yuanxue60616

is the matter wave phase speed(c^2/v) and the speed to calculate the relativity of simultaneity in SR(t-x/(c^2/v) ) same one?

if not, stop here.

if yes,  then we could talk about the frequency of matter wave.

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

Please back up assertions with evidence. Show how your claim stands up to observation, persuade us using more than your waving hands, otherwise you're just guessing and asking the members to play along. Nobody has time for that. 

Give us more than the assertion.

 

my assertion:   Et' = h/2π   here t' is time period of relativity of simultaneity. this is the only assertion I made.

1)according to matter wave theory. E = hω/2π, so 1/t' is angular frequency of matter wave ω. 1/t' = ω

2)according to SR, the speed to calculate the relativity of simultaneity is c^2/v,    t-x/(c^2/v)

3)calculate the simultaneity space for t' ,   s = t'c^2/v = c^2h/2πEv = c^2h/2πmc^2v = h/2πmv= h/2πp,

this space length is angular matter wavelength,

so if my assertion is right, t' is time period of relativity of simultaneity, then matter wave frequency formula could deduce the matter wave wavelength formula.

they are not independent.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

Stop making these baseless claims.

If you are not able to provide support for your ideas, then a science site may not be the place for you.

I can prove your claim wrong by using exactly the same amount of evidence, theory and logic that you have: no it isn't.

So, how does science resolve this problem? It requires a new theory to (1) have a mathematical model, (2) make testable (ie quantifiable) predictions using that model, and then (3) show that experimental/observation evidence is consistent with those predictions.

You have not done any of those three things. All you do is make claims with no supporting theory or evidence.

After two pages of this, I think it may be time to close this thread.

according to my assertion, matter wave wavelength formula and frequency formula are not independent, is it prediction?

superposition principle is really talking about simultaneity.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Because you can do experiments that don’t rely on simultaneity. Single-particle interference, for example.

that's my point. single-particle interference is caused by simultaneity, not wave.

if simultaneity exists, the single particle will logical pass two slits, not actual. so we never see it.

the relativity of simultaneity and matter wave have same speed c^2/v, it is hard to believe there is no relation between them.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

Matter waves exist independent of simultaneity issues, and repeating your assertion is not evidence is support of it.

how do you know Matter waves exist independent of simultaneity?

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is not possible. If time is not quantised and space is not quantised, then velocity is not quantised. Therefore relativity of simultaneity is not quantised.

It isn't. Obviously. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is not possible. If time is not quantised and space is not quantised, then velocity is not quantised. Therefore relativity of simultaneity is not quantised.

It isn't. Obviously. 

 

not this logic, if time of relativity of simultaneity is quantized, because its speed is c^2/v, so space is quantized for moving particle.

it is matter wave length.

6 hours ago, swansont said:

A number of problems here.

You said this was tied in to time being quantized, and that doesn't appear in any of this.

You are equating E with mc^2, but the E that shows up in the uncertainty relation is typically not the mass energy of the system.

You still haven't explained the scenario where simultaneity come into play. Simultaneity relates to events, not particles. The whole formulation here makes no sense. You can't turn a time into a frequency, as you did earlier, for events. Frequency only makes sense for periodic systems, and events in regard to simultaneity don't have to be periodic.

 

time is not quantized, the time of relativity of Simultaneity is quantized. according SR,  relativity of Simultaneity is coming with moving particles.

in SR, relativity of Simultaneity is only related with event, you are right. so I ask this question, what if it is not discontinues?

if yes, it is related with energy of different particles. then we get the frequency of matter wave.

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Finish the formula. I don’t see how you get to h/p from t’*c^2/v

Et' = h/2π 

t' = h/(2π E)

Assume t' is the time of  relativity of simultaneity, use speed of relativity of simultaneity to calculate the space.

t'c^2/v = hc^2/(2πEv) = hc^2/(2πmc^2v = h/mv2π = h/p2π

19 minutes ago, swansont said:

What is the time operator, from which this commutation relation would be derived?

What is pia?

Nonsense.

I thought this was about simultaneity, which relates to events. Relativity of simultaneity is a concept, not a variable. 

If you can do it, then do it. I don't see how, since the wavelength depends on the momentum, and the mass is not in your equation. Your equation predicts that two particles traveling at the same speed, and the same position, will have the same wavelength. Which is obviously not correct.

I'd rather you be rigorous.

t' is different by E.

so wave length is t'*c^2/v, different for two particles if their E are different.

pia = 3.1415926... I do not know how to input it here.

 

take noncommutability of energy and time. [E, t] = Et-tE = i h/2pia

it could have Et' = h/2pia. here t' is a time.  but not part of t because of i.

so t' could only be a time period of relativity of simultaneity in SR. there is no other time in SR.

1/t' is the frequency of matter wave.  in SR, relativity of simultaneity = x/(c^2/v)

then we could use c^2/v calculate the matter wave length directly. 

 

if you are sensitive, you know I am right somewhere.

On 4/20/2019 at 5:01 AM, swansont said:

QM has incorporated SR, but time is not quantized in doing so. Variables become quantized when the wave equation and boundary conditions require it.

But time doesn’t show up as an eigenvalue.

if relativity of simultaneity  is quantized, we will get the matter wave.

They have same speed c^2/v, if speed is 0, no matter wave and no relativity of simultaneity.

On 4/17/2019 at 5:27 AM, swansont said:

It won’t be, because SR is a classical theory. If one wants quantized time for simultaneity, one needs a quantum theory 

 

Is it already in relativistic QM or quantum field theory?

or QM is already relativistic, but SR is not quantized?

I mean simultaneity is a time period, not a time.

this is my last one I post here. life > nature > rationality

 

Self conscious,irrationality and analogy, induction

1: Rational thinking and the self of rational thinking
            If and only if we know the definition of self in human thinking, can we know the structure of human thinking. I will start by discussing the basis of rational thinking-formal logic and use logical paradox as testing.

            There are three basic laws of formal logic.

              1: The law of identity

              2: The law of non-contradiction

              3: The law of excluded middle
             The law of identity states that something is what it is. Expressed as symbols: A = A.
             The law of non-contradiction says that a statement cannot be both true or false at the same time and in the same way. Expressed as symbols: A ≠ -A.

             The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. Expressed as symbols: = A or = -A.

            When thinking rationally, there must be a "self" existing in the process of thinking. The three laws of formal logic only use opposing concepts A and -A. To define the self of rational thinking, in addition to A and -A, we must introduce a third presence. This is in conflict with formal logic. Formal logic proves that the self of rational thinking cannot exist outside of A and –A. As it is not A or -A, the self of rational thinking can be defined as below.

            1: ≠ A and ≠ -A.

            2: inseparable with both A and -A.

 

2: Irrational thinking and the self of irrational thinking

            By putting all three laws of formal logic through reversion, I derive the laws of anti-logic.  The way to achieve reversion is to reverse the signs into their opposites: the “=” is now “≠”; the “≠” is now “=”; the “A” is now “-A” and the “or” is now “and”. Here I only do the odd-numbered transformation because the even-numbered transformation does not produce results of anti-logic.
            The law of identity becomes two laws of difference. 1: A ≠ A; 2: A = -A.
            The law of non-contradiction becomes two laws of contradiction. 1: A = -A; 2: A ≠ A.
            The law of excluded middle is more complex, it can offer a variety of results. It produces two laws of middle. 1: ≠ A and ≠ -A; 2: = A and = -A.

            The law of excluded middle can also derive: ≠ A or = -A, = A or ≠ -A, etc. These are not anti-logic, therefore not required.
            It is easy to tell that the law of difference 1 and the law of contradiction 2 are the same; the law of difference 2, the law of contradiction 1 and the law of middle 2 are same. Removing duplicates, we get three laws of anti-logic. The law of difference: A ≠ A; The law of contradiction: A = -A; The law of middle: ≠ A and ≠ -A. The law of contradiction and the law of middle are in conflict. We separate these three anti-logic laws into two groups.

             Group 1: The law of different: A ≠ A; the law of contradiction: A = -A.

             Group 2: The law of different: A ≠ A; the law of middle: ≠ A and ≠ -A.

             Each group represents one type of irrational thinking.

             Group 1 is the feature of Chinese philosophy.

             Group 2 is the feature of Indian philosophy.

             Rationality is the feature of Greek philosophy.

            The laws of anti-logic also only use opposing concepts A and -A, therefore the self of irrational thinking has same definition as the self of rational thinking. This guarantees that the self of thinking could freely switch between rational and irrational thinking. It’s easy to find that the self of thinking's definition includes the law of middle.

 

               3: Conversion between two type of irrational thinking
            Conversion 1: When the law of contradiction exists, applying the law of non-contradiction (cannot be both true), Any of A and -A is denied, it will result in the law of middle. Because A = -A. Denying A will also deny -A, denying -A will also deny A.
             Conversion 2: When the law of middle exists, applying the law of excluded middle (cannot be both false), Any of A or -A is affirmed, it will result in the law of contradiction. Because the law of middle logically requires that "A is affirmed" will result in "-A is affirmed",

"-A is affirmed" will result in "A is affirmed".

          Conversion 1 and Conversion 2 could create a loop. Because self of thinking's definition includes the law of middle, this loop could make “self” constantly reappear.

 

              4: contradiction: analogy and induction

             There is no contradiction in nature (non-living part). But life could use the law of contradiction. It is the difference between life and nature. The difference between nature and rationality is that nature could has existing satisfy the law of middle. If nature itself completely follows rationality, then it is impossible to grow a life with irrationality.

            I use symbol “|” represent the self of thinking. Then | exists as (A|-A) in conscious as the definition. A and -A is just opposite in the limited local area, not Boolean. Analogy is projection of (A|-A) to new environment. As | exists in (A|-A). The projection includes self-positioning. It is instantly, do not need reasoning.

           Assume we have two past self. Exists like (A|B), (B|C). if They project to an environment at the same time, then we have (A|B|C). if B is expressed as not A, not C, then B satisfy the law of middle. Two past self merges with B as one as the law of middle. This is top part of Indian philosophy called “Brahma-atma-aikya”. We have a new self exists between A and C. This is how we really get universality. Inductive reasoning does not lead to universality, nor does it correspond to everyone's actual thinking experience. We often suddenly realize that the two kinds of things that seem to be irrelevant are the same existence or have the same attribute. This identity will not be recognized until we reach a conclusion.

 

           

Andrew Moore, VP of AI for Google Cloud, speaks at a Google AI event.

"AI is currently very, very stupid," said Andrew Moore, a Google vice president. "It is really good at doing certain things which our brains can't handle, but it's not something we could press to do general-purpose reasoning involving things like analogies or creative thinking or jumping outside the box."

different analogy? or still in developing?

if it is reasoning, it is still rational as I think.

Do we have any research about it?

right now AI could not do analogy and induction. I think it is related with Irrationality.

no, please read it. 

    

Simultaneity: special relativity, matter wave, uncertainty principle and QM

By Xuefeng Frank Yuan

 

                           1: Relational value and its correlational value: symmetry of relational values

         For any two associated physical quantities present, such as space and time or a pair of conjugate variables, the relational value reflecting the changes of two associated physical quantities, such as the speed or the product of conjugate variables changes, corresponds to a correlational value. This correlational value also reflects the changes of the associated physical quantities. The relational value and its correlational value satisfy two rules below:

1)      The relational value and its correlational both have extreme values. Their extreme values are equal in magnitude and opposite in polarity. That is, if a relational value has a maximum value, its correlational value has a minimum value; if a relational value has a minimum value, its correlational value has a maximum value. When a relational value reaches the extreme value, its correlational value also reaches the extreme value at the same time.

2)      The relational value, its correlational value and their extreme value satisfy a certain mathematical relationship.

 

Follow two rules above, special for speed or the product of conjugate variables changes and their correlational value satisfy equation below.

The product of relational value and its correlational value is equal to square of their extreme value.

For example, if speed v corresponds to a speed u. u is correlational value of v.

We have vu = c^2      c is speed of light and extreme value of v.

 

          2: The third speed in special relativity: speed of the relativity of simultaneity

     In special relativity, we have speed v. Speed v has a correlational value, this correlational value is still a speed, I present this speed as u. Then u is the third speed other than the speed v and speed of light c. We discuss the existence of u from Einstein's analysis of simultaneity in special relativity.  The relativity of simultaneity is a time difference between the two points of the relative motion inertial system in the direction of moving, which is a length of time.  Let’s check the Lorentz transformation in special relativity.

   x’ =ϒ (x-vt)

   t’ = ϒ(t-xv/ c^2)   ϒ is Lorentz factor.

For space, time and speed, we could use space and speed to calculate time, or use time and speed to calculate space. From time coordinate transformation t’ = ϒ(t-xv/c^2), easy to see we use xv/ to calculate the relativity of simultaneity. As x is the spatial coordinate. we deduce the speed u to calculate the relativity of simultaneity. u =c^2/v. this speed u meets the rules in 1. Move v to left side of this equation, we get vu = c^2

 

            3: Matter wave: simultaneity and uncertainty

    According to the theory of matter waves, the energy of a substance is proportional to the frequency, and the momentum of the substance is inversely proportional to the wavelength.

   Frequency formula:  E = hϒ 

   Wavelength formula:  P = h/ƛ

E is the total energy of the substance. h is the Planck constant.

ϒ is the frequency of the matter wave.

P is the momentum of the substance.

ƛ is the wavelength of the matter wave.

The group speed of matter wave is v.

The phase speed of matter wave = ƛϒ = E/P = m c^2 /mv = c^2/v.

The phase speed of matter wave is same as the speed of relativity of simultaneity.

Any object moving at speed v is accompanied by a matter wave of speed  c^2/v. There is indeed a speed c^2/v. We could see it in special relativity directly. Then it shows that the matter wave is really the wave of simultaneity.  The two formulas of matter wave are not independent of each other. Frequency is the reciprocal of a time period. From the frequency formula of matter wave, we could see the energy of a substance is inversely proportional to a time period of simultaneity. We could use speed of relativity of simultaneity to calculate the space segment of simultaneity. As this substance is logically simultaneously existing in this space segment, this space segment is uncertain space for this substance. It proves that simultaneity and uncertainty is direct related. It is important because we do not know why observation will cause the collapse of wave function. If the matter wave is wave of simultaneity, because observation, like knowing the location of an electronic, will change the uncertainty, so it will also change the simultaneity.

      

       4: Conjugate variables and simultaneity:  uncertainty principle and extreme value

        Follow the rules in 1, the product of a pair of conjugate variables changes is the relational value. I use the symbol x represent this product. This product has a correlational value, which is also the product of the pair of conjugate variables changes. I use the symbol y represent it. What is the physical meaning of y? Take a pair of conjugate variables: energy and time. The physical meaning of x is the product of the amount of change of energy and time. y is the correlational value accompanying to x. It is the measure of simultaneity relative to different energies. According to the uncertainty principle, we already know that x has a minimum value: h/4π. Then y has a maximum value, which is also h/4π. We think about the circumstances under which x and y will have extreme values . Still use the pair of conjugate variables, energy and time. Because x contains the change of energy, when a substance is not exchanged with external energy, if x still exists, then at this time, the x should be at the minimum value. At the same time, y is at the maximum value. This is the same for all substances, no matter what the energy of the substance is. Therefore, De Broglie's theory of matter waves is the case when y is at the extreme value. Since the amount of y divided by the energy of the substance is the time period of simultaneous, and y is at the extreme value h/4π, the length of this maximum time period of simultaneous is equal to h/4πE.

  I mentioned in 1, the product of x and y should equal to square of h/4π. As a proof of my theory, I think we could deduce the equation below from current QM theories. 

xy = (h/4π)^2

    

      5：Quantum superposition principle and simultaneity: excluded the middle

     Quantum superposition is a fundamental principle of quantum mechanics. It states that, any two (or more) quantum states can be added together ("superposed") and the result will be another valid quantum state; and conversely, that every quantum state can be represented as a sum of two or more other distinct states. These quantum states simultaneously exist. I will talk about why it violates the common sense.
 

        There are three basic laws of formal logic.

              1: The law of identity

              2: The law of non-contradiction

              3: The law of excluded middle
             The law of identity states that something is what it is. Expressed as symbols: A = A.
             The law of non-contradiction says that a statement cannot be both true or false at the same time and in the same way. Expressed as symbols: A ≠ -A.

             The law of excluded middle says that a statement is either true or false. Expressed as symbols: = A or = -A.

            By putting all three laws of formal logic through reversion, I derive the laws of anti-logic.  The way to achieve reversion is to reverse the signs into their opposites: the “=” is now “≠”; the “≠” is now “=”; the “A” is now “-A” and the “or” is now “and”. Here I only do the odd-numbered transformation because the even-numbered transformation does not produce results of anti-logic.
            The law of identity becomes two laws of difference. 1: A ≠ A; 2: A = -A.
            The law of non-contradiction becomes two laws of contradiction. 1: A = -A; 2: A ≠ A.
            The law of excluded middle is more complex, it can offer a variety of results. It produces two laws of middle. 1: ≠ A and ≠ -A; 2: = A and = -A.

            The law of excluded middle can also derive: ≠ A or = -A, = A or ≠ -A, etc. These are not anti-logic, therefore not required.
            It is easy to tell that the law of difference 1 and the law of contradiction 2 are the same; the law of difference 2, the law of contradiction 1 and the law of middle 2 are same. Removing duplicates, we get three laws of anti-logic. The law of difference: A ≠ A; The law of contradiction: A = -A; The law of middle: ≠ A and ≠ -A. The law of contradiction and the law of middle are in conflict. We separate these three anti-logic laws into two groups.

             Group 1: The law of different: A ≠ A; the law of contradiction: A = -A.

             Group 2: The law of different: A ≠ A; the law of middle: ≠ A and ≠ -A.

 

Conversion 1: When the law of contradiction exists, applying the law of non-contradiction (cannot be both true), Any of A and -A is denied, it will result in the law of middle. Because A = -A. Denying A will also deny -A, denying -A will also deny A.

Conversion 2: When the law of middle exists, applying the law of excluded middle (cannot be both false), Any of A or -A is affirmed, it will result in the law of contradiction. Because the law of middle logically requires that "A is affirmed" will result in "-A is affirmed",

"-A is affirmed" will result in "A is affirmed".

            From conversion 2, the law of middle will result in non-real contradiction. A and -A logically simultaneously exist. It proves that superposition principle is logically equivalent to the law of middle. This is why quantum mechanics is contrary to common sense, it violates the law of excluded the middle.

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Interference is what you get when you add two waves together.

Why observation causes wave function collapse is a question of philosophy. Physics does not explain why it happens. It observes (in that model and interpretation) that it does.

I do not think it is a question of philosophy, still a question of physics. just do not have a physics explanation now.

superposition principal is equal to include the middle, means it do not need two waves to cause Interference

if there is no wave, then no collapse of the wave.

but need explain the interference and why observe cause it disappear.

 QM is different than the logic that falls out of classical mechanics, 

yes, like superposition.

so nature has something not follow the formal logic. as I said the law of excluded the middle.

special relativity and QM are all correct and not violate the logic.

so these things must be in current theory.

if they really exist in nature but not in special relativity and QM, then current theories should be wrong.

nothing wrong with current theories

I try, then found the third speed in special relativity is same value as matter wave phase speed.

sorry, my English is not good enough, cause a lot of misunderstanding.

1 hour ago, ydoaPs said:

I think part of the problem here is that you've got the relation between logic and ontology backwards. It's rationality that follows nature, not the other way around.

For the true description of nature to have logic at all, it has to form something called a "topos". The thing about roses, though, is most of them are intuitionistic. That is, LEM is a fairly unusual property of logics. So, the fact that the topos formed by QM is intuitionistic instead of Boolean shouldn't be that surprising.

But this isn't "violating" logic in any way. It's just that the logic that falls out of QM is different than the logic that falls out of classical mechanics

one more thing, nature obey the law of non-contradiction.

human could use contradiction, it is the reason why human has consciousness.

in my article

Conversion 1: When the law of contradiction exists, applying the law of non-contradiction (cannot be both true), Any of A and -A is denied, it will result in the law of middle. Because A = -A. Denying A will also deny -A, denying -A will also deny A.
 Conversion 2: When the law of middle exists, applying the law of excluded middle (cannot be both false), Any of A or -A is affirmed, it will result in the law of contradiction. Because the law of middle logically requires that "A is affirmed" will result in "-A is affirmed", "-A is affirmed" will result in "A is affirmed".

contradiction and include middle could convert to each other.

I think it is basic knowledge of physics if anyone want to talk about QM.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave