LaurieAG 14 Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 On 3/8/2020 at 12:38 PM, MigL said: No, seriously ( and back to the OP ), the only reason for quantum 'weirdness' is that QM involves a paradigm ( every chance I get to use that word ) shift in the way we view reality. While the classical view is deterministic, the quantum view is probabilistic. It's a difficult shift in viewpoint when we first encounter QM. ( but you get used to it ) I suppose you could call it first degree Quantum weirdness when most people are aware that 1/ the photons/wavelengths that are emitted from all the rotating sources in the universe 2/ travel in straight lines from their emission point to the relatively stationary observer 3/ although they are not generally aware that the source and observer are connected by a discrete spiral photon/wavelength path at the time and point of observation, if the source is still rotating and emitting and the path has not been blocked or distorted along the way. Spoiler https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?173552-Modelling-the-locations-of-in-transit-photons-emitted-from-rotating-sources The second degree of Quantum weirdness is that people who aren't aware of both the straight line and spiral paths of virtually all observed or in transit universal photons/wavelengths 1/ call the ratio of Total Calculated Universal Matter/Total Observed Visible Universal Matter numerology 2/ even though it equals 2*Pi +/- 1.1% for both the WMAP and PLANCK data using the Lambda CDM model. I also suppose it is a consequence of the symmetry of the calculus of improper power functions, as proved by Emmy Noether, where piecewise continuous integrals with limits from +infinity to -infinity (that don't converge), could be considered as valid improper power integrals, if they were considered a sub function of a higher level function of (at most) 1 rotation (i.e. 2*Pi). https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044v2 Though the general theory of relativity was completed in 1915, there remained unresolved problems. In particular, the principle of local energy conservation was a vexing issue. In the general theory, energy is not conserved locally as it is in classical field theories - Newtonian gravity, electromagnetism, hydrodynamics, etc. Energy conservation in the general theory has been perplexing many people for decades. In the early days, Hilbert wrote about this problem as ‘the failure of the energy theorem’. In a correspondence with Klein [3], he asserted that this ‘failure’ is a characteristic feature of the general theory, and that instead of ‘proper energy theorems’ one had ‘improper energy theorems’ in such a theory. This conjecture was clarified, quantified and proved correct by Emmy Noether. Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7661 Posted March 9, 2020 Share Posted March 9, 2020 4 hours ago, LaurieAG said: I suppose you could call it first degree Quantum weirdness when most people are aware that 1/ the photons/wavelengths that are emitted from all the rotating sources in the universe 2/ travel in straight lines from their emission point to the relatively stationary observer 3/ although they are not generally aware that the source and observer are connected by a discrete spiral photon/wavelength path at the time and point of observation, if the source is still rotating and emitting and the path has not been blocked or distorted along the way. Hide contents https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?173552-Modelling-the-locations-of-in-transit-photons-emitted-from-rotating-sources Photons traveling in a straight line from a rotating source is not any sort of conundrum. Even in Newtonian physics, this is the case. 4 hours ago, LaurieAG said: The second degree of Quantum weirdness is that people who aren't aware of both the straight line and spiral paths of virtually all observed or in transit universal photons/wavelengths 1/ call the ratio of Total Calculated Universal Matter/Total Observed Visible Universal Matter numerology 2/ even though it equals 2*Pi +/- 1.1% for both the WMAP and PLANCK data using the Lambda CDM model. I also suppose it is a consequence of the symmetry of the calculus of improper power functions, as proved by Emmy Noether, where piecewise continuous integrals with limits from +infinity to -infinity (that don't converge), could be considered as valid improper power integrals, if they were considered a sub function of a higher level function of (at most) 1 rotation (i.e. 2*Pi). https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9807044v2 General relativity ≠ Quantum Mechanics GR is a classical theory. Link to post Share on other sites

LaurieAG 14 Posted March 10, 2020 Author Share Posted March 10, 2020 17 hours ago, swansont said: Photons traveling in a straight line from a rotating source is not any sort of conundrum. Even in Newtonian physics, this is the case. That was only the first part. If the observer is stationary relative to the center of rotation/orbit of the sources, the sources continue to rotate/orbit and emit for 1 complete rotation, and the photon path is not distorted or blocked, there will be a discrete spiral line of photons stretching from the observer to the emission source at the time and location of the observation. 17 hours ago, swansont said: General relativity ≠ Quantum Mechanics GR is a classical theory. And the calculus it uses? Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7661 Posted March 10, 2020 Share Posted March 10, 2020 6 hours ago, LaurieAG said: That was only the first part. If the observer is stationary relative to the center of rotation/orbit of the sources, the sources continue to rotate/orbit and emit for 1 complete rotation, and the photon path is not distorted or blocked, there will be a discrete spiral line of photons stretching from the observer to the emission source at the time and location of the observation. Off-topic for this discussion, but you haven't identified a problem with physics, and it's not QM. 6 hours ago, LaurieAG said: And the calculus it uses? Again, off-topic. Math is math. GR is not a quantum theory. Link to post Share on other sites

LaurieAG 14 Posted March 11, 2020 Author Share Posted March 11, 2020 18 hours ago, swansont said: Again, off-topic. Math is math. GR is not a quantum theory. Relativistic QM uses Lorentz transformations which are also applicable to SR i.e. the calculus is the same. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_in_quantum_mechanics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law.[1] ... There are numerous versions of Noether's theorem, with varying degrees of generality. There are natural quantum counterparts of this theorem, expressed in the Ward–Takahashi identities. Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7661 Posted March 11, 2020 Share Posted March 11, 2020 4 hours ago, LaurieAG said: Relativistic QM uses Lorentz transformations which are also applicable to SR i.e. the calculus is the same. SR is not GR, and these corrections are not a source of "weirdness" that anyone has brought up. Link to post Share on other sites

LaurieAG 14 Posted March 12, 2020 Author Share Posted March 12, 2020 17 hours ago, swansont said: SR is not GR, and these corrections are not a source of "weirdness" that anyone has brought up. Corrections? The diagram I posted, that shows the two states of weirdness together in the one model, i.e. the consolidated spiral pathways of straight line in transit photons emitted from rotating/orbiting sources over time, is based on an SR 'optical appearance' plot not GR. Another weirdness is the difference between the reduced Compton wavelength (lambda_bar) used in quantum matter (LambdaCDM universal matter) and the standard Compton wavelength (lambda) used in calculating observed universal matter, which also equals 2*Pi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Distinction_between_reduced_and_non-reduced The reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation of mass on the quantum scale. Equations that pertain to inertial mass like Klein-Gordon and Schrödinger's, use the reduced Compton wavelength.[2]:18–22 The non-reduced Compton wavelength is a natural representation for mass that has been converted into energy. Equations that pertain to the conversion of mass into energy, or to the wavelengths of photons interacting with mass, use the non-reduced Compton wavelength. 2*Pi is not very far away regardless of the type of quantum weirdness. Link to post Share on other sites

swansont 7661 Posted March 12, 2020 Share Posted March 12, 2020 6 hours ago, LaurieAG said: Corrections? The diagram I posted, that shows the two states of weirdness together in the one model, i.e. the consolidated spiral pathways of straight line in transit photons emitted from rotating/orbiting sources over time, is based on an SR 'optical appearance' plot not GR. As you say, it's SR. Not QM. 6 hours ago, LaurieAG said: Another weirdness is the difference between the reduced Compton wavelength (lambda_bar) used in quantum matter (LambdaCDM universal matter) and the standard Compton wavelength (lambda) used in calculating observed universal matter, which also equals 2*Pi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Distinction_between_reduced_and_non-reduced 2*Pi is not very far away regardless of the type of quantum weirdness. No, a factor of 2pi is not "weirdness." It's convenience and convention. Link to post Share on other sites

LaurieAG 14 Posted March 13, 2020 Author Share Posted March 13, 2020 18 hours ago, swansont said: No, a factor of 2pi is not "weirdness." It's convenience and convention. So the only real repeatable aspect of dark matter is that (Universal dark matter + Universal ordinary matter)/(ordinary matter) = (28.5% + 4.82%)/4.82% = 2 * Pi +/- 1.1%, as calculated by LambdaCDM via both the WMAP and PLANCK data, but that is not weirdness? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_(spacecraft)#2013_data_release According to the team, the Universe is 13.798±0.037x10^{9} years old, and contains 4.82±0.05% ordinary matter, 25.8±0.4% dark matter and 69±1% dark energy.^{[30]}^{[31]}^{[32]} The Hubble constant was also measured to be 67.80±0.77 (km/s)/Mpc. I agree entirely, it is the only non weird fact about universal dark matter that we know about with any certainty. Link to post Share on other sites

LaurieAG 14 Posted March 18, 2020 Author Share Posted March 18, 2020 On 3/12/2020 at 8:01 PM, swansont said: As you say, it's SR. Not QM. It seems that there is a relationship between SR and QM that you may have overlooked. My original reference was "Relativistic QM uses Lorentz transformations which are also applicable to SR i.e. the calculus is the same." I came across this recent publication that highlights aspects of the historic and ongoing development of QM that give insights into to many of the weirdness issues and my concerns, as discussed in the original thread. Kronz, Fred and Lupher, Tracy, "Quantum Theory and Mathematical Rigor", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). My prior reference to SR was with respect to the diagram of an SR based "optical appearance" plot that shows both the straight line and spiral/wave nature of in-transit photons, emitted from rotating/orbiting sources to a relatively stationary observer over one complete rotation/orbit, that are present at the discrete time and location of the observation. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-nvd/ Egg, Lam, and Oldofedi (2017) argue that the main disagreement between Doreen Fraser and David Wallace is over the very definition of QFT. Fraser takes QFT to be the union of quantum theory and special relativity. If QFT = QM + SR as Fraser maintains, then LQFT fails to satisfy that criterion since it employs cutoffs which violate Poincaré covariance. While QFT doesn't take gravity into account it is still an import part of QM. Further, the "Quantum Theory and Mathematical Rigor" article also includes references to QM that do not exclude "improper functions", particularly derivations based on the Dirac δ function such as rigged Hilbert spaces. In the preface to von Neumann’s (1955) treatise on that topic, he notes that Dirac provides a very elegant and powerful formal framework for quantum mechanics, but complains about the central role in that framework of an “improper function with self-contradictory properties,” which he also characterizes as a “mathematical fiction.” He is referring to the Dirac δ function, which has the following incompatible properties: it is defined over the real line, is zero everywhere except for one point at which it is infinite, and yields unity when integrated over the real line. The mathematically rigorous foundation is mainly with regards to the self-contradictory properties as identified by von Neumann above, so my original point about "improper integrals" is valid on the higher structural level of symmetries. As in the case of the notion of an infinitesimal, the Dirac δ function was eventually given a mathematically rigorous foundation. That was done within Schwartz’s theory of distributions, which was later used in developing the notion of a rigged Hilbert space. The theory of distributions was used to provide a mathematical framework for quantum field theory (Wightman 1964). The rigged Hilbert space was used to do so for quantum mechanics (Böhm 1966) and then for quantum field theory (Bogoluliubov et al. 1975). As I have said before on other threads, IMO these issues and the 2*pi matter ratio artifact only impact the higher universal sum calculations and do not generally interfere with QM below this level of abstraction. Link to post Share on other sites

## Recommended Posts

## 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