple dimension in physics cannot be a simple dimension used in math. I think that continuous function conversation is really secondary to new basic assumptions we need to make in oder to marry QM with GR etc. As I previously said I do not believe that QM exist as a separate field of physics. It is simply a consequence of quantizing space. Unfortunately, I do not know how this space suppose to look like. This is why I am probing other people's minds.

Cheers,

Bog

Dear Bogulaw:

Go on, try to deny Time in Reality; Father Time will get you, like everyone else. Your examples did NOT deny change but only identify stable situations where the dynamism of reality is temporarily in balance.

This is one of the primary distinctions between REAL physicists and pseudo mathematical modellers who impose their egos on reality.

1 Recommendation

Dear Boguslaw,

if You marry two fantoms (QM and GR), You'll receive fantom again.

By the way, quantized space has no dimensionality. All quantized spaces can be made one dimensional. It is once more argument against your discreteness, which contradicts to your wish to describe changes, i.e. to have two dimensions as minimum.

1 Recommendation

9th Sep, 2018

Dear Eugene,

if you take quantized space as a graph (network) as all reasonable people --- from Zuse to Rovelli --- did and do, you easily express dimensionality. Adhering to strict math does not enforce us to become narrow-minded.

Of course, Ulrich, we can define whatever we want, but dimensionality of quantized space is artificial.

1 Recommendation

Quantum physics usually applies Hilbert spaces. How many of you comprehend why that is done? How many of you know that both separable and non-separable Hilbert spaces exist and what the relation is between these two versions. What means separable? Hilbert spaces can only cope with a selected set of number systems. Which are these number systems? Why do most quantum physicist apply the complex number based Hilbert spaces? What can be archived in a separable Hilbert space? What archives physical reality in these Hilbert spaces? What can be stored in a non-separable Hilbert space? What is the relation between Hilbert spaces and differential and integral calculus?

If you cannot answer these questions, then you cannot consider yourself a quantum physicist. A very important question is: "What is the reason of existence of the wavefunction?" Another question is: "Does the uncertainty principle also exist outside of quantum physics?" The answer to the last question is yes. It also plays an important role in optics. In fact optics learns you a lot about quantum physics.

Deleted profile

dear Eugene F Kislyakov,

you wrote:

As far I understand the verb *to generate*, R, with all its properties, is in general generated from Q sequences limits which are ultimately generated from integers.

With the same approach, we could exclude rationals or negative numbers. They are also the results of a construction from the integers. And we know that integers are not enough for all what we want to represent by numbers.

In physics, at least, we face the time which is continuous until the contrary will be proven.

you wrote also

QM is just a school toy. QFT are not really ghosts, nor GR from which all the SM will be rewritten in a few years...

In the Hilbert Book Model, private stochastic processes trigger the spherical pulse responses that constitute elementary particles. This also triggers the deformation AND the expansion of the field that acts as our living space.

The stochastic process is the consequence of the ongoing embedding of a separable Hilbert space in a non-separable Hilbert space. The elementary particle resides on the separable Hilbert space and is managed by a special footprint operator. The embedding field is the eigenspace of a dedicated operator in the non-separable Hilbert space. The pulse is caused by the symmetry breaking between the versions of the quaternionic number system that the two Hilbert spaces apply for specifying their inner product.

In this way reality organizes the interaction between discrete objects and an embedding field.

In my opinion, it all depends on what you think the wave function represents. If you consider the wave real, then the action has to be discrete because the concept of the wave period is discrete and the action determines the phase. The Hilbert space is a mathematical tool, not a physical entity, and if the wave is real, it must travel in real space. So the question then is, is the wave a physical entity?

1 Recommendation

Dear Eugene:

Reality = "thing in itself" was Aristotle's first level attempt at a verbal definition, when human knowledge stopped at 'The Visible'.

I see humans as part of reality and so MUST be connected to the real objects that we propose as the physical foundations of material reality, including the sub-atomic. As such my ontology is based ONLY on the reality of the **electron** and its mutual interactions (UET=Universal Electron Theory). Thus, I dismiss math phantasies like quarks, gluons, photons etc. I have a pure electron model of all the sub-atom 'particles'.

- 343.26 KBPhysicsCritica.pdf

Ian,

If physical reality applies the Hilbert space as a repository, then that repository is a physical entity. Valid reasons exist that state that reality applies a read-only repository, which contains all dynamic geometric data of all discrete objects that exist at any time in the universe.

Tracing the structure of physical reality by starting from its fundamentals; http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16452.07047

Hans, Wikipedia states it is a mathematical concept - an abstract vector space, and I tend to agree with that. It is very useful for describing, but it is not a physical "thing", in my opinion anyway.

2 Recommendations

Deleted profile

dear Herb,

any theory must be considered.

You talk of an electron, a maths concept *somehow *well validated by experiments. I didn't found your precise theory and its maths. Do you have some experiments project to discriminate the models ?

Physical space.

All spaces are in your mind, Ian. They can be only objective if they are in God's mind.

Deleted profile

about the original question:

>> dp is nearly zero dp=0

implies the position error is "nearly infinite", not "infinite".

That makes all the difference. When you come to measures, you find only consistent values.

Note that it is related only to statistical events. It has no meaning for an unique event.

Ian,

Physical reality appears to apply its private mathematical-like toolkit. That is why we can investigate its structure and its behavior with the mathematical toolkit that is developed by humans. It is insane to call the toolkit of physical reality nonphysical. Reality clearly has structure and this structure shows a significant coherence. Those that have investigated this structure conclude that this structure has a hierarchy that starts very simple and automatically emerges into more complicated levels. Mathematics can describe this structure and its dynamics. Mathematics also restricts the extension of the lower levels of the structure to the more complicated levels.

The fact that people claim that mathematical structures are nonphysical is often due to their lack of understanding of these structures. For example Hilbert spaces are very powerful and flexible constructs. It is inescapable that reality applies such constructs. See for example: https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Hilbert-Book-Model-Project/update/5b8ac4abcfe4a76455eff379

Reality applies Hilbert spaces as read-only repositories. It archives all dynamic geometric data of all discrete creatures in eigenspaces of dedicated operators that reside in separable Hilbert spaces.

For God's sake @ Dmitri,

Did you ever learn quantum mechanics? I suggest you to modify the text of the question - you simply discredit yourself.

The precision of the measurement of the linear momentum Δp, is not established by a single measurement, but by very many measurements, N, where N is very big.

Δp = <(p - <p>)^{2}>^{½}.

In practice what we do is

Δp ≈ lim_{N→∞} (1/N)[ ∑(p_{i}^{2} - p̄^{2}) ]^{½}, where p̄ = (1/N)∑p_{i}

To your question, the formalism of QM is self-consistent as long as we respect it strictly. QM is supposed to predict probabilities of results of performed measurements, NOTHING ELSE. For instance, it is not supposed to tell the probabilities of measurements incompatible with the performed measurements.

I still have not been able to answer my own question

De Broglie associates the motion of a particle with a wave. p=h/lamda

This wave carries one particle.

In the solid state, states above the fermi level are unoccupied.

so you can have states with no particle.

What you cannot have is a particle but no wave (zero probability density)

An extreme case is two plane waves, identical pi out of phase.

before interference say they both have a particle.

Then let them interfere. This is allowed!

After , nothing left, so no particle left!

Just how do you get out of this one...

@ Juan Weisz. Your problem is interesting, and yes, I get out of it remarkably easily. First I start with ψ= *A*exp(*2πiS/h*) which is fairly standard. Regarding the unoccupied state, that is simply something that is available if an electron turns up, but otherwise it is nothing. It cannot be a state because the action *S*, perforce, is zero. So no, you cannot have a state with no article other than by saying the absence of a particle is in itself a state. Conceptually you can have a particle with no wave because a stationary particle has zero action, therefore with no phase change over time, there is no wave, however the Uncertainty Principle forbids that, so you are correct there in what you cannot have, but for the wrong reason.

Now, I have my own interpretation, in which there is a physical wave, as per de Broglie and Bohm, however I have two differences, one of which is relevant now. One of these is based in the interpretation of what happens in the two-slit experiment: my interpretation is this wave causes the diffraction effects. If so, then the wave front has to arrive at the slits at more or less the same time as the particle, and from some basic maths you arrive at the conclusion that the wave transmits energy, and *A*^2 represents that energy, and not probability (although since probability is proportional to energy density they are frequently the same).

Now, getting back to the problem of two waves interfering out of phase. The question then is, in an atomic orbital, why does the electron not collapse into the nucleus? The answer is somewhat complicated, but the key point is the stable states are when a period exactly repeats. Now a wave has to have a crest and a trough, so the wave for the 1s orbital of hydrogen is actually two cycles. Now, if two such waves interfere exactly out of phase you get a crest and a trough in one cycle. That is why electrons pair, and it also gives you the covalent bond in chemistry. Your problem is actually why chemical bonds form. More details in my ebook on covalent bonds from guidance waves ( https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07GCDYDRR)

@ Juan, my friend,

Ha, ha, ha! (I lough with sympathy - your question is funny). Please describe a device which superposes the two waves, i.e. one wave whatsoever and one in anti-phase with the other. If you succeed, prepare yourself for being invited to Stockholm.

You see, I learnt from my teacher in QM that if I pose a question in connection with a situation, I have first to describe the experimental configuration by which I realize tht situation.

With kindest regards and wishes!

Thanks Ian

I think you probably change the interpretation of the wave function. This gives me a lot of thinking.

The stability of the atom is usually thougt in terms of what happens with acceleration of the electron, which would classically radiate.

You can get a bound state with two waves going opposite directions, not the same

as two waves pi out of phase in the same direction and sense (which simply anul) ie.

the magic formula of math exp(i pi) =-1

I understand the covalent bond, simple model based on a 2 by 2 symmetrix matrix,

with bonding (lower) and antibonding (higher), 2 electrons in lower state, the symmetric.

I dont see it as my problem.

You discuss in terms of the bohr model the atom (not the best way)

However what you say about a particle and wave function gives some thought I may come back after thinking about it.

Waves are a math concept OR a many-body approximation of collective motion.

So, QM is NOT reality but a frequency-probabily description of very many possible experiments that can NEVER be repeated; so this is a logical self-contradiction.

Most QM calculations are simply Fourier transforms.

1 Recommendation

Sophia

For now it in the category of thought experiment.

Your teacher is really in the category of hard empiricism. Thats good, not bad.

I take it that you understood the thought experiment.

Do you have a group to interact?

regards, juan

Herb

You are thinking along the lines of the objective theory of probability, I think

You can repeat experiments, and even see an interference pattern build up in practice. Given time I can get you references. But usually they use many electrons at the same time, assumed nearly independent.American Journal of Physics has some.

The uncertainty principle can be described in terms of two reciprocal fourier

transforms, involving the Planck constant. A delta function as the fourier transform of a plane wave is one extreme of this transformation.(ie. perfectly defined linear momentum, but no knowledge of where the electron is)

The part I do not understand is where a contradiction comes in, in your mind.

@ Juan,

Even for a thought-experiment one has to outline the configuration. I advised you to try describe the configuration which would superpose the two waves, for your own amusement. Try to do this, as I advise you, I know what I say. You will understand why your idea cannot lead to the destruction of a particle.

And keep in mind a concept of big importance in QM: UNITARITY. It's not easy to defeat the unitarity.

I could explain you why one cannot destroy a particle, but I prefer to leave you the pleasure and amusement of finding out by yourself.

With kind regards!

For me the issue is not if I destroy particles or not, but the internal consistency

of the rules. Something like in math, you prove something by assuming the opposite, to reach a contradiction. I reach a contradiction, so some rule must be false. You did not explain which one and why, but the ones I use seem reasonable.

I will think some more about unitarity, what it really means, how it is proved. If it is the same as mass conservation. It is not a standard problem, two waves involved.

In an interference experiment you do not have particles in certain regions, why, destructive interference. What is the big difference?

best regards, juan

Very amusing thread, I'm glad I came across it.

For the past couple of weeks I've been thinking about how physicists try to understand reality and try to model it. As a chemist, I find this an admirable and awe-inspiring endeavor. However, is this even attainable?

If evidence is to support a model and the collection of evidence is made by some instrument, does this measuring interfere with the phenomenon? If so, should it be taken into account by the model?

Are we going to have to settle with just some really good approximations?

Please excuse my meddlesome curiosity.

1 Recommendation

True. In quantum mechanics (Q.M). we can show that dx dp>h/2π. In the statistical interpretation of Q.M. we can attribute this to a statistical error. In the derivation of this inequality by Heisenberg, it refers to a measurement by photons. However in tracing a single particle on a film in a bubble chamber, we can find that this inequality is violated. In fact we cannot say when Newtonian mechanics stops to hold and Q.M. takes over. Small particles can be affected by many random forces as there is no practical way of isolating a single particle. Thus, in my view Q.M. takes into account this fact and derives its conclusions by unconventional statistics.

1 Recommendation

My friend Juan

I told you to do such a simple thing, to show how practically to superpose the two waves. I promissed you that you'll have the answer to your question. Then, what's the matter with you, what is this reluctance? You want only to ask, or you want also to get an answer?

You are not one to which I should give the solution like to a child, you are smart. So, do what I said! Is it difficult to you to take a pencil and a piece of paper and do a drawing? Have a hint from me - try to superpose the beams with a beam-splitter, and you'd see what happens. (Those things that happen have as theoretical base the unitarityof the quantum formalism.) But, FIRST, SEE WHAT HAPPENS with the two waves if you try to superpose them with a beam splitter, and you'll see whether you reach a contradiction or not.

DO IT!

With kind regards

Sofia

I said I would work on it, bur want your reaction.

So far:

Unitary evolution preserves the inner product and hence probability density over time. This is fine if all states are bound.

But conservation of mass is a bit more involved (i think)

It is div(J) +partial derivative of rho with respect to time equal to zero.

In an open problem you have to attend the second way, current off to infinity.

What is your opinion about that? There should be a momentum of 2 hbar k off to the right. Maybe the electrons are still there despite zeroprobability density.?

It might be permisible because of the infinite x domain.

This still spooks me out.( Everything points to destructive interference.)

By the way, exactly how is a particle beam splitter supposed to work.?

And achieve phase change?

With light at 45 degrees, some goes through, some reflected.

I have a lot of experience with light, but not particle beams.

Regards, Juan

Alex,

Please study

The universe is controlled by stochastic processes that own a characteristic function.

1 Recommendation

The real question is does QM **accurately** reflect reality

at a **scale** of micro-reality because it works "**statistically"**

at OUR (macro) scale of very many repetitions of experiment.

Ever tried living on a "Statistical" meal?

1 Recommendation

Herb, yes, I think you are right, there is no real microreality

Miraculusly there are numbers, ie. energy levels calculated, that seems the best.

I was never impresed by the Schrodinger cat stuff.

All you get is probability P(1) the cat is alive, P(2) the cat is dead, P(1)+P(2)=1

When you open the lid, this is a measurement, and you find out.

If you repeat many times, that is a way to verify P(1) and P(2).

Not that I actually mean to do this.

As a result of the problem, two free electrons going to the right, pi out of phase with each other

I prefer now to consider it a two particle wave function

Psi(x1,x2)= A exp(ikx1)-Aexp(ikx2)

This avoids wipping out the wave function, and therefore the particles.

Probability density then conveys

rho = 2AA(1-cos k(x2-x1))

the interesting message that electrons prefer to follow each other at prefered distances.

Discussing the consequences of the existence of a rest frame in the universe

Discussion

431 replies

- Asked 6th Jun, 2022

- Sydney Ernest Grimm

The detection of the existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) from everywhere around in the universe has puzzled theorists. Not least because of the discovery of a Doppler effect in the data that can only be interpreted as direct related to the velocity and the direction of the motion of the solar system. But if it is correct we have to accept that there exist a rest frame in the universe. Actually we can determine the existence of absolute space and that is not in line with the “belief” of most of the theorists.

There is another method to verify the results: counting the numbers and measuring the brightness of galaxies from everywhere around. The first results – using visible light – were not convincing. But a couple of days ago The Astrophysical Journal Letters published a paper from Jeremy Darling with results that were obtained with the help of radio waves: “*The Universe is Brighter in the Direction of Our Motion: Galaxy Counts and Fluxes are Consistent with the CMB Dipole”* (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08).

In other words, it is real. We can determine the existence of "absolute space". Moreover, we know from set theory (mathematics) that absolute space and phenomenological reality must share the same underlying properties otherwise we cannot detect the existence of absolute space. The consequence is that absolute space has a structure too, because phenomenological reality shows structure.

None of the grand theories in physics is founded on the structure of absolute space. Therefore we are facing a serious problem in respect to the foundations of theoretical physics (the conceptual framework of physics).

Article

Full-text available

- Sep 2017

We report a precise measurement of the J/$\psi$ elliptic flow in Pb-Pb collisions at $\sqrt{s_{\rm NN}} = 5.02$ TeV with the ALICE detector at the LHC. The J/$\psi$ mesons are reconstructed at mid-rapidity ($|y| < 0.9$) in the dielectron decay channel and at forward rapidity ($2.5<y<4.0$) in the dimuon channel, both down to zero transverse momentum...

Article

- Oct 2003

There are many ways to give a rigorous meaning to the Feynman path integral. In the present paper especially the method of the time-slicing approximation determined through broken line paths is studied. It was proved that these time-slicing approximate integrals of the Feynman path integral in configuration space and also in phase space converge in...

Chapter

- May 2017

This chapter discusses the technical details of the Jost solutions of the Schrödinger equation. The nonrelativistic quantum mechanical two-body problem can be described in terms of the Jost functions and Jost solutions of the Schrödinger equation. When defined for all complex values of the momentum, the Jost functions contain complete information a...

Get high-quality answers from experts.