Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Quantization of Gravitation
328 views
Skip to first unread message
SEKI
May 19, 2016, 4:18:35 AM5/19/16
to
The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
which even light cannot escape. Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the substance of an
elementary particle is considered to be a kind of local wave traveling in the
space where we live. Inside a BH, where nature of the space is fundamentally
different, it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place, it's
questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles as those in the
space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
Anyway, the gravitation theory can be considered to be more universalistic
than the established quantum field theory.
Then, I wonder whether it really makes sense to construct a quantum gravitation
theory which is to build a gravitational extension on the base of the quantum
field theory.
Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to be
quantized?
distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
which even light cannot escape. Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the substance of an
elementary particle is considered to be a kind of local wave traveling in the
space where we live. Inside a BH, where nature of the space is fundamentally
different, it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place, it's
questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles as those in the
space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
Anyway, the gravitation theory can be considered to be more universalistic
than the established quantum field theory.
Then, I wonder whether it really makes sense to construct a quantum gravitation
theory which is to build a gravitational extension on the base of the quantum
field theory.
Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to be
quantized?
JanPB
May 19, 2016, 5:53:21 AM5/19/16
to
Its rather spectacular failure in the case of gravity strongly suggests
something completely different should be done.
For quite a long time now (at least the 1990s) people have been doodling with
the idea of separating space and time again and perhaps endowing them with some
properties currently not assigned to them.
But the Pavlovian dog "quantum gravity" reflex is still pretty strong.
In my opinion "quantum gravity" won't work, it's an idea that worked
for all forces whose essence was NOT based on space and time itself.
Gravity appears to be precisely such phenomenon, so in retrospect
it's not at all surprising the old way didn't work.
--
Jan
Tom Roberts
May 19, 2016, 1:44:24 PM5/19/16
to
On 5/19/16 5/19/16 3:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
> distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
> which even light cannot escape.
Yes.
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
> distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
> which even light cannot escape.
> Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
> and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
distant observer's time COORDINATE. To a local observer nothing strange occurs
at the horizon (as long as the BH is much larger than the observer; for small
black holes all bets are off). Inside the horizon, space and time behave
normally in the local region of an observer, until she approaches the
singularity and the curvature radii approach her own size.
You may be thinking about the fact that using the usual
Schw. coordinates, inside the horizon t is spacelike and
r is timelike. But these are extensions of EXTERNAL
coordinates, and an external observer cannot use them
inside the horizon. Note also that "t" and "r" are just
LABELS, and have no intrinsic meaning of their own.
> On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the substance of an
> elementary particle is considered to be a kind of local wave traveling in the
> space where we live. Inside a BH, where nature of the space is fundamentally
> different, it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
> established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place, it's
> questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles as those in the
> space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
are useless inside a BH.
> Anyway, the gravitation theory can be considered to be more universalistic
> than the established quantum field theory.
some more fundamental quantum theory....
> Then, I wonder whether it really makes sense to construct a quantum gravitation
> theory which is to build a gravitational extension on the base of the quantum
> field theory.
the other known forces.
> Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to be
> quantized?
reign. But at such scales gravitation is completely negligible. At present it is
not known how to reconcile quantum theory at small scales with GR and
gravitation at large scales....
But being confused about the basics of either theory will most likely prevent
anyone from figuring it out.
Tom Roberts
SEKI
May 20, 2016, 4:30:30 AM5/20/16
to
Thank you very much.
SEKI
SEKI
May 20, 2016, 4:34:38 AM5/20/16
to
There is no crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to be quantized.
Right?
Steven Carlip
May 20, 2016, 11:37:31 AM5/20/16
to
On 5/19/16 1:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is
> equivalent to distortion of space,
spacetime
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is
> equivalent to distortion of space,
> and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from which even
> light cannot escape.
> Time halts on the event horizon.
> And, space and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
complicated statement -- basically, that outside the horizon
the geometry is independent of time, while inside the horizon
it's independent of a particular spatial direction. It hints
at interesting properties of the horizon, but it's not some
profound philosophical statement.
> On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the
> substance of an elementary particle is considered to be a kind of
> local wave traveling in the space where we live.
quantum field, which *sometimes*, in particular states, might
hae a wavelike description.
> Inside a BH, where nature of the space is fundamentally different,
> it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
> established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place,
> it's questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles
> as those in the space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
According to GR, spacetime inside a black hole is locally no
different from spacetime outside. A freely falling observer
will notice nothing at all unusual when passing through an event
horizon.
> Anyway, the gravitation theory can be considered to be more
> universalistic than the established quantum field theory.
tested.
> Then, I wonder whether it really makes sense to construct a quantum
> gravitation theory which is to build a gravitational extension on the
> base of the quantum field theory.
> Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to
> be quantized?
a very hard one). But at a minimum, it is not consistent to
combine quantized matter with ordinary nonquantum GR. If you
try to write down the Einstein field equations in that setting,
the left-hand side is a set of functions (the Einstein tensor),
while the right-hand side is an operator on a Hilbert space
(the stress-energy tensor for a quantum field). Setting them
equal is mathematically meaningless.
While most people in this field have concentrated on trying to
quantize gravity, there is also a long history of attempts to
write down a a consistent theory combining quantum field theory
and nonquantized gravity. No one has managed.
Steve Carlip
SEKI
May 20, 2016, 2:15:49 PM5/20/16
to
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 12:37:31 AM UTC+9, Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 5/19/16 1:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
>
> > Inside a BH, where nature of the space is fundamentally different,
> > it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
> > established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place,
> > it's questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles
> > as those in the space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
>
> This exhibits a deep misunderstanding of general relativity.
> According to GR, spacetime inside a black hole is locally no
> different from spacetime outside. A freely falling observer
> will notice nothing at all unusual when passing through an event
> horizon.
>
Only considering even photon cannot escape from a BH, any theory other
> On 5/19/16 1:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
>
> > Inside a BH, where nature of the space is fundamentally different,
> > it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
> > established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place,
> > it's questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles
> > as those in the space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
>
> This exhibits a deep misunderstanding of general relativity.
> According to GR, spacetime inside a black hole is locally no
> different from spacetime outside. A freely falling observer
> will notice nothing at all unusual when passing through an event
> horizon.
>
than GR isn't considered to be able to be applied inside a BH as it is
for outside.
> > Anyway, the gravitation theory can be considered to be more
> > universalistic than the established quantum field theory.
>
> Why? Quantum field theory is certainly much more widely
> tested.
>
> > Then, I wonder whether it really makes sense to construct a quantum
> > gravitation theory which is to build a gravitational extension on the
> > base of the quantum field theory.
>
> > Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to
> > be quantized?
>
> Ultimately this should be an experimental question (though it's
> a very hard one). But at a minimum, it is not consistent to
> combine quantized matter with ordinary nonquantum GR. If you
> try to write down the Einstein field equations in that setting,
> the left-hand side is a set of functions (the Einstein tensor),
> while the right-hand side is an operator on a Hilbert space
> (the stress-energy tensor for a quantum field). Setting them
> equal is mathematically meaningless.
>
Isn't it your belief?
> While most people in this field have concentrated on trying to
> quantize gravity, there is also a long history of attempts to
> write down a a consistent theory combining quantum field theory
> and nonquantized gravity. No one has managed.
>
Thanks for your comments.
SEKI
al...@interia.pl
May 20, 2016, 2:22:27 PM5/20/16
to
W dniu czwartek, 19 maja 2016 10:18:35 UTC+2 użytkownik SEKI napisał:
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
> distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
> which even light cannot escape. Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
> and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
The 'general relativity' is just a numerology,
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
> distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
> which even light cannot escape. Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
> and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
in fact it's another pseudscience incarnation.
> On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the substance of an
> elementary particle is considered to be a kind of local wave traveling in the
> space where we live. Inside a BH, where nature of the space is fundamentally
> different, it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
> established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place, it's
> questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles as those in the
> space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
In fact any wave can be quantised, like any other continuosu being,
thus the QM is only a numerology too.
Finally:
GR + QM = fantastic world of imbeciles.
Ross A. Finlayson
May 20, 2016, 5:58:18 PM5/20/16
to
the continuous medium, but discretization is basically
an effect as of the difference between continuous and
discrete. Discretization as sampling, measurement, and
observation does see varieties in configuration and
energy of experiment. Mathematics owes physics what
the individua of the continuum are, and how they are
indistinct or always plural, for then what a distinct
item is, as a discretization.
Some have quantization so that the sum over cases doesn't
diverge (eg the energy in light), some have quantization
as measurements only change in increment (eg the energy
in electron orbitals), then, analytical approaches like
the sum-of-histories or path integral again become relevant
as yet-unsolved problems in theoretical mathematical physics.
The sum-of-histories challenge should be solved before
stacking more ever-extending non-explanations onto physics.
This then is part of the "measurement effect" challenge,
and reflects that the continuous is the most regular,
and quantization is many things.
al...@interia.pl
May 20, 2016, 7:55:56 PM5/20/16
to
W dniu piątek, 20 maja 2016 23:58:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Ross A. Finlayson napisał:
> "Quantization" does have an effect. It's not granular
> the continuous medium, but discretization is basically
> an effect as of the difference between continuous and
> discrete. Discretization as sampling, measurement, and
> observation does see varieties in configuration and
> energy of experiment. Mathematics owes physics what
> the individua of the continuum are, and how they are
> indistinct or always plural, for then what a distinct
> item is, as a discretization.
The discretisation is just a direct
> "Quantization" does have an effect. It's not granular
> the continuous medium, but discretization is basically
> an effect as of the difference between continuous and
> discrete. Discretization as sampling, measurement, and
> observation does see varieties in configuration and
> energy of experiment. Mathematics owes physics what
> the individua of the continuum are, and how they are
> indistinct or always plural, for then what a distinct
> item is, as a discretization.
consequence of any detection, including your stupid brain,
which simpy notices some events, thus separated, singular by definition!
So, the QM is a pseudothery, because this model treats these ilusoric events literally: energy, momentum, any motion is discrete,
because any process of detection. measurement gives some event only!
That's just another fallacy, more than any idiotic,
fantastic fallacies of the ancients - geocentrism, flat earth, etc.!
> Some have quantization so that the sum over cases doesn't
> diverge (eg the energy in light), some have quantization
> as measurements only change in increment (eg the energy
> in electron orbitals), then, analytical approaches like
> the sum-of-histories or path integral again become relevant
> as yet-unsolved problems in theoretical mathematical physics.
>
> The sum-of-histories challenge should be solved before
> stacking more ever-extending non-explanations onto physics.
>
> This then is part of the "measurement effect" challenge,
> and reflects that the continuous is the most regular,
> and quantization is many things.
Quantisation of waves? HAHAHA!
You are just ridiculous... not less than the Donald...
together with the dog Pluto from the Disneyland.
JanPB
May 21, 2016, 7:20:07 AM5/21/16
to
probably noticed, this newsgroup is like most Internet forums, i.e. you must
bring a fairly good size BS filter with you.
I can pretty much guarantee that anything Steve Carlip or Tom Roberts says
is correct.
As for the others - be _extremely_ careful. At the end of the day there is
no substitute for an honest study of the subject (whatever the subject :-) )
--
Jan
Alan Folmsbee
May 21, 2016, 11:50:49 AM5/21/16
to
On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 5:37:31 AM UTC-10, Steven Carlip wrote:
> Not really. An elementary particle is an excitation of a
> quantum field, which *sometimes*, in particular states, might
> hae a wavelike description.
Protons and neutrons cause gravity. They have a quantized radii and volumes. Gravity is a volume effect. For example, a volume of space surrounding a planet can potentially be where one apple falls or a trillion apples fall in the same g. That volume fallen, equals the volume of all protons and neutrons in any star or planet, every 5.1315 nanoseconds. That has been calculated on many planets and some stars and an asteroid.
> Not really. An elementary particle is an excitation of a
> quantum field, which *sometimes*, in particular states, might
> hae a wavelike description.
The volume of a proton is a new quantum value.
V = 3.591364*10^-45 meter^3 is for a quantum gravity formula.
Steven Carlip
May 21, 2016, 12:07:55 PM5/21/16
to
On 5/20/16 11:15 AM, SEKI wrote:
> On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 12:37:31 AM UTC+9, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> On 5/19/16 1:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
>>> Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to
>>> be quantized?
>> Ultimately this should be an experimental question (though it's
>> a very hard one). But at a minimum, it is not consistent to
>> combine quantized matter with ordinary nonquantum GR. If you
>> try to write down the Einstein field equations in that setting,
>> the left-hand side is a set of functions (the Einstein tensor),
>> while the right-hand side is an operator on a Hilbert space
>> (the stress-energy tensor for a quantum field). Setting them
>> equal is mathematically meaningless.
> Why "mathematically meaningless"?
> Isn't it your belief?
No, it's a statement of fact. If you try to write down the
> On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 12:37:31 AM UTC+9, Steven Carlip wrote:
>> On 5/19/16 1:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
>>> Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to
>>> be quantized?
>> Ultimately this should be an experimental question (though it's
>> a very hard one). But at a minimum, it is not consistent to
>> combine quantized matter with ordinary nonquantum GR. If you
>> try to write down the Einstein field equations in that setting,
>> the left-hand side is a set of functions (the Einstein tensor),
>> while the right-hand side is an operator on a Hilbert space
>> (the stress-energy tensor for a quantum field). Setting them
>> equal is mathematically meaningless.
> Why "mathematically meaningless"?
> Isn't it your belief?
Einstein field equations with the stress-energy tensor of a
quantum field as a source, you get an equation that is quite
literally mathematically meaningless -- it equates two things
that aren't in the same category. (It's as if you wrote an
equation that the volume of a sphere = cat.)
Steve Carlip
SEKI
May 21, 2016, 1:56:01 PM5/21/16
to
Anyway, I cannot but assume gravity is an accompanying phenomenon and
is not to be quantized.
- Particles always cause gravity, and gravity always affects particles.
- I could never assume a particle can emit/absorb a real graviton in the same
manner as a charged particle emits/absorbs a real photon.
Thank you.
SEKI
JanPB
May 21, 2016, 2:49:28 PM5/21/16
to
comments of this sort. I'm not being mean, I only want to encourage you to
study the subject you're interested in.
--
Jan
SEKI
May 21, 2016, 5:31:12 PM5/21/16
to
I write what I want to write.
Thank you.
SEKI
al...@interia.pl
May 21, 2016, 6:36:26 PM5/21/16
to
Understand gibbon?
No? Of course...
JanPB
May 22, 2016, 1:37:16 PM5/22/16
to
--
Jan
JanPB
May 22, 2016, 1:41:48 PM5/22/16
to
Incidentally, in most cases my followups to your posts are addressed to other
people in the thread.
--
Jan
al...@interia.pl
May 22, 2016, 3:16:07 PM5/22/16
to
W dniu niedziela, 22 maja 2016 19:41:48 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> I wasn't talking to you. Quote: "Just a quick note for SEKI", unquote.
>
> Incidentally, in most cases my followups to your posts are addressed to other
> people in the thread.
>
> --
> Jan
You are completely degraded and thus: delegated... to the orangutan science domain... like the Ptolemy and many other such.. extremely obdurated fanatics.
> I wasn't talking to you. Quote: "Just a quick note for SEKI", unquote.
>
> Incidentally, in most cases my followups to your posts are addressed to other
> people in the thread.
>
> --
> Jan
Gary Harnagel
May 22, 2016, 6:47:52 PM5/22/16
to
“Open your mouth only if what you are going to say is more beautiful
than silence.” -- Arabic proverb
“If it is not right, do not do it. If it is not true, do not say it.”
– Marcus Aurelius
“Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking.” -- L. Frank Baum
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
“Have you ever listened to someone for a while and wondered …
‘Who ties your shoelaces for you?’” – Mom’s Got Ink
“To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like
administering medicine to the dead.” – Thomas Paine
al...@interia.pl
May 22, 2016, 7:11:34 PM5/22/16
to
thus they.. write such nonsenses, to silence others (competitors).
Gary Harnagel
May 22, 2016, 9:11:43 PM5/22/16
to
SEKI
May 23, 2016, 11:44:45 AM5/23/16
to
On Saturday, May 21, 2016 at 12:37:31 AM UTC+9, Steven Carlip wrote:
> On 5/19/16 1:18 AM, SEKI wrote:
>
> > On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the
> > substance of an elementary particle is considered to be a kind of
> > local wave traveling in the space where we live.
>
> Not really. An elementary particle is an excitation of a
> quantum field, which *sometimes*, in particular states, might
> hae a wavelike description.
>
I consider that the assumption that there exist extremely small elementary
>
> > On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the
> > substance of an elementary particle is considered to be a kind of
> > local wave traveling in the space where we live.
>
> Not really. An elementary particle is an excitation of a
> quantum field, which *sometimes*, in particular states, might
> hae a wavelike description.
>
particles (regardless of whether point-like or string) in reality is false
and is the root of quantum paradoxes such as instantaneous wave function
collapse, and single particle (quantum) interference in a double slit
experiment. And, quanta are basically considered to be only phenomena in
the space-time with fields, which is considered to be the only substance
existing in the most extreme sense.
Do you agree? (Probably, not.)
Than you.
SEKI
al...@interia.pl
May 23, 2016, 11:54:51 AM5/23/16
to
therefore very dangerous predator for every idiot. :)
Ross A. Finlayson
May 23, 2016, 1:24:09 PM5/23/16
to
event to make a particle that can interact with other particles.
Without the conditions for a discrete events, the particles are
on the field, instead of, in the field. This has separate particle
interactions and field interactions. Flux is then for an aggregate
of particles.
Superstring is a mathematical model of infinitesimals, points,
(even under chemical "atoms"). It is about trying to model
the continuum as of elements. The individua of a continuum
are not the members of the field, there is a transfer principle
between them. Discretization of elements (particle from individua)
is an event, continuization of elements (individua from particle)
is a tendency.
This, is so it seems. In mathematics, there are grounds for it
or "mathematical proof".
What are the elements of continuum in mathematics? They should
be the same in mathematical physics.
Gary Harnagel
May 23, 2016, 10:14:09 PM5/23/16
to
In actuality, you are a poofball
SEKI
May 24, 2016, 3:53:51 AM5/24/16
to
Though a quantum behaves as a wave, it maintains its oneness while it exists.
A free quantum carries its energy and momentum as a whole.
A quantum can assume the character of a particle, which is extremely small,
only momentarily.
In each quantum field, a kind of cohesive force like surface tension or some
sort of cut-off mechanism is considered to be essential. As an example,
consider a photon traveling all the way from a far-away star. Without any
cohesive force or some sort of cut-off mechanism, the quantum cannot but
diffuse, be diluted beyond measure and end up disappearing.
[Suppose a photon is traveling in the z-direction. If x and y components of
the momentum of the photon are both absolutely zero (xy-spectrum width = 0),
the wave packet of the photon is already unlimitedly spread. Otherwise
(xy-spectrum width is not zero), the wave packet will spread even further.]
Unlike the four fundamental forces, this kind of cohesive force is to work
only in each field.
On the above assumption, each quantum has only a finite size in the space
even if it has specific energy and momentum.
[So, in my perspective, the Kennard (not Heisenberg) inequality fails, and
theories related to renormalization should be revised.]
Let's consider a process, a+b -> c(+d+…), where each of a, b, c, ... stands
for a quantum (elementary particle) which is real, not virtual.
If a part of quantum a and that of b overlap one another in the space, both
parts are assumed to reduce. Reductions of overlapped parts of quantum
waves and above-mentioned cohesive force result in a kind of mutual
attraction between the quanta. If the domains of quanta, a and b, both
reduce to the same point or extremely small area, the above process can take
place.
As for quanta, among which no interaction is possible, no reduction of
overlapped part of quantum wave is to occur.
Particle-antiparticle pair can be produced when high-energy photon collides
with a nucleus or the like. It should be noted that no pair can be produced
without a collision with a charged particle, which is to cause a reduction of
quantum wave of photon.
In case of being subjected to enough acceleration, the shape of a quantum is
to be distorted and intermittently reduce enough to emit a photon due to the
cohesive force.
Though you may find some flaws in my model, I suppose that my interpretation
of quantum mechanics is leastwise better than that of Copenhagen, many worlds
theories and so forth.
Thank you.
SEKI Hajime
Odd Bodkin
May 24, 2016, 7:33:20 AM5/24/16
to
won't shut up. As though posting to an unmoderated forum is a strike for
liberty.
--
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Gary Harnagel
May 24, 2016, 7:46:38 AM5/24/16
to
the purpose of corralling the boneheads. Sadly, so few take that opportunity
to sit at the feet of the few great lights that visit from time to time.
I was on the yahoo relativity forum for several years before coming here.
There were similar nutjobs over there and no great lights, but I learned
anyway because I had to study to refute their arrogant baloney.
Gary
Odd Bodkin
May 24, 2016, 7:51:52 AM5/24/16
to
who pollutes the group with his spray of self-important postings. Both
feel alienated and useless, unrecognized and uninfluential. So they
battle that hole in the pit of the stomach by seeking attention. What
better way to get attention than to post somewhere that won't lock the
door, and to engage in verbal sparring. Attention is attention, and it
doesn't matter whether it's positive or negative, as long as it's not
SILENCE.
Ross A. Finlayson
May 24, 2016, 11:12:03 AM5/24/16
to
a fluid model for liquid, or fluid model for charge. They are much
the same, then some parts are opposite. Pressure and voltage, for
example are the same, but in charge it is the skin effect, while with
liquid it is the core effect. Then, surface tension maybe is different
how it breaks, instead of breaking at a point, it breaks at all points.
Instead of the chain being the weakest link, it is the strongest link.
These are examples to help distinguish that these different models have
different properties, and the properties really in the quantum model
and for quantum particle/wave duality might add _or remove and have
opposite_ those features that we already establish in the classical
versions of these models. An example is asymptotic freedom of the
strong nuclear force that binds quarks with gluons, there is an
asymptotic freedom instead of binding when they are closest together.
This is about that there are some mathematical functions, that belie
their behavior for any finite input. This is an example of a function
that only increases but goes to zero.
Re-normalization is re-de-normalization, these are methods that
introduce error in their evaluation, normalization only follows
some de-normalization, that some might have as irreversible.
Some do not have Multiple Worlds Interpretation. And, with modern
study that expanding universe model might not have been correct
for some usual model of expansion, where there is still much for
observational expansion but also for absolutism and logically
attenuation of the past, these are more examples for the idea
of the richness of the physical models having that they include
the classical models we are trying to apply to them, as simple
cases.
Then, it seems key to understand what differences there are
between the physical (or, modern) models and classical models,
then to build those into the theory instead of fitting the
theory to the classical models (of wave, colour, fluid,
pressure, surface tension, etcetera).
I'm a philosopher, this is just my opinion, but it is
a scientific opinion in physics. I am interested in
the continuum mechanics then how we can find in some
post-modern continuum mechanics that it supports all
the classical and modern then how there are features of
the model for discretization or measurement, to then
automatically equip the theory with features of its
models (then that the theory is a model, or the model).
al...@interia.pl
May 24, 2016, 12:22:12 PM5/24/16
to
al...@interia.pl
May 24, 2016, 12:25:08 PM5/24/16
to
Gary Harnagel
May 24, 2016, 12:51:44 PM5/24/16
to
“Education isn’t something you can finish.” – Isaac Asimov
“Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
-- Benjamin Franklin
al...@interia.pl
May 24, 2016, 2:24:45 PM5/24/16
to
W dniu wtorek, 24 maja 2016 18:51:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> “Education isn’t something you can finish.” – Isaac Asimov
>
> “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
> -- Benjamin Franklin
It was always evident,
> “Education isn’t something you can finish.” – Isaac Asimov
>
> “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
> -- Benjamin Franklin
the fantasy writers and the politicians are yours idols.:))
Gary Harnagel
May 24, 2016, 5:56:19 PM5/24/16
to
The stupid fool also doesn't understand that both Asimov and Franklin were
much, much more than the labels he chose to attach to them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov#Education_and_career
"Asimov completed his MA in chemistry in 1941 and earned a PhD in
biochemistry in 1948."
"After completing his doctorate, Asimov joined the faculty of the Boston
University School of Medicine, with which he remained associated
thereafter"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
"A renowned polymath, Franklin was a leading author, printer, political
theorist, politician, freemason, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic
activist, statesman, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure
in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his
discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As an inventor, he is
known for the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, among
other inventions"
So the stupid fool is shown up for his intentional ignorance again.
Does he want to stick his foot in his mouth again? He must enjoy eating
athlete's foot :-)
al...@interia.pl
May 26, 2016, 8:12:17 PM5/26/16
to
W dniu wtorek, 24 maja 2016 23:56:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> The stupid fool also doesn't understand that both Asimov and Franklin were
> much, much more than the labels he chose to attach to them.
Any mythical person never existed.
> The stupid fool also doesn't understand that both Asimov and Franklin were
> much, much more than the labels he chose to attach to them.
It applies for the myth basis.. by definition!
Similarily:
geniune Newton never existed in the reality,
nor Einstein... Jesus Christ, etc.
These all fantastic peoples,
exists in the massmedia propaganda only - they never lived in reality!
It's just an idealisation... like the relativity and quantum,
which are the idealised versions of real common stupidity..
nothing special, nor general! :)
> "Asimov completed his MA in chemistry in 1941 and earned a PhD in
> biochemistry in 1948."
There is no PhD in the east europe.. in the USSR block (Soviet Union).
Asimov has just a dr - means a doctorate in general.
It's... a paper... like any other - a licence for killing (James Bound),
and Obama has a licence to be... bombo-combo, etc. :)
> "A renowned polymath, Franklin was a leading author, printer, political
> theorist, politician, freemason, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic
> activist, statesman, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure
> in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his
> discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As an inventor, he is
> known for the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, among
> other inventions"
runner, player, eater, a patented idiot, a smart cretin,
additionaly: hydraulic, director, manager (of his house), flyer, ripper...
Gary Harnagel
May 26, 2016, 10:56:21 PM5/26/16
to
On Thursday, May 26, 2016 at 6:12:17 PM UTC-6, al...@interia.pl wrote:
>
> W dniu wtorek, 24 maja 2016 23:56:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > The stupid fool also doesn't understand that both Asimov and Franklin were
> > much, much more than the labels he chose to attach to them.
>
> Any mythical person never existed.
> It applies for the myth basis.. by definition!
>
> Similarily:
> geniune Newton never existed in the reality,
> nor Einstein... Jesus Christ, etc.
>
> These all fantastic peoples,
> exists in the massmedia propaganda only - they never lived in reality!
Actually, alsor doesn't exist.
>
> W dniu wtorek, 24 maja 2016 23:56:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> >
> > The stupid fool also doesn't understand that both Asimov and Franklin were
> > much, much more than the labels he chose to attach to them.
>
> Any mythical person never existed.
> It applies for the myth basis.. by definition!
>
> Similarily:
> geniune Newton never existed in the reality,
> nor Einstein... Jesus Christ, etc.
>
> These all fantastic peoples,
> exists in the massmedia propaganda only - they never lived in reality!
> It's just an idealisation... like the relativity and quantum,
> which are the idealised versions of real common stupidity..
> nothing special, nor general! :)
> > "Asimov completed his MA in chemistry in 1941 and earned a PhD in
> > biochemistry in 1948."
>
> Nonsense.
> There is no PhD in the east europe.. in the USSR block (Soviet Union).
right down his throat! He was in the US when he got those degrees.
You'd better stop or you'll let even dunces know what a fool you are.
> Asimov has just a dr - means a doctorate in general.
> It's... a paper... like any other - a licence for killing (James Bound),
> and Obama has a licence to be... bombo-combo, etc. :)
>
> > "A renowned polymath, Franklin was a leading author, printer, political
> > theorist, politician, freemason, postmaster, scientist, inventor, civic
> > activist, statesman, and diplomat. As a scientist, he was a major figure
> > in the American Enlightenment and the history of physics for his
> > discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As an inventor, he is
> > known for the lightning rod, bifocals, and the Franklin stove, among
> > other inventions"
>
> Of course... any being has many of professions:
> runner, player, eater, a patented idiot, a smart cretin,
> additionaly: hydraulic, director, manager (of his house), flyer, ripper...
David (Time Lord) Fuller
May 27, 2016, 4:21:29 PM5/27/16
to
What would you do if you caught your "child" flying a kite in a thunderstorm with a conductive tethering ????
You'd run and stop them.
No one thinks through the "stupid Ben Franklin kite thunderstorm story"
Franklin was mostly just an archetype & brain meme.
American history taught to children is bull crap & groupthink. Edward Bernays would be proud.
You'd run and stop them.
No one thinks through the "stupid Ben Franklin kite thunderstorm story"
Franklin was mostly just an archetype & brain meme.
American history taught to children is bull crap & groupthink. Edward Bernays would be proud.
al...@interia.pl
May 27, 2016, 4:52:49 PM5/27/16
to
W dniu piątek, 27 maja 2016 04:56:21 UTC+2 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał:
> > These all fantastic peoples,
> > exists in the massmedia propaganda only - they never lived in reality!
>
> Actually, alsor doesn't exist.
Of course, and indeed. :)
> > These all fantastic peoples,
> > exists in the massmedia propaganda only - they never lived in reality!
>
> Actually, alsor doesn't exist.
The word is just a combination of two words: all/also and sure. :)
And further a little corrected to be nice, means: simple.
> > There is no PhD in the east europe.. in the USSR block (Soviet Union).
>
> The stupid fool sticks his foot firmly in his mouth again and shoves it
> right down his throat! He was in the US when he got those degrees.
So, now it's quite evident why he was so stupid...
russian americanos.. doctorised in the fantasy, haha!
> Well, that did it! Even dunces now know what an idiot he is.
SEKI
Jul 7, 2016, 4:39:31 AM7/7/16
to
By the way, quantum field theory is dubious let alone quantum gravitation
theories.
First of all, as an example, consider a photon traveling all the way from a
far-away star. According to the traditional theory, the quantum cannot but
to be essential in each quantum field.
[According to the traditional interpretation of quantum physics, one may
assume that, as soon as the photon is detected, the existence probability of
the photon completely vanishes at all points including those millions or
billions of light-years away. However, any theory has its own applicability
limit. I cannot but judge the above assumption ignores the limit.
The problem may be which is acceptable, the above mystical assumption or
introduction of unknown cohesive force.]
A free and isolated elementary particle is considered to substantialize as
a finite-sized wave packet (having finite length and width) and to have
specific energy and momentum (if not, conservation laws cannot but be invalid).
According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and
specific energy-momentum are not compatible. Introduction of the cohesive
force makes them compatible.
[So, in my perspective, the Kennard (not Heisenberg) inequality fails.]
However weak the cohesive force is, Feynman diagrammatic calculation method is
to be fundamentally changed and I wonder if renormalization is still needed.
These techniques are basis of modern quantum physics theories such as QED, QCD,
and quantum gravitation theories including the superstring theory.
Then, can we believe in these theories?
Thank you.
SEKI Hajime
theories.
First of all, as an example, consider a photon traveling all the way from a
far-away star. According to the traditional theory, the quantum cannot but
diffuse, be diluted beyond measure and end up disappearing.
[Suppose a photon is traveling in the z-direction. If x and y components of
the momentum of the photon are both absolutely zero (xy-spectrum width = 0),
the wave packet of the photon is already unlimitedly spread.
Otherwise (xy-spectrum width is not zero), the wave packet will spread even
further.]
So, a kind of cohesive force like surface tension or the like is considered
[Suppose a photon is traveling in the z-direction. If x and y components of
the momentum of the photon are both absolutely zero (xy-spectrum width = 0),
the wave packet of the photon is already unlimitedly spread.
Otherwise (xy-spectrum width is not zero), the wave packet will spread even
further.]
to be essential in each quantum field.
[According to the traditional interpretation of quantum physics, one may
assume that, as soon as the photon is detected, the existence probability of
the photon completely vanishes at all points including those millions or
billions of light-years away. However, any theory has its own applicability
limit. I cannot but judge the above assumption ignores the limit.
The problem may be which is acceptable, the above mystical assumption or
introduction of unknown cohesive force.]
A free and isolated elementary particle is considered to substantialize as
a finite-sized wave packet (having finite length and width) and to have
specific energy and momentum (if not, conservation laws cannot but be invalid).
According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and
specific energy-momentum are not compatible. Introduction of the cohesive
force makes them compatible.
[So, in my perspective, the Kennard (not Heisenberg) inequality fails.]
However weak the cohesive force is, Feynman diagrammatic calculation method is
to be fundamentally changed and I wonder if renormalization is still needed.
These techniques are basis of modern quantum physics theories such as QED, QCD,
and quantum gravitation theories including the superstring theory.
Then, can we believe in these theories?
Thank you.
SEKI Hajime
Tom Roberts
Jul 7, 2016, 11:01:12 AM7/7/16
to
On 7/7/16 7/7/16 3:39 AM, SEKI wrote:
> By the way, quantum field theory is dubious let alone quantum gravitation
> theories.
Only because you clearly don't understand them. It is your MISUNDERSTANDINGS
> By the way, quantum field theory is dubious let alone quantum gravitation
> theories.
that are dubious. And wrong.
> First of all, as an example, consider a photon traveling all the way from a
> far-away star. According to the traditional theory, the quantum cannot but
> diffuse, be diluted beyond measure and end up disappearing.
> [Suppose a photon is traveling in the z-direction. If x and y components of
> the momentum of the photon are both absolutely zero (xy-spectrum width = 0),
> the wave packet of the photon is already unlimitedly spread.
> Otherwise (xy-spectrum width is not zero), the wave packet will spread even
> further.]
distant star has Px or Py "exactly zero" -- all such photons have probability
distributions in x and y, and in Px and Py, that are of nonzero width. Yes, they
spread out very far in x and y, and if one were to MISTAKENLY consider just a
SINGLE photon, it would LOOK like it gets "diluted beyond measure". But photons
are identical bosons, and in this case one CANNOT consider just a single one.
The photon flux emitted by the star is essentially a spherical wave; at any
given point far away from the star, there is non-zero probability to detect a
photon (SOME photon, ANY photon from the star), and this probability simply
decreases as 1/r^2 -- just as intensity decreases in classical electrodynamics
(because it's the same geometry that underlies the decrease).
Basically what you are missing is that while any PARTICULAR photon has a
probability distribution that spreads out very wide as it gets far from its
source, the probability distribution for the TOTALITY of ALL photons merely
decreases as 1/r^2. You cannot "pick and choose" among these identical photons,
you simply detect "whichever one" hits your detector.
Speaking VERY loosely: if the photon nominally "headed toward
you" spreads out, SO DO ITS NEIGHBORS. So while that "nominal"
SINGLE photon gets very "diluted", that "dilution" is compensated
by the "spreading" of its "neighbors" that would "nominally
miss you" BUT DON'T because of the "spreading".
(All my phrases in "quotes" are not rally valid -- they are
an attempt to use ordinary English to discuss a complex and
subtle mathematical theory.)
> [... further mistakes based on this error]
Tom Roberts
SEKI
Jul 8, 2016, 4:23:49 AM7/8/16
to
billions of light years?
And, I wrote:
>
> A free and isolated elementary particle is considered to substantialize as
> a finite-sized wave packet (having finite length and width) and to have
> specific energy and momentum (if not, conservation laws cannot but be invalid).
> According to the traditional theory, however, finite-sized wave packet and
> specific energy-momentum are not compatible. Introduction of the cohesive
> force makes them compatible.
> [So, in my perspective, the Kennard (not Heisenberg) inequality fails.]
>
> However weak the cohesive force is, Feynman diagrammatic calculation method is
> to be fundamentally changed and I wonder if renormalization is still needed.
>
Thank you very much.
SEKI Hajime
kenseto
Jul 8, 2016, 9:19:59 AM7/8/16
to
On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 4:18:35 AM UTC-4, SEKI wrote:
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
> distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
> which even light cannot escape. Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
> and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
> different, it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
> established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place, it's
> questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles as those in the
> space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
>
> Anyway, the gravitation theory can be considered to be more universalistic
> than the established quantum field theory.
>
> Then, I wonder whether it really makes sense to construct a quantum gravitation
> theory which is to build a gravitational extension on the base of the quantum
> field theory.
>
> Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to be
> quantized?
A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of objects in a stationary, elastic and structured medium occupying space is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
> distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
> which even light cannot escape. Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
> and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
>
> On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the substance of an
> elementary particle is considered to be a kind of local wave traveling in the
> space where we live. Inside a BH, where nature of the space is fundamentally
> On another front, according to the quantum field theory, the substance of an
> elementary particle is considered to be a kind of local wave traveling in the
> different, it's unreasonable to consider that the quantum field theory
> established outside the BH can be applied. (In the first place, it's
> questionable whether the same kinds of elementary particles as those in the
> space outside a BH can exist inside the BH.)
>
> Anyway, the gravitation theory can be considered to be more universalistic
> than the established quantum field theory.
>
> Then, I wonder whether it really makes sense to construct a quantum gravitation
> theory which is to build a gravitational extension on the base of the quantum
> field theory.
>
> Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to be
> quantized?
A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of objects in a stationary, elastic and structured medium occupying space is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015gravity.pdf
Gary Harnagel
Jul 8, 2016, 9:31:11 AM7/8/16
to
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>
> A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of objects
There is no such thing as "absolute motions" so the "theory" is baloney.
>
> A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of objects
> in a stationary, elastic and structured medium occupying space
Which is nothing but baloney from end to end. It makes you look really,
really stupid.
Tom Roberts
Jul 8, 2016, 11:57:31 AM7/8/16
to
On 7/8/16 7/8/16 - 3:23 AM, SEKI wrote:
> How about a case where only one photon is created and travels millions or
> billions of light years?
One cannot "pick and choose" photons like that. They are identical particles.
> How about a case where only one photon is created and travels millions or
> billions of light years?
When one detects a single photon, one cannot unambiguously determine its source.
But images, consisting of many many photons, can be used to determine their source.
> What do you think of energy-momentum conservation of an isolated free particle?
constant).
Note: this does NOT mean that an isolated free particle cannot have a
wavefunction with a distribution in both energy and direction [#]. It can. But
the expectation values of both are not changing.
[#] And thus also a distribution in momentum.
Tom Roberts
RichD
Jul 8, 2016, 2:17:23 PM7/8/16
to
On July 8, tjrob137 wrote:
>> How about a case where only one photon is created and travels millions
>> How about a case where only one photon is created and travels millions
>> of light years?
>
> One cannot "pick and choose" photons like that.
> They are identical particles.
It's possible to produce a single photon, in the lab.
>
> One cannot "pick and choose" photons like that.
> They are identical particles.
> When one detects a single photon, one cannot unambiguously
> determine its source.
measure that, and determine its direction, within the
Heisenberg error.
--
Rich
Ross A. Finlayson
Jul 8, 2016, 8:36:59 PM7/8/16
to
About the photon's state and Heisenberg,
the particle/wave does have a state and
uncertainty is not absolute, instead it
is a feature of configuration and energy
of experiment.
Arrangement of emitter, detector, and
timing yields that the photon, of a given
energy, when it arrives, has its position
and linear momentum in its uniform motion
known.
the particle/wave does have a state and
uncertainty is not absolute, instead it
is a feature of configuration and energy
of experiment.
Arrangement of emitter, detector, and
timing yields that the photon, of a given
energy, when it arrives, has its position
and linear momentum in its uniform motion
known.
SEKI
Jul 8, 2016, 9:46:50 PM7/8/16
to
On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 12:57:31 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/8/16 7/8/16 - 3:23 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > How about a case where only one photon is created and travels millions or
> > billions of light years?
>
> One cannot "pick and choose" photons like that. They are identical particles.
> When one detects a single photon, one cannot unambiguously determine its source.
> But images, consisting of many many photons, can be used to determine their source.
>
It's a thought experiment.
> On 7/8/16 7/8/16 - 3:23 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > How about a case where only one photon is created and travels millions or
> > billions of light years?
>
> One cannot "pick and choose" photons like that. They are identical particles.
> When one detects a single photon, one cannot unambiguously determine its source.
> But images, consisting of many many photons, can be used to determine their source.
>
Only one photon in a broad area of the space is unrealistic, but assumable.
>
> > What do you think of energy-momentum conservation of an isolated free particle?
>
> I think the energy and momentum of an isolated free particle are conserved (here
> constant).
>
> Note: this does NOT mean that an isolated free particle cannot have a
> wavefunction with a distribution in both energy and direction [#]. It can. But
> the expectation values of both are not changing.
>
> [#] And thus also a distribution in momentum.
>
=> It must have specific energy and momentum.
(2) An isolated free particle is considered to substantialize as a finite-sized
wave packet.
=> It cannot have specific energy and momentum.
To resolve the above antinomy, I introduced the cohesive force.
On the other hand, you used the word of "expectation value", which sounds
expediential to me.
Thank you.
SEKI Hajime
Tom Roberts
Jul 10, 2016, 11:07:11 AM7/10/16
to
On 7/8/16 7/8/16 8:46 PM, SEKI wrote:
> (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
OK.
> (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
> => It must have specific energy and momentum.
energies and momenta. (One doesn't know the values until they are measured.)
> (2) An isolated free particle is considered to substantialize as a finite-sized
> wave packet.
> => It cannot have specific energy and momentum.
not sharp (i.e. have nonzero width).
If a free particle has a sharp momentum distribution, then
NECESSARILY its wavefunction in position space is of infinite
extent. If all three components of momentum are sharp, then
the wavefunction extends throughout all of position space
(i.e. the particle could be "located anywhere").
This is an elementary and direct consequence of the fact that
the wavefunctions in position and momentum space are Fourier
transforms of each other (this is the underlying fact that
leads to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle).
> To resolve the above antinomy...
... you should learn what quantum mechanics ACTUALLY says. Your GUESSES are wrong.
Tom Roberts
SEKI
Jul 10, 2016, 6:22:26 PM7/10/16
to
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 12:07:11 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/8/16 7/8/16 8:46 PM, SEKI wrote:
> > (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
>
> OK.
>
> > => It must have specific energy and momentum.
>
> No. In QM it can have a wavefunction that has nonzero amplitudes for various
> energies and momenta. (One doesn't know the values until they are measured.)
>
I wrote "It must have specific energy and momentum" as a logical consequence
> On 7/8/16 7/8/16 8:46 PM, SEKI wrote:
> > (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
>
> OK.
>
> > => It must have specific energy and momentum.
>
> No. In QM it can have a wavefunction that has nonzero amplitudes for various
> energies and momenta. (One doesn't know the values until they are measured.)
>
of closedness of the system.
>
> > (2) An isolated free particle is considered to substantialize as a finite-sized
> > wave packet.
> > => It cannot have specific energy and momentum.
>
> Nope. "finite sized wave packet" => its energy and momentum distributions are
> not sharp (i.e. have nonzero width).
>
SEKI
Tom Roberts
Jul 11, 2016, 10:22:35 AM7/11/16
to
On 7/10/16 7/10/16 - 5:22 PM, SEKI wrote:
> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 12:07:11 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 7/8/16 7/8/16 8:46 PM, SEKI wrote:
>>> (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
>> OK.
>>> => It must have specific energy and momentum.
>> No. In QM it can have a wavefunction that has nonzero amplitudes for various
>> energies and momenta. (One doesn't know the values until they are measured.)
>
> I wrote "It must have specific energy and momentum" as a logical consequence
> of closedness of the system.
Just because you write it does not make it true. And in QM your claim is NOT true.
> On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 12:07:11 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 7/8/16 7/8/16 8:46 PM, SEKI wrote:
>>> (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
>> OK.
>>> => It must have specific energy and momentum.
>> No. In QM it can have a wavefunction that has nonzero amplitudes for various
>> energies and momenta. (One doesn't know the values until they are measured.)
>
> I wrote "It must have specific energy and momentum" as a logical consequence
> of closedness of the system.
>>> (2) An isolated free particle is considered to substantialize as a finite-sized
>>> wave packet.
>>> => It cannot have specific energy and momentum.
>> Nope. "finite sized wave packet" => its energy and momentum distributions are
>> not sharp (i.e. have nonzero width).
>
> I wrote "It CANNOT have specific energy and momentum".
Tom Roberts
kenseto
Jul 11, 2016, 3:46:28 PM7/11/16
to
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:31:11 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of objects
>
> There is no such thing as "absolute motions" so the "theory" is baloney.
Idiot.....assertion is not a valid argument.
> On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 7:19:59 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> >
> > A new theory of gravity based on the concept of absolute motions of objects
>
> There is no such thing as "absolute motions" so the "theory" is baloney.
>
> > in a stationary, elastic and structured medium occupying space
>
> Which is also completely undetectable and superfluous.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
SEKI
Jul 11, 2016, 5:11:06 PM7/11/16
to
On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 11:22:35 PM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/10/16 7/10/16 - 5:22 PM, SEKI wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 12:07:11 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 7/8/16 7/8/16 8:46 PM, SEKI wrote:
> >>> (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
> >> OK.
> >>> => It must have specific energy and momentum.
> >> No. In QM it can have a wavefunction that has nonzero amplitudes for various
> >> energies and momenta. (One doesn't know the values until they are measured.)
> >
> > I wrote "It must have specific energy and momentum" as a logical consequence
> > of closedness of the system.
>
> Just because you write it does not make it true. And in QM your claim is NOT true.
>
As I stated from the outset, I doubt the traditional quantum theory.
> On 7/10/16 7/10/16 - 5:22 PM, SEKI wrote:
> > On Monday, July 11, 2016 at 12:07:11 AM UTC+9, tjrob137 wrote:
> >> On 7/8/16 7/8/16 8:46 PM, SEKI wrote:
> >>> (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
> >> OK.
> >>> => It must have specific energy and momentum.
> >> No. In QM it can have a wavefunction that has nonzero amplitudes for various
> >> energies and momenta. (One doesn't know the values until they are measured.)
> >
> > I wrote "It must have specific energy and momentum" as a logical consequence
> > of closedness of the system.
>
> Just because you write it does not make it true. And in QM your claim is NOT true.
>
On the other hand, I believe conservation law of energy and momentum holds true
universally and strictly.
>
> >>> (2) An isolated free particle is considered to substantialize as a finite-sized
> >>> wave packet.
> >>> => It cannot have specific energy and momentum.
> >> Nope. "finite sized wave packet" => its energy and momentum distributions are
> >> not sharp (i.e. have nonzero width).
> >
> > I wrote "It CANNOT have specific energy and momentum".
>
> You seemed to not understand the underlying concepts.
>
By the way, you seem to be a collage teacher.
Are your students persuaded by your argument?
SEKI
Tom Roberts
Jul 11, 2016, 7:10:08 PM7/11/16
to
On 7/11/16 7/11/16 4:11 PM, SEKI wrote:
> By the way, you seem to be a collage teacher.
> Are your students persuaded by your argument?
I don't expect ANYBODY to be "persuaded by my arguments". I expect them to be
> By the way, you seem to be a collage teacher.
> Are your students persuaded by your argument?
"persuaded", and convinced, by the DATA of the myriad experiments that support
my arguments.
Tom Roberts
mlwo...@wp.pl
Jul 12, 2016, 2:00:28 AM7/12/16
to
W dniu wtorek, 12 lipca 2016 01:10:08 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
>
> I don't expect ANYBODY to be "persuaded by my arguments". I expect them to be
> "persuaded", and convinced, by the DATA of the myriad experiments that support
> my arguments.
Fanatic idiots always yell about tons of
>
> I don't expect ANYBODY to be "persuaded by my arguments". I expect them to be
> "persuaded", and convinced, by the DATA of the myriad experiments that support
> my arguments.
data supporting them.
SEKI
Jul 20, 2016, 4:05:58 AM7/20/16
to
>
> (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
> => It must have specific energy and momentum.
> (2) An isolated free particle is considered to substantialize as a finite-sized
> wave packet.
> => It cannot have specific energy and momentum.
>
If interested in the above antinomy, go to:
> (1) An isolated free particle constitutes a closed system.
> => It must have specific energy and momentum.
> (2) An isolated free particle is considered to substantialize as a finite-sized
> wave packet.
> => It cannot have specific energy and momentum.
>
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sci.physics.research/MW99gKqoiQI
Thank you.
SEKI Hajime
Gary Harnagel
Jul 20, 2016, 6:51:33 AM7/20/16
to
On Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 12:00:28 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> Fanatic idiots always yell about tons of
> data supporting them.
Stupid idiots always scream about no data supporting them :-)
>
> Fanatic idiots always yell about tons of
> data supporting them.
SEKI
Jul 22, 2016, 5:09:55 AM7/22/16
to
I submitted the following post to the newsgroup of sci.physics.research.
If interested, go to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:46:24 PM UTC+9, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/18/16 7/18/16 11:45 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > Now, let's consider a case where an excited hydrogen atom is to emit a
> > photon. The hydrogen atom is a system comprised of a proton and an electron
> > binding each other, and has specific energy and momentum whether it is
> > exited or not.
>
> But, of course, its energy and momentum are different for excited and not.
>
>
> > So, the emitted photon has specific energy and momentum.
>
> Specific energy, yes (in the atom's rest frame it is the difference between the
> atom's excited-state energy and its ground-state energy). But its momentum is
> NOT "specific" (fixed) at all, because it can be headed in any direction.
>
> But |p| = E/c. Perhaps that's what you mean: if E is sharp
> then so is |p|.
>
>
> > Therefore, an isolated free particle CAN have specific energy and momentum.
>
> There's no "therefore" here, but certainly an isolated particle can IN PRINCIPLE
> have a sharp energy and a sharp momentum, when the system is prepared
> appropriately (which you have failed to do or describe, both here and in
> sci.physics.relativity). Of course in practice they cannot be sharp, but only
> have distributions with small (narrow) variances. And, of course, a sharp
> (narrow) energy implies (nearly) unknown time, and a sharp (narrow) momentum
> implies (nearly) unknown position.
>
>
> > Specific energy and momentum for a free particle mean a complex sinusoidal
> > plane wave (~exp{i(kx-wt)} ), which has infinite length and width, hence
> > wave packet cannot be formed.
>
> Sure. Well known. So what?
>
>
> > Then, the Antinomy is still alive.
>
> You have failed to show any contradiction or failure in the theory; any
> "antinomy" is yours, and you seem to not understand QM very well. In particular,
> you keep making wishy-washy statements where precision is required.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Did you read my last posting?
Thank you anyway.
SEKI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If interested, go to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:46:24 PM UTC+9, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/18/16 7/18/16 11:45 AM, SEKI wrote:
> > Now, let's consider a case where an excited hydrogen atom is to emit a
> > photon. The hydrogen atom is a system comprised of a proton and an electron
> > binding each other, and has specific energy and momentum whether it is
> > exited or not.
>
> But, of course, its energy and momentum are different for excited and not.
>
>
> > So, the emitted photon has specific energy and momentum.
>
> Specific energy, yes (in the atom's rest frame it is the difference between the
> atom's excited-state energy and its ground-state energy). But its momentum is
> NOT "specific" (fixed) at all, because it can be headed in any direction.
>
> But |p| = E/c. Perhaps that's what you mean: if E is sharp
> then so is |p|.
>
>
> > Therefore, an isolated free particle CAN have specific energy and momentum.
>
> There's no "therefore" here, but certainly an isolated particle can IN PRINCIPLE
> have a sharp energy and a sharp momentum, when the system is prepared
> appropriately (which you have failed to do or describe, both here and in
> sci.physics.relativity). Of course in practice they cannot be sharp, but only
> have distributions with small (narrow) variances. And, of course, a sharp
> (narrow) energy implies (nearly) unknown time, and a sharp (narrow) momentum
> implies (nearly) unknown position.
>
>
> > Specific energy and momentum for a free particle mean a complex sinusoidal
> > plane wave (~exp{i(kx-wt)} ), which has infinite length and width, hence
> > wave packet cannot be formed.
>
> Sure. Well known. So what?
>
>
> > Then, the Antinomy is still alive.
>
> You have failed to show any contradiction or failure in the theory; any
> "antinomy" is yours, and you seem to not understand QM very well. In particular,
> you keep making wishy-washy statements where precision is required.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Did you read my last posting?
Thank you anyway.
SEKI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEKI
Jul 22, 2016, 12:03:16 PM7/22/16
to
The moderator of sci.physics.research rejected my posting.
Anyway, in "my last posting", I wrote:
>
> A hydrogen atom is a system comprised of a proton and an electron
> binding each other, whose quantum waves are both localized.
> So, if the hydrogen atom (the barycenter of the system) moves at
> a constant speed, it has specific energy and momentum whether
> and momentum, which are respectively equal to the amount of change
> in those of the hydrogen atom.
>
> According to the traditional quantum theory, however, if a free
> elementary particle such as a photon has specific momentum, its
> quantum wave is to be spread infinitely and evenly (~exp(ikx) ).
> I think it cannot be realistic.
>
> Do you consider it realistic?
>
Mr. Roberts,
please rebut if you can.
Thanks.
SEKI
Anyway, in "my last posting", I wrote:
>
> A hydrogen atom is a system comprised of a proton and an electron
> binding each other, whose quantum waves are both localized.
> So, if the hydrogen atom (the barycenter of the system) moves at
> a constant speed, it has specific energy and momentum whether
> it is exited or not.
>
> Therefore, the emitted photon is considered to have specific energy
>
> and momentum, which are respectively equal to the amount of change
> in those of the hydrogen atom.
>
> According to the traditional quantum theory, however, if a free
> elementary particle such as a photon has specific momentum, its
> quantum wave is to be spread infinitely and evenly (~exp(ikx) ).
> I think it cannot be realistic.
>
> Do you consider it realistic?
>
Mr. Roberts,
please rebut if you can.
Thanks.
SEKI
astro...@interia.pl
Jul 22, 2016, 1:28:53 PM7/22/16
to
W dniu czwartek, 19 maja 2016 10:18:35 UTC+2 użytkownik SEKI napisał:
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
> distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
> which even light cannot escape. Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
> and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
what, when showed?
> The general theory of relativity showed that gravitation is equivalent to
> distortion of space, and predicted the existence of black holes (BHs), from
> which even light cannot escape. Time halts on the event horizon. And, space
> and time exchanges their natures inside a BH.
> Is there any crucial reasoning to believe that the gravitation is to be
> quantized?
intuit...@gmail.com
Sep 28, 2016, 5:05:28 AM9/28/16
to
On Friday, May 20, 2016 at 6:37:31 PM UTC+3, Steven Carlip wrote:
>
> Ultimately this should be an experimental question (though it's
> a very hard one). But at a minimum, it is not consistent to
> combine quantized matter with ordinary nonquantum GR. If you
> try to write down the Einstein field equations in that setting,
> the left-hand side is a set of functions (the Einstein tensor),
> while the right-hand side is an operator on a Hilbert space
> (the stress-energy tensor for a quantum field). Setting them
> equal is mathematically meaningless.
>
> While most people in this field have concentrated on trying to
> quantize gravity, there is also a long history of attempts to
> write down a a consistent theory combining quantum field theory
> and nonquantized gravity. No one has managed.
>
> Steve Carlip
While it is generally assumed that quantum theory is more fundamental than classical gravity, there is another possibility which I think deserves further investigation - namely that quantum theory may actually be emergent from classical gravity.
I recall Mark Hadley writing a series of papers a while back showing that GR already contains the structure required to explain the existence of quantum theory. In particular, the existence of CTCs can give rise to the logical structure of quantum theory (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601032 and references therein).
Best wishes,
Sabbir
>
> Ultimately this should be an experimental question (though it's
> a very hard one). But at a minimum, it is not consistent to
> combine quantized matter with ordinary nonquantum GR. If you
> try to write down the Einstein field equations in that setting,
> the left-hand side is a set of functions (the Einstein tensor),
> while the right-hand side is an operator on a Hilbert space
> (the stress-energy tensor for a quantum field). Setting them
> equal is mathematically meaningless.
>
> While most people in this field have concentrated on trying to
> quantize gravity, there is also a long history of attempts to
> write down a a consistent theory combining quantum field theory
> and nonquantized gravity. No one has managed.
>
> Steve Carlip
While it is generally assumed that quantum theory is more fundamental than classical gravity, there is another possibility which I think deserves further investigation - namely that quantum theory may actually be emergent from classical gravity.
I recall Mark Hadley writing a series of papers a while back showing that GR already contains the structure required to explain the existence of quantum theory. In particular, the existence of CTCs can give rise to the logical structure of quantum theory (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601032 and references therein).
Best wishes,
Sabbir
David (Time Lord) Fuller
Sep 28, 2016, 10:16:24 AM9/28/16
to
Sabbir wrote:
While it is generally assumed that quantum theory is more fundamental than classical gravity, there is another possibility which I think deserves further investigation - namely that quantum theory may actually be emergent from classical gravity.
I recall Mark Hadley writing a series of papers a while back showing that GR already contains the structure required to explain the existence of quantum theory. In particular, the existence of CTCs can give rise to the logical structure of quantum theory (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601032 and references therein).
Best wishes,
Sabbir
http://i68.tinypic.com/2qjkqxv.jpg
While it is generally assumed that quantum theory is more fundamental than classical gravity, there is another possibility which I think deserves further investigation - namely that quantum theory may actually be emergent from classical gravity.
I recall Mark Hadley writing a series of papers a while back showing that GR already contains the structure required to explain the existence of quantum theory. In particular, the existence of CTCs can give rise to the logical structure of quantum theory (see e.g. http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0601032 and references therein).
Best wishes,
Sabbir
http://i65.tinypic.com/257py0p.jpg
http://oi68.tinypic.com/10sb4ab.jpg
http://i68.tinypic.com/xfn9rt.jpg
The rotational properties of a non-time orientable manifold are intriguing. It was known that on some 3-manifolds it may not be possible to define a rotational vector field continuously [12]. On an asymptotically flat manifold that did not admit a rotational vector field, it would be possible to define a rotation in the asymptotic region but not possible to extend the rotation throughout the structure. Sorkin [6] used this result to infer spin-half characteristics in semi-classical gravity. However for a manifold that is not time orientable, in the general case (without additional symmetry) it would not be possible to rotate the asymptotic region and extend it through to the whole structure. The result is described in [10]. Such a manifold would not have a 360 degree rotation as a symmetry operation, but a 720 degree rotation would be diffeomorphic to the identity. A 4-geon would have the transformation properties of a spinor.
7. Conclusion
To the authors knowledge, the first reported solution of general relativity that was not time-orientable, was the famous Einstein-Rosen bridge [5] (when seen as a bridge between two parts of the seme Universe). It is not usually appreciated that a traversable Einstein-Rosen bridge would result in the traveler coming out with the opposite sense of time direction as an external observer. To the outside observer both mouths of the bridge would be black holes but the traveler would come out of one and see it as a white hole, but only because his sense of time is reversed. Probing a time reversing region is not trivial - as described in [11]. The properties of the bridge arise because the radial co-ordinate becomes the time coordinate at the event horizon - and the wormhole smoothly changes an ingoing radial trajectory into an outward one.
At least in principle, General Relativity with non-trivial causal structure could explain quantum theory and much more besides. It may be the unified theory that Einstein sought for so long.
Live Long & Prosper
0 new messages