What is third quantization?
Juan R.
a different kind of quantization to different authors.
What is the more usual meaning for third quantization?
particle --> field --> Universe?
Third quantization of Brans–Dicke cosmology. Physics Letters A 280(4),
191-196. Pimentel, Luis O; Mora, César.
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9701146
particle --> field --> string?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/nth_quantization.html
Anything else?
P.S: Please avoid if possible any debate about how misleading may be (or
not) the terms second and third quantization.
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Douglas Eagleson
Just be aware that debate is an ok thing and I am in the liquid
interaction arena. We just use quantization as interaction itself. A
particle as a quanta appears independent of the temperature of the
universe in liquid arena. We separate all theory as quantization. It
works because of the obvious meaning of the cause to quanta. So our
arena was diverging from all other theory.
An order as a relation of the act to the function would make
interaction. Here is a short explaination of the interpretation of
order of relation.
1st order relation of quanta:
A matter.
All matter was to exist to interact. It intepretates the outcome as
another mater then. Matter to matter transform makes the energy move
from place to place.
2nd order relation of force:
All outcome of force.
A force as evidence of matter alteration becomes a forces effect. All
force in quanta then exists as capacity to alter matter in space
itslef. No universe need be defined, only the existence of matter.
3rd force.
A second relation of force appears. All capacity as space was the
speces effect. Matter as a density of energy exhibit a space effect.
Notice an effect of order that causes a consistent theory. Mattter in
second relation to force appered itslef as effecct. Perfect inversion
of relation then allows a fourth relation to be exhibited.
4th interaction of all spatial content.
A content as energy was to be consistently relative to other content
and a quanta allows all force to be either force carrier or space
content. A photon as a force carrier then becomes indistinguishable as
an energy quanta from all other quanta.
All theory here so far is consistent with the record books, but the
state as an energy quanta was always a liquid drop space consituent. A
particle was to never have space content itself in liquid theory.
Nuclear relative energy as strong force is derivable given the quanta
count of interaction. Add the quanta of any postulatble interaction
and all mass was either conservable in fourth order or not. And
binding energy causes a non-conservation.
A diverging theory arena appear this distinctive theory.
We in liquid arena use a fifth quanta.
And the meaning of theory class should be debated. It is not ok to
discuss theory in a priori of a previous class. Universe as an effect
of particle was only a fourth order quantization. So it is a great
question to be debatable.
How can fifth quanta occur?
Careful re-examination of nuclear binding is advised. Our arena has
conducted itself in light of the meaning of binding itself. Have you
personnally used a neutron detector to measure the outcome of
interaction? If not be wary.
I have given the solution, but it is a real debate. Should everyone
walk the road of liquid theory?
Juan R.
> On Aug 30, 8:50 am, "Juan R." González-Álvarez
> <juanREM...@canonicalscience.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that, unlike first and second, third quantization mean a
>> different kind of quantization to different authors.
>>
>> What is the more usual meaning for third quantization?
>>
>> particle --> field --> Universe?
>>
>> Third quantization of Brans–Dicke cosmology. Physics Letters A 280(4),
>> 191-196. Pimentel, Luis O; Mora, César.
>>
>> http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9701146
>>
>> particle --> field --> string?
>>
>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/nth_quantization.html
>>
>> Anything else?
>>
>> P.S: Please avoid if possible any debate about how misleading may be
>> (or not) the terms second and third quantization.
>>
>> --http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
>
> Just be aware that debate is an ok thing
Never claimed the contrary!
Simply I am not really interested in parallel debate about if the terms
"second quantization" "third..." are misleading or are not. People can
discuss those matters using the name the prefer.
> and I am in the liquid
> interaction arena. We just use quantization as interaction itself. A
> particle as a quanta appears independent of the temperature of the
> universe in liquid arena. We separate all theory as quantization. It
> works because of the obvious meaning of the cause to quanta. So our
> arena was diverging from all other theory.
>
> An order as a relation of the act to the function would make
> interaction. Here is a short explaination of the interpretation of
> order of relation.
>
> 1st order relation of quanta:
>
> A matter.
>
> All matter was to exist to interact. It intepretates the outcome as
> another mater then. Matter to matter transform makes the energy move
> from place to place.
>
> 2nd order relation of force:
>
> All outcome of force.
>
> A force as evidence of matter alteration becomes a forces effect. All
> force in quanta then exists as capacity to alter matter in space itslef.
> No universe need be defined, only the existence of matter.
I don't agree.
One can apply second quantization in absence of forces. Also one
can model interaction (force) using 1st quantized theory (e.g. Feynman
formulation of QED is a 1st quantized theory).
> 3rd force.
>
> A second relation of force appears. All capacity as space was the
> speces effect. Matter as a density of energy exhibit a space effect.
> Notice an effect of order that causes a consistent theory. Mattter in
> second relation to force appered itslef as effecct. Perfect inversion
> of relation then allows a fourth relation to be exhibited.
Any reference?
--
http://www.canonicalscience.org/en/miscellaneouszone/guidelines.html
Douglas Eagleson
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am a basic wavefunction collapse theory person. I likley
differently approach the topic of quantization. Please keep a theory
hat on as you analyze my statement.
All class as wavefunction would be third effect of collapse in the
theory utilized by me.
I understand the advanced standard model quantization as a far
different approach. I simply wanted to express a foundational
approach to collapse as quantization as opposed to Baez's method. Baez
modeled particle creation and abstracts the function of creation.
So we have the case of theory in standard class being a different
model. I required a space as the cause to momenta. So if this
approach is an issue please point out the issue. A disagreement on
aproaches to quanization need not cloud this thread.
It is a good issue to discuss.