Jump to content
yuanxue60616

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

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


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

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

So you are saying that all of quantum theory is wrong. Bold.

12 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said:

if simultaneity exists, the single particle will logical pass two slits,

Why? You are very fond of making these baseless assertions. 

You need to provide some reason why you believe this is related to simultaneity.

And, as there is only one particle, what events are you measuring the simultaneity of?

Share this post


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

superposition principle is really talking about simultaneity.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


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

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

No. It is an assertion. Where is the mathematical model? Where is the mathematical, quantitative (ie. numbers) prediction? Where is the evidence?

According to my assertion: you are wrong. See how that works?

Share this post


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

according to my assertion, 

!

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.

 

Share this post


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

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.

This would be an incorrect description of the experiment.

This would be a correct description.

For any single particle:

We know where a particle leaves the emitter on one side of the barrier with slits.

We know where it arrives at the detector / screen on the other side of the barrier.

We do not actually track or see its flight path between these two points.

The wave pattern is not built up with a single particle, we need to repeat the experiment many times to observe/measure this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

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

The simultaneity OF WHAT? You keep saying it’s the relativity of simultaneity, but never explain what you mean by that. 

Quote

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

The time is not periodic. There is no frequency associated with it.

Quote

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.

Where is the simultaneity issue of a single particle passing through a double slit? It’s co-located. x=0

Share this post


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

so space is quantized for moving particle

Quantum field theory incorporates special relativity. So you need to prove, in mathematical detail, that quantum field theory still works when space is quantised. (I am willing to bet it doesn't.)

Also, we already know that GR does not work is space is quantised. So you need some sort of replacement for GR as well as replacing all of quantum theory.

And, where is the evidence that space is quantised? If you are saying it is quantised on the scale of matter waves, we should be able to see it, easily. This is the scale of macroscopic objects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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

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.

Simultaneity is not a periodic event. The two phenomena are unrelated.

Matter wave frequency can be discussed because there is a wavelength, and it is a wave phenomenon.

A matter wave is not an event, so discussing simultaneity is nonsensical.

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.