yuanxue60616 Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 there is no wave, just act like wave. I have one article to prove superposition is equal to the law of middle or included the middle. another one is tell how a thing satisfy the law of middle exist. Superposition principle and irrationality.docx Non-real relational values and simultaneity.docx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 11 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: there is no wave, just act like wave. That is all science cares about: how things behave, not what they "really" are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 Indeed. If it acts like a wave, there is no way to show that it's not a wave, so having it be a wave in a model is perfectly cromulent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taeto Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 9 minutes ago, swansont said: perfectly cromulent. The embiggenment of "correct" is most melliloquent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 7, 2019 Author Share Posted March 7, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 30 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. How would you test this with an experiment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 7, 2019 Share Posted March 7, 2019 43 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. Except we are able to do that. 43 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: I explain the law of middle could cause interference, and it could explain what changed when observe. You need to provide a lot of detail, and without making up or changing existing terminology. Your link has some logic in it (the veracity of which is questionable), and science is more than logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share Posted March 8, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 9 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. Matter can't move at c. The equation is incorrect. 9 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. No, ∆x and ∆y have this mathematical relationship. The variables themselves can take on any value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share Posted March 8, 2019 4 hours ago, swansont said: 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. why it is wrong? u is speed of de Broglie wave. 4 hours ago, swansont said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 17 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: why it is wrong? u is speed of de Broglie wave. Which is smaller than c, for an object with mass. vu < c^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share Posted March 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, swansont said: Which is smaller than c, for an object with mass. vu < c^2 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: speed of de Broglie wave is larger than c. I will need more than your assertion on that. Do you have any reputable references that claim this? Group velocity is the particles speed. Phase velocity doesn't have to be, but then you would have to justify using the phase velocity for whatever you are discussing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Group_velocity "The velocity of a particle, [de Broglie] concluded, should always equal the group velocity of the corresponding wave. The magnitude of the group velocity is equal to the particle's speed." (emphasis added) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 8, 2019 Author Share Posted March 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, swansont said: I will need more than your assertion on that. Do you have any reputable references that claim this? Group velocity is the particles speed. Phase velocity doesn't have to be, but then you would have to justify using the phase velocity for whatever you are discussing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave#Group_velocity "The velocity of a particle, [de Broglie] concluded, should always equal the group velocity of the corresponding wave. The magnitude of the group velocity is equal to the particle's speed." (emphasis added) 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 8, 2019 Share Posted March 8, 2019 6 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. You said matter wave speed. You need to be more detailed in your explanations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share Posted March 9, 2019 then step 3 is right. could talk about step 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 10 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: then step 3 is right. could talk about step 4. Phase velocity can exceed c, so the equation is still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share Posted March 9, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 Anything with mass can only reach a fraction of c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 4 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: why it is wrong? u = c*c/v. You appear to be just making things up. Where did this come from? 4 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. Phase velocity can exceed c. Thus, in those cases, uv > c^2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share Posted March 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, swansont said: You appear to be just making things up. Where did this come from? Phase velocity can exceed c. Thus, in those cases, uv > c^2 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 6 minutes ago, swansont said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 1 hour ago, yuanxue60616 said: come on , uv = c^2 “come on” is not physics. 1 hour ago, yuanxue60616 said: in step 2 2)real relational value, the non-real relational value and their extreme value satisfy a certain mathematical relationship So you keep asserting. I don’t see any physics backing it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share Posted March 9, 2019 32 minutes ago, swansont said: “come on” is not physics. So you keep asserting. I don’t see any physics backing it up. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 9, 2019 Share Posted March 9, 2019 29 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. I already provided a link. No, QM does not back it up. Phase velocity is not identically c. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yuanxue60616 Posted March 9, 2019 Author Share Posted March 9, 2019 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts