alexross

July 31, 2009

Hi,

I don't really accept Complex Quantum Mechanics as speculative but to keep everyone happy I will post here.

Admittedly the site is taking time to update and it may be some time before I show that the planets follow a sq root of 2 by a sq root of 3 ratio but you can download that info from my yahoo group.

There is a FREE forum for you to join as well

http://www.complexqm.com

March 10, 2008

Hi,

The answer to why this effect happens is due to new thinking coming from complexquantummechanics.

In classical relativity (as Einstein) there is no knowledge. What I have introduced is the concept of the distortion of space as the cuase of relativity.

I think you will agree that as we approach the speed of light there will be some distortion of space.

Fortunately, this distortion of space is regular and continuous. It is a small step now to suggest that the distortion of space continues at greater than light speed.

The force associated with this distortion is called the F wave.

Unfortunately, my yahoo group is getting filled up with lots of theory I posted but if you go back and look at the posts you will find all you need to explain this.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/complexquantummechanics

I have just posted the message below as a reminder.

The forces I introduce in my Unified Theory serve the following purposes (see uploaded files for diagrams):

1> There is a V force/wave describing the photon's energy.

2> There is a W force/wave. I use the W force to describe the positioning of electrons. The W force/wave is composed of multiple V waves

3> The F wave describes the photon's mass and is an inverted V shape.

4> There is a T force/wave. I use the T force to describe the fluctuations in the wave phase of light that undulates. The T force/wave is composed of multiple F waves.

5> The inverted V shape also mimics the S wave. I have not explained the function of the Scarp or S wave and it associated wave the D wave.

These waves are responsible for the binding of the atomic nucleus.

That is the simple answer to your question but if you want to get into this more deeply there is a more profound explanation too. :eyebrow:

I hope that helps,

Alex

October 25, 2005

CHOICE OF SIZE FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL PARTICLE

Hello,

I have found from the book "Black Holes and the Universe" ISBN 0-521-36683-6

by Igor Novikov on page 148, second paragraph that "each photon of the cosmic

microwave background has a certain energy, and the mass corresponding to it

is 10^-36 grams".

I take this as the smallest possible known particle size in undistorted

space even though it is a 'corresponding mass' to allow for future

experiments to validate it as 'true' mass. Again to ensure a catch all size

and without other scientific measurememts I allow 10^-40 grams.

I have researched some other facts for you about the differential particle's

sizewhich illustrate the difficulty in putting a precise value upon it.

I will take the definition of a differential particle's length as that I was

taught in Newton's Calculus as being the smallest possible particle but will

add the rider "in undistorted real space".

I am not too concerned about the physical measurement of the differential

particle. Let us say it has a length of 10^-X and X^2 = Y. Then the complex

particle has a length of 10^-Y. I have no way or need of practically using

this but do not mind someone trying to measure it exactly.

I am quite happy to use 10^-30 instead of 10^-40 but believe future

experiments would soon push this back towards 10^-40.

An alternative is to measure and define it using known particle masses and

changing the definition to embrace mass or h and not length.

In "the world treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics" by Timothy

Ferris (Lib Congress # 90-45693 on page 34 line 9) we have:

"Max Planck discovered the existence of a constant in nature which relates to the

frequency and the energy of photons. We now call it Planck's constant and

write it h".

In Chambers Encyclopedia page 617 ISBN 0-550-10050-4:

"h is equal to 6.6260755 * 10^-34 Js"

It does not seem the best measurement as it is based upon a large particle,

the photon but at least it is constant. I have no alternative measure of h

if we use an electron but it should be smaller. If we continue down to the

quark level we would probably go farther than 10^-40 Js but then it may not

be as applicable as it is to the photon?

If we do not want to choose the measure of h then we can use (still from

page 617):

electron mass of 9.1093897 * 10^-31 kg and accept an approximation for the

value of Y or

classic electron radius of 2.81794092 * 10^-13m or

atomic mass constant 1.6605402 * 10^-27 kg.

Even using the frequency or wavelength of light is questionable.

None of these measures really matches Newtons definition so perhaps it still

needs to be standardised and quantified. The value of 10^-40 I gave was an

approximation as I said at the time.

Choosing a value of 9.1093897 * 10^-31 leaves open the possibility of

smaller muon type particles continually shifting the standard as they are

discovered.

In "Black Holes and the Universe" ISBN 0-521-36683-6 by Igor Novikov on

page 132 he discusses microwave radiation in the second paragraph:

"the energy of cosmic background radiation (is) equal to the product of

10^-15 erg multiplied by 500, that is 5 * 10^-13 erg. According to

Einstein's relation, this energy corresponds to a mass of 5 * 10^-34 gram."

Note this relies upon Einstein's relation being correct.

For the QM theorist perhaps Plancks constant h is the favourite.

Planck based his measurement of the wavelength of a quanta upon the value h.

So that the energy in a single particle (photon/quanta) E = h * v where v is

the frequency of the wave. It is likely that a differential particle has a

value close to Plancks constant h.

The whole question of wether an exotic particle can fit into this picture is

a research topic I investigate.

My approach has be born of a mathematical exploration. The work I have done

on calculus and complex mathematics have been applied to QM. This helps to

cross check my own work in a practical environment and reduce an element of

abstraction. CQM uses and develops not only mathematical logic and abstract

mathematical concepts but scientific results and concepts.

Mathematics has always been used to test and determine the accuracy of

scientific results, beliefs, and laws. You can use complex mathematics to

do the same thing. It takes science out of the academic and into the

practical world. This is why complex mathematics works contrary to our

natural senses with electronics.

Thus I have chosen a value I believe future experimentation will not correct.

I am quite prepared to allow this value for the differential particle to be set by such endeavours, though.

Regards,

Alex

October 22, 2005

alexross, don't you think that it's the time to tell us what you really mean? Perhaps it's only me who can't understand you.

Hi,

A search at Yahoo for 'complex quantum mechanics' will help you get another perspective should you chosse it.

I am reading a paper by Carl M. Bender (Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Loius, MO 63130, USA Email: cmb@wustl.edu) at:

http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~snmp2003/Proceedings/bender.pdf#search='complex%20quantum%20mechanics'

I would reserve comment yet as I am self taught with regard to Hamiltonian Matrices and field theory. Hermitian conditions stretches my knowledge too far but I think I can gather the main drift.

In fact reading into his paper Hermitian conditions rely on different eigenvalues. That was not too bad. I do like his style.

Also an explanation for PT symmetry, seems good is the paper:

PT symmetry beyond the shape-invariant by G Levai (one copy at Hungarian Atomic

http://www.atomki.hu/ar2003/nyomda/101.pdf

I do not think I would agree that the break down of real energy eigenvalues to complex energy eigenvalues represents a breakdown in PT symmetry.

However I should not really comment before I read it thoroughly.

Also an explanation for Hermitian Operators can be found at:

http://optics.nuigalway.ie/people/barrett/lecture_3_figs.pdf#search='Hermitian'.

This paper jumps in a little too fast but is simpler to read. I find it intriguing that are based upon vectors in this paper. Not a 'self contained' paper, intended as study notes for QM students.

Regards,

Alex

October 22, 2005

alexross, don't you think that it's the time to tell us what you really mean? Perhaps it's only me who can't understand you.

Hi,

A search at Yahoo for 'complex quantum mechanics' will help you get another perspective should you chosse it.

I am reading a paper by Carl M. Bender (Department of Physics, Washington University, St. Loius, MO 63130, USA Email: cmb@wustl.edu) at:

http://www.imath.kiev.ua/~snmp2003/Proceedings/bender.pdf#search='complex%20quantum%20mechanics'

I would reserve comment yet as I am self taught with regard to Hamiltonian Matrices and field theory. Hermitian conditions stretches my knowledge too far but I think I can gather the main drift.

In fact reading into his paper Hermitian conditions rely on different eigenvalues. That was not too bad. I do like his style.

Also an explanation for PT symmetry, seems good is the paper:

PT symmetry beyond the shape-invariant by G Levai (one copy at Hungarian Atomic

http://www.atomki.hu/ar2003/nyomda/101.pdf

I do not think I would agree that the break down of real energy eigenvalues to complex energy eigenvalues represents a breakdown in PT symmetry.

However I should not really comment before I read it thoroughly.

Also an explanation for Hermitian Operators can be found at:

http://optics.nuigalway.ie/people/barrett/lecture_3_figs.pdf#search='Hermitian'.

This paper jumps in a little too fast but is simpler to read. I find it intriguing that are based upon vectors in this paper. Not a 'self contained' paper, intended as study notes for QM students.

Regards,

Alex

October 11, 2005

alexross' date='

if you have work on your theory post an introduction for it. What new equations have you come up with? and for what

you will find that there are at least two people on this board who could understand it no matter the complexity, and a number of others who are pretty top notch as well. Since the board preserves your post and you always post your name and adress their should be no problem with copyrights, and furthermore you may find someone who is willing to introduce you to someone.

just post what you have.

the problem with the posts that you've presented so far is that they all relate to how CQM builds off of something from QM, this is all well and good for trying to get an extension on a paper you haven't started work on...but it doesn't tend to fly with people here.[/quote']

Hi CPL,

I think you are right. There is only so far you can take a discussion like this.

The web seems a good place to air your views but not to go into specifics as you are never talking to one person.

I will take a compromise position and submit an introductory paper if I can be assured of a fair hearing.

As you say there are some heavy weights reading this.

In my defence I originally posted to comment I had a new theory. I answered that question and have tried to show that this is a promising area that I developed.

I have NOT studied QM formally. I never claimed I did. That is one reason I admiited others need to take my work further. I know it needs that specialist application I cannot provide.

What I did say was that I started from a MATHEMATICAL investigation into calculus and complex numbers.

It takes time to prepare a paper and I have virtually no resources. It is assumed everyone has computer facilities and this is an unintentional obstacle to poor people.

Regards,

Alex

October 10, 2005

As a general background:

"Quest for the theory of everything" by Stephen Hawking ISBN 0-553-40507-1

PAGE 112:

"Imaginary time allows physicists to study gravity on the quantum level IN A

BETTER WAY, and it gives them a NEW WAY OF LOOKING at the early universe".

This is not meant as an infringement of copyright but I did not want to

misquote him. I have not researched other books or texts saying the same

thing. I see no need and this is perfectly clear.

Also the text makes it clear you cannot study imaginary time without using

complex mathematics.

To avoid misdirected questioning I may repost this at intervals.

I can only go as fast as people are prepared to accept new ideas.

I am aware that I have come to fully accept that with which you experience as I did when I first uncovered CQM. I can therefore forget the element of surprise and I must not rush people.

The practice of scientific reasoning (rather than debate which can but should not be one sided) has evolved over the centuries to acknowledge that mathematics, experimentation, and observation are better arbitors than dogmatism.

My approach has be born of a mathematical exploration. The work I have done on calculus and complex mathematics have been applied to QM. This helps to cross check my own work in a practical environment and reduce an element of abstraction. CQM uses and develops not only mathematical logic and abstract mathematical concepts but scientific results and concepts.

Mathematics has always been used to test and determine the accuracy of

scientific results, beliefs, and laws. You can use complex mathematics to

do the same thing. It takes science out of the academic and into the

practical world. This is why complex mathematics works contrary to our

natural senses with electronics.

There is also a good precedence with electronics.

Now to give you a more specific instance:

Leading on from QM's use of complex mathematics with gravity, CQM describes gravity and magnetism with ADDITIONAL (not exclusive) clarity.

I did not claim it replaces the work on gravity already achieved but enhances it and offers a new opening for development.

This is a good example of CQM in practice. I accept that additional work

needs to be done to reconcile some of the explanations of QM with CQM.

It would be better to think of CQM as the other side of the coin to QM

rather than combative and seeking exclusion for QM.

That would be counter-productive in a search for a UFT.

I seek the truth not to prove QM wrong as my main motive. As I said before it is a layer thing.

Being on the other side of the coin does not mean at opposite poles.

CQM gives a picture of unification. Now with any such unification the

marriage of all the present theories is not going to be achieved without

questioning or disputing some existing claims. If that were true the

unification and UFT would exist already. Again I would point you to the list of

desired characteristics for a UFT by Stephen Hawking and compare it to CQM.

This again is climbing on his shoulders but I give credit where credit is due he has mapped the way there.

The question of discrepancy HAS to arise at some point with ANY two theories.

It does not actually arise with gravity although you may instinctively have assumed

otherwise. It arises when I push CQM to its logical limitations.

CQM has a radical new view of gravity (which instinctly you may sense) but

that is not to say it cannot lie side by side with QM in this area.

Think of this mathematically: the real is just an expression of the complex

and vice versa. They are joined together in complex mathematics and NOT

separated.

The main body of CQM marries very well with QM albeit not being a marriage

of equals but of similars. It is definitely not a marriage of opposites

though.

This progression can pose new questions and a reinvestigation into previously

unquestioned views.

October 8, 2005

True' date=' but that problem has been solved by QFT.

The Standard Model gives a quantum theoretic account of 3 of the 4 known forces, and work is being done on the 4th.

That remains to be seen.

Quantum theory has made the [b']only[/b] advances in describing a quantum of light.

Maybe I missed it, but when you say "complex mathematics" do you mean "complex-valued functions and/or complex variables"? If so, then QM already makes use of that.

Hi Tom,

Yes, thank you. You are the first person to note that Stephen Hawkings has repeatedly mentioned this in his books. I cannot be said to be outside mainstream QM. I do push things further than what is currently contained in QM.

I would like to see how far I or others can actually apply my ideas to in QM.

I am a better supporter and the best representative there is for QM as I

stand for progress (at least for the moment).

I am not attacking QM but I have supported it by putting forward a better

scenario (as you so rightly point out there is nothing actually new in this approach). I am greatly misunderstood and you only have to read my comments (thank God you did).

My understanding and talk of QM has wider appeal because I do not treat

opponents as if they deserve an Inquisition similar to that (perceived by classical theorists) of Einstein at Copenhagen.

If you sit most prominent QM theorists down they will admit the Presence of complex mathematics in QM. Why should I not conceptualise this further?

I am just standing on the shoulders of giants.

Regards,

Alex

October 7, 2005

Hi Lucaspa,

I guess I should be grateful you do not think me pompous. Its a small comfort.

I will read your reply fully but just add a quick reply I believe will help.

I did not say QM was wrong we are losing track of the original comments.

I said parts of it are wrong.

In fact I admitted to picking and choosing but this honesty seems to have been mistaken. I do not pick arbitrarily as you will know by now. To complicate things I am quite prepared to strip existing papers of their non-classical content and absorb the rest into CQM.

If I take work from another I give credit even though I have not used it but just digested it.

If you want to know where QM has problems then from the top of my head:

It does not cope with matter/energy/matter transactions.

It fails to define the missing sub-atomic forces.

It does not extend to a Unified Field Theory.

It has made no appreciable recent advance, and in particular better describing a quanta of light.

I could cheat by researching and adding the critisms from string theory (which I suppose are covered by the second point) but want to be fair.

If QM were perfect though you would not have string or M theorists.

Now to balance that:

QM succeeds in:

1> modelling sub-atomic interactions to a high degree of experimental accuracy.

2> explaining some of the behaviour of light.

3> fixing shell positions, ecetera.

Now if you know my approach perhaps it will help.

I know stephen Hawking is too smart for me to beat head head on. But the tortoise can beat the hare,,,,,,,,,,

I follow his work but particularly like to here roger Penrose comment.

I have never been able to fault anything he says. So I select my favourite critics even if they do not see themselves in that light.

Admittedly I started from a completely different approach in mathematics and complex mathematics in particular. What I am saying is that just as electronics is based upon the foolhardy notion of complex mathematics so there is an underlying and hidden layer to QM but you must use complex mathematics to see it.

Now I need a drink.

Cheers,

Alex

October 7, 2005

A couple comments I'd like to make.

QM is one of our best tested theories.

QM is not perfect' date=' and will have to change, this does not mean it is wrong just that it is not complete.

I'd be interested to see some predictions made by CQM which are better than predictions made by QM when tested.

And one other thing, is this really the thread in which to discuse this?[/quote']

I think you have said EXACTLY what I have been saying.

Regards,

Alex

October 7, 2005

alexross lucaspa in no way seemed to get angry or any such thing' date=' to presume thta he did so is to invite an angered post.

just a copule of things I noticed (I don't want to go point by point on this one (far to long))

as a general warning, if you find yourself thinking that the government is trying to keep your idea down.... you may want to see someone

you assume that the particles you speek of are in meters, I have yet to here of a textbook that works without units, can you give me the name of the textbook?

remember that some technology works on QM now, so you must think about any theory you make as building off of it rathe than starting anew, to alleviate "inconsistencies"

as far as your concerns on the scientific community refusing to here your claim you should take a look through the threads that debate creationism. Scientists don't have the time to go out and shoot down every crackpot out there (in no way trying to say you are one) so the community created a system of peer review so that they would only have to go out and debate people who weren't crackpots.

bottom line is that, unless you send a paper through peer review...no physisist is going to take his time and talk to you out in the open and get your idea off the ground.[/quote']

Hello CPL,

I take your points. It is a matter fo my interpretation regards feelings. However I do not believe there is any harm in avoiding unpleasantness.

Perhaps I tried too hard.

I will refrain from commenting on the government. Mind you we were talking UK and not USA.

I loathe publishing papers but this is not my main concern. I do not think for our purposes it is necessary but if you are saying a formal challenge needs a formal approach I see your point.

Thank you CPL

October 6, 2005

Very often people come to these fora with a belief that our current theories of physics' date=' such as the Standard Model or relativity, are flawed and present some alternative of their own. On the whole, this is a fine attitude to take - we should always be skeptical, and it is good if people can think a little 'out of the box' and generate ideas which more standard thinkers may not have come up with. I have always thought that genius was not an ability to think 'better' than everyone else - it is an ability to think [i']differently[/i] from everyone else.

However, when coming up with a new theory it is important that it should be better than the old one. Therefore the first step of coming up with a new theory is a sufficient understanding of the old one. You have to make sure that your new theory does everything at least as well as the old theory, otherwise the old theory remains more attractive. This is very difficult mainly because our current theories are so spectacularly good in their predictions.

Let me give an example: the magnetic moment of the electron.

If we look at the energy (Hamiltonian) of an electron in an electromagnetic field, we find that there is a contribution from the interaction of the electron's angular momentum and the magnetic field. For an orbital angular momentum [math]L[/math], this is [math]\vec{\mu}_L \cdot \vec{B}[/math] with a magnetic moment

[math]\vec{\mu}_L = - \frac{e \hbar}{2mc} \vec{L}[/math]

(The charge of an electron is [math]-e[/math] and its mass is [math]m[/math].)

However, if the particle has 'spin' (intrinsic angular momentum) [math]\vec{s}[/math], we also have a contribution to the magnetic moment of

[math]\vec{\mu}_s = - g \frac{e \hbar}{2mc} \vec{s}[/math]

[math]g[/math] is known as the gyromagnetic ratio, and its value depends on the theory. Since this can be measured in experiment very accurately, it is a good test of a theory to check if it predicts the correct gyromagnetic ratio.

For example, simple QM (the Dirac equation in an em field) predicts a gyromagnetic ratio [math]g=2[/math]. Experiments shows that [math]g[/math] is very close to 2, so this is good news, but since experiment shows that it is not quite 2, the Dirac equation cannot be the whole answer.

Quantum Field Theory, in the form of the Standard Model, predicts a deviation from 2. It is usual to write down the prediction for this deviation from 2 rather than the gyromagnetic ratio itself. For the SM this is:

[math]\frac{g_{\rm th}-2}{2} = 1159652140(28) \times 10^{-12}[/math]

The experimantal result is:

[math]\frac{g_{\rm exp}-2}{2} = 1159652186.9(4.1) \times 10^{-12}[/math]

(A note on errors: the numbers in brackets denote the error on the prediction/measurement at the same precision to which the value is specified. For example [math]1159652140(28)[/math] means [math]1159652140 \pm 28[/math] and [math]1159652186.9(4.1)[/math] means [math]1159652186.9 \pm 4.1[/math].)

You can see that the theory predicts the correct experimental value to incredible precision (although the experimental error is still better than the theory one). If you want to persuade scientists that the Standard Model is wrong, then you have to explain why this is a coincidence or show that your new theory predicts [math]g-2[/math] to at least this accuracy.

Hi Severian,

Thank you for posting your equations I will take a closer look. In the meantime please note you do not use quantum entanglement or such non-classical explanations here. As far as I am concerned that is CQM now and no longer QM.

Perhaps I should listen to criticism myself and start a new thread. I will chew that over.

regards,

Alex

October 5, 2005

Hi lucaspa,

Seems I upset you. Sorry about that. Try and calm down.

By now you will have read a reply giving you some indication of my underlying

principles.

I will attempt to answer your points (although they are many) one by one.

Lets clear the deck first though. I do not mind if you are an ardent QM. You can go on forever if you so wish. I just hope to stop you wasting your effort.

So firstly:

1> I have tested my ideas and they stand up. Please accept that I have to right to tell anyone I choose and not to tell them too!

2> You should even test your speculative ideas against available data to

see if the idea contradicts such data. Well I have suggested certain tests which need to be performed but I do not have limitless resources myself.

3> CQM is a term I invented and I claim authorship to the theory - correct.

If I had called it some other term would it please you more?

4> I am not in the business of bringing you down or showing you up. If you reread my comments I hope you will find no trace of this.

I criticise QM theory not the QM theorists. Please would you return the compliment (there is no suggestion that you have not by the way).

5> I label my ideas as "speculation" to pacify QM supporters like you. I also do not want to embaress people I have woken to in confidence. I will not betray their confidence and their examination of my work by naming and shaming. As I say I forget who I speak to. What was your name?

Suppose you were in their shoes how would you feel if I did what you suggest?

I may disagree with Roger Penrose (for example only) but I do not send him poison pen letters or abuse him. I respect him to much for that. In fact Roger is quite undervalued.

6> I will sound pompous to you. It comes from having the benefit of hindsight and so sounding 'elevated'. I try to avoid this as best I can. I can forgive your outburst because it is just that. A release of intellectual energy so long tied up that this emotional trigger of CQM sets up an explosion. I have done the same myself to a lesser or greater degree or both at some time or other.

7> I really do think a written letter would have been better.

8> Form the textbooks I have read the differential particle is of the order 10^-37 or 10^-38. There is not an exact measurement which is another small piece of evidence in support of my statement that we can alter its measurement. I noted that in the texts I have read there are no units though I presume we are talking about metres. This surely is not going to be a major problem for you.

9> Now your comment on "Have you written a paper and submitted it to a peer-reviewed

physics journal? Do that and I guarantee that you will get a reply in the form

of the reviewers' comments".

I am afraid I do not share your optimism. I will take months composing

it and formatting it to their satisfaction and then they will tell me

I have to do this or that before I get a fair deal.

Been there done that. You also ignore government intervention.

10> It is a hasty word to say that "talking about it to

non-physicists on boards, especially in the cryptic and

self-indulgent language you use, is pretty futile and silly".

I am not looking done on people using this service. I do not believe

it (or they by inference) are futile and silly. I will take this back

for you I believe that you are a good person.

11> Again with my statement about field theory and its 'assumption' I

try to avoid argument over trivial points. It is enough to defend my own

theories. Yes it is theoretical.

12> I believe I did mention that a 100% provable theory was not always

possibel and if it was likely to be revised in the future.

This should alert you to the fact that QM will be revised at same time

in the future. You are asking for whom does the bell toll? The bell tolls

for QM.

13> Now at the end of your message you defend QM. I will admit one

thing. YOu are the first QM theorist to stand up to me.

So let me be gentle with you.

14> "Supported" means that you have data to support the theory, data

obtained in efforts to show the theory to be wrong, often data that

is explained only by that theory". I believe I said that.

15> Now I only compose such a wordy response to answer your questions.

You like me are emotionally attached to your work. The value of peer

inspection and pressure helps to remove this. Why not complain to

your colleagues before you reply?

Respectfully yours,

Alex

October 5, 2005