Bigot attack!!
Cl.Massé
Amidst the everyday tardions and tachyions, amidst many useful rewriting of
physics, a bigot attack against the alpha and the Zitterbewegung of the
world is raging. Igor the terrible summoned all of his troops to fend the
bastion of orthodoxy. They've got a single rally shout: p/m!! p/m!! p/m!!,
as can be read on big streamers.
Is there anyone in that savant society that is able to simply solve an
equation? I'm getting sick in the middle of all those unnecessary
intricacy, as if physics were sold by weight.
So, let's calm down and q' = p/m, with or without Lorentz contraction of
the volume. Given the Heisenberg equation of motion q' = [H,q], which
Hamilton operator and wave equation do we get? So, is Dirac wrong or what?
Is there a good soul here who is able to explain me what "velocity per
unit volume" is. I'm loosing my Latin between intensive and extensive
quantities. Am I allowed to pass the speed limit if I have a bigger car?
Also, who will be so good as to say me what $#%ù other values of p I
inadvertently put in various places of the solution of the Dirac equation,
triggering a good ol' Zitterbewegung that upset the entire physical
community?
But... Aaaaarrrrggghh..... I've been pierced by Igor the terrible himself,
who moderated me out because I ask questions that hit the mark.
--
~~~~ clmasse on free F-country
Liberty, Equality, Profitability.
Jay R. Yablon
Well, now we come full circle. Because Carles, Peter, Fred and I, and
others who gave support, started this Newsgroup early in 2007 after we
all became extremely frustrated wth moderation policies at another
newsgroup, which placed a higher premium on adherence to certain
orthodoxies than on trying to think freely and confer with a wider
circle of folks about difficult physical issues which touch upon the
"foundations" of physics.
Glad we have succeeded as an aaaaarrrrgggghhh outlet! And, I dare
say, the quality of physical discussion is quite exceptional and
becoming better by the day. Of late, SPF has turned into a rather
large group effort to figure out what the zitterbewegung is really all
about, or, put succinctly, we have as a group crossed a threshold and
are now collectively engaged in collaborative research on a rather
sticky and unsettled physics topic.
Jay.
neur...@yahoo.com.au
> But... Aaaaarrrrggghh..... I've been pierced by Igor the terrible himself,
> who moderated me out because I ask questions that hit the mark.
Oh my! This damsel fears to peek out of her room, for all the
raging commotion. However, she suspects that it is a case of
small language barriers ballooning like a red giant star into
a gigantic miscommunication.
Perhaps you should post your original (unedited) spr submission
here, along with Igor's rejection (also unedited)?
Yes,... I'm sure it will be revealed as merely miscommunication,
after everyone has taken a Bex and had a good lie down.
----
LOL from the Masked Quantum Damsel!
Hans de Vries
> Is there a good soul here who is able to explain me what "velocity per
> unit volume" is. I'm loosing my Latin between intensive and extensive
> quantities. Am I allowed to pass the speed limit if I have a bigger car?
This just means that the integral over space gives the
velocity v. You could also call it the probability flux density.
Multiply it with the charge q and you can call it the current
density. Integrated over space this gives you the total current
I = qv.
Multiply it with the restmass m and you can call it the mass
flux density. Integrated over space this gives you the total
mass flux mv
So: v, qv, mv,
The probability 1, the charge q and the rest mass m are
all three Lorentz scalars.
Regards, Hans
http://www.physics-quest.org
Cl.Massé
>> unit volume" is. I'm loosing my Latin between intensive and extensive
>> quantities. Am I allowed to pass the speed limit if I have a bigger car?
"Hans de Vries" <Hans.de....@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:a17cf08c-3b5f-4ce1...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com...
> This just means that the integral over space gives the
> velocity v. You could also call it the probability flux density.
No, it gives the *average value* of the velocity for the state, while we are
talking about the velocity *operator*.
Let's make some reminding about elementary quantum mechanics. Each
observable is represented by a self-adjoint operator acting on the wave
function. The (space) average(d) value of the operator O for the wave
function psi is:
$_space psi* O psi dV.
That is, at each point of space there is a different real value of
(psi* O psi)/(psi* psi), and psi* psi is the weight function of the average.
If all values are the same, the wave function is an eigenfunction of the
operator. But in general *it is not*, since it can't be the eigenfunction
of every operator. When a measurement is performed, the wave function is
projected onto an eigenfunction, whose corresponding eigenvalue is the
result. Therefore, there are no less than 4 velocities: the "average
velocity", which is the average of the "local velocity"
(psi* v psi)/(psi* psi) and the sum of the "velocity density" psi* v psi,
and the "measured velocity".
Finally, the actual intensive value of the velocity is:
(psi* [H,x] psi)/(psi* psi).
It is a scalar (or a space vector), not an operator. Consequently, I think
the sentence "p/m is the correct operator since it takes into account the
Lorentz contraction of the volume" is plain wrong.
And if I said to the cops that if integrated over the whole road, my
velocity is under the speed limit?
My first question remains unanswered, here and on spr. The arrow is still
flying toward the mark. Igor the terrible is risking his skin, vive la
République!
Hans de Vries
> >> Is there a good soul here who is able to explain me what "velocity per
> >> unit volume" is. I'm loosing my Latin between intensive and extensive
> >> quantities. Am I allowed to pass the speed limit if I have a bigger car?
>
>
> > This just means that the integral over space gives the
> > velocity v. You could also call it the probability flux density.
>
> No, it gives the *average value* of the velocity for the state, while we are
> talking about the velocity *operator*.
> Finally, the actual intensive value of the velocity is:
>
> (psi* [H,x] psi)/(psi* psi).
>
> It is a scalar (or a space vector), not an operator. Consequently, I think
> the sentence "p/m is the correct operator since it takes into account the
> Lorentz contraction of the volume" is plain wrong.
Nothing *plain* wrong here. Just standard physics.
(psi* [H,x] psi) transforms like p/m: The 3 space
components of a 4-momentum.
(psi* psi) transforms like E/m: The time component
of a 4-momentum.
Therefor (psi* [H,x] psi)/(psi* psi) transforms like p/E
which can be interpreted as the local velocity.
This quantity is no *density* anymore.
Regards, Hans.