Jump to content
yuanxue60616

In special relativity, what if relativity of simultaneity is discontinues?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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

Do you mean discontinuous?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

Do you mean discontinuous?

It seems so. Said another way, quantized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

 

Is it already in relativistic QM or quantum field theory?

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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

You need to show why this would be true. i.e. derive the matter wave formula from time quantization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

 

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

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

What is pia?

11 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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.

Nonsense.

11 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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

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

11 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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

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.

11 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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

I'd rather you be rigorous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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

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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said:

time is not quantized, the time of relativity of Simultaneity is quantized.

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.

48 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said:

so I ask this question, what if it is not discontinues?

It isn't. Obviously. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said:

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.

There is no evidence that space is quantised (experiments have looked for it). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, yuanxue60616 said:

it is hard to believe there is no relation between them

That is not science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yuanxue60616 said:

how do you know Matter waves exist independent of simultaneity?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.