yuanxue60616

I know what you mean, we only use c and v in special relativity. in step 2 I said. 2)real relational value, the non-real relational value and their extreme value satisfy a certain mathematical relationship. so non-real relational value could express by real relational value and extreme value. you know matter wave phase speed u = c^2/v, right? You could see the speed u = c^2/v in special relativity too. so there is direct relationship between special relativity and matter wave. is phase speed real? how to you measure it?

because it is a length of time. space, time, speed. you need use two of them to calculate the third one.

how do you calculate the relativity of simultaneity? it is a time difference between two points. right? then you need a speed. it is not v, is not c. space, time, speed. you need use two of them to calculate the third one.

do you know t-xv/c^2 in the special relativity, x is the spatial coordinate. so c^2/v is the speed to calculate the relativity of simultaneity. t-xv/c^2 = t- x/(c^2/v) I got these ideas from my philosophy. All I talked above is part of my philosophy book. Assume A and B are associated, like space and time. the general speed is defined by the change of space and time. so it could not tell the space and time are associated. there must be another speed, it is related with space and time, but not defined by the change of space and time. only this speed exists, could tell l the space and time are associated.

use the molecular part of the time coordinate transformation formula in the special relativity:t-xv/c^2, xv/c^2 quantifies the relativity of simultaneity. x is the spatial coordinate. It is easy to deduce that the non-real velocity is equal to c^2/v. it is same as matter wave phase speed. easy for me is say what is non-real. 1)subjective is non-real, 2)objective and meet the law of middle is non-real. all others are real.

If nature itself completely follows the rationality, then it is impossible to breed a life with irrational thinking like human being. Based on this judgment, then nature must have a part beyond rationality. If consciousness is truly unique to life, then life must have something beyond nature.

no one told you there is the third speed in special relativity. when you found the third speed is equal to phase speed. it is not coincidence.

pure quantum states are not real, but they have values. they are objective. phase speed is same, not real, but has value. could not measure it in its own inertial system. but could get it from two different inertial system.

correct, real, non-real value and their extreme value in an equation. now I think there is a one in QM. maybe you could help.

Pure quantum states are objective but not real. I talk about something are objective but not real, like phase speed.

Einstein use speed c to prove clock synchronization not exists for two points. not use speed c to calculate the synchronization between two points.

Einstein only gave the analysis of simultaneity, did not say phase velocity. no one even notice we need a speed for simultaneity between two points in space.

I did not say that Phase velocity is identically c. Phase velocity u = c^2 /v. as I found Phase velocity in the special relativity, it looks like that I am right.

for my assertion 1)real relational value and non-real relational value both have extreme value and are equal in magnitude and opposite in polarity. 2)real relational value, the non-real relational value and their extreme value satisfy a certain mathematical relationship. as uv = c^2 . special relativity back it up. not sure quantum mechanics. that is what I want to know.

come on , uv = c^2 in step 2 2)real relational value, the non-real relational value and their extreme value satisfy a certain mathematical relationship

the first thing is how self conscious exist. it need a definition of it. then talk about how to prove it.

why it is wrong? u = c*c/v. as the maximum speed of v is c, so minimum speed of phase velocity is c too. step 2 said they have extreme value and are equal in magnitude and opposite in polarity.

Irrationality and logical paradox 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, as everyone knows, 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 include the law of middle. Below I will discuss the relationship between the two types of irrational thinking. This is related with logical paradox. 3: Conversion between two type of irrational thinking and Logical paradox 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". If a self-referential proposition "I am A" is -A. The symbol is expressed as: "I = A" = -A, can infer A = -A. This proposition contains contradictory laws. If "I am A" is a self-denying judgment, then at least one of A and -A is denied. According to the conversion 1, this "I" logically satisfies the intermediate law, and this "I" is the same as the self of thinking. According to the conversion 2, the intermediate law leads to the law of contradiction. That’s the reason we have logical paradox. According to the above discussion, a proposition leading to paradox must satisfy two conditions, and 1) is a direct or indirect self-referential judgment. 2) This judgment is actually self-denying and introduces a set of contradictory propositions.

Irrationality and logical paradox it also explain why we only have three traditional philosophies. human thinking has rationality and two types of Irrationality 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, as everyone knows, 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 include the law of middle. Below I will discuss the relationship between the two types of irrational thinking. This is related with logical paradox. 3: Conversion between two type of irrational thinking and Logical paradox 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". If a self-referential proposition "I am A" is -A. The symbol is expressed as: "I = A" = -A, can infer A = -A. This proposition contains contradictory laws. If "I am A" is a self-denying judgment, then at least one of A and -A is denied. According to the conversion 1, this "I" logically satisfies the intermediate law, and this "I" is the same as the self of thinking. According to the conversion 2, the intermediate law leads to the law of contradiction. That’s the reason we have logical paradox. According to the above discussion, a proposition leading to paradox must satisfy two conditions, and 1) is a direct or indirect self-referential judgment. 2) This judgment is actually self-denying and introduces a set of contradictory propositions.

then step 3 is right. could talk about step 4.

I talk about phase speed, not group speed. group speed is v. u is phase speed. phase speed is a non-real speed. no way to measure it.

speed of de Broglie wave is larger than c. u = cc/v. as v is smaller than c, so u is always larger than c.

why it is wrong? u is speed of de Broglie wave.

check if the logic is right before talking about the experiment. step 1: prove the superposition is equal to the law of middle. it is in my link Superposition principle and irrationality.docx. I found that other people did same thing. they called it include middle. step 2: something in physics exists as the law of middle. I assume it is non-real relational value. and it follow rules below 1)real relational value and non-real relational value both have extreme value and are equal in magnitude and opposite in polarity. 2)real relational value, the non-real relational value and their extreme value satisfy a certain mathematical relationship. step 2 is speculation. step 3: use it for special relativity, we found the third speed and it is matter wave speed and vu = c*c. here v is speed, u is matter wave speed. c is speed of light. so it satisfy the rules in step 2. step 4: assume it works for quantum mechanics. but I missed one rule in step 2. I did not give the mathematical relationship between x and y. maybe very simple like speeds in step 3. x is product of a pair of conjugate variables, y is the non-real value corresponds to x. I mean x, y and h/4π have mathematical relationship. I do not overthrow any current theories, I think they are all right. I try to find something hidden in current theories and explain the reason. if you guys could help. then we could talk about an experiment.

my bad word. just say there is no wave. we think that there is wave because of interference. then we could not explain why the wave disappear when observe. I explain the law of middle could cause interference, and it could explain what changed when observe.