Quantum Mechanics discussions

[swansont]

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' date=' 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. [/quote']

 

 

I find it very hard to believe you could have studied quantum mechanics without running across mention of, for example, the complex conjugate of a wave function, or the use of "i" in the momentum and position operators.

[Ophiolite]

So basically' date=' you have a new theory; you demand respect for it; you refuse to explain your theory.

Great.[/quote']Nice to see a fellow Scot get right to the point of the pointlessness.

[Locrian]

So basically' date=' you have a new theory; you demand respect for it; you refuse to explain your theory.

 

Great.[/quote']

 

After seeing alexross post about this so many times I can't help but agree with drochaid. I am underwhelmed by the conversation and am tired of seeing the same shallow nothing repeated over and over.

[CPL.Luke]

alexross,

 

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.

[alexross]

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

[Severian]

There was even a crank(ish) paper that got passed the hep-ph screening the other day ( http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0510/0510086.pdf ), so you would be in good company...

[insane_alien]

for someone with a Bsci you do seem pretty dumb on a level just above a hardcore creationist. your showing all the traits, refusal to answer questions, claims of a conspiracy theory etc. etc.

[Tom Mattson]

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

 

Yeah' date=' but you can take it a lot further than you've taken it so far. This forum even has LaTeX typesetting so that you can make yourself crystal clear.

 

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.

 

Well, instead of using your online time merely alluding to your ideas, perhaps that time might be better spent actually exposing them, yes?

[CPL.Luke]

alexross, I think you may be a bit mistaken in your belief that computers are expensive, an old pentium 3 based computer could be had for about $100 or less (a pentium two based computer could be had for under $20). While it may not handle any graphicly intensive programs it can certainly run your internet and word processors.

 

as for the price of internet access I believe that net zero can provide a dialup internet access for about $5 a month.

 

anywho on with the rest of the disussion, don't mind the posts that sem to be insulting you. the posters tend to base them off of the assumption (while not necessarily wrong) that you are just anouther one of the recent string of new members who claims that they have a new theory and are right, but lack any mathmatical or physical knowledge.

[Miss Perfect]

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.

[alexross]

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

[alexross]

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

[alexross]

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

[swansont]

CHOICE OF SIZE FOR THE DIFFERENTIAL PARTICLE

Hello' date='

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.[/quote']

 

 

I think all he's doing is calculating a mean vaue of a CBR photon. If you calculate kT for a 3K photon, that's the right order of magnitude. Nothing about that is a "size limit"

 

In "the world treasury of Physics' date=' 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?[/quote']

 

I don't know what you mean by "based upon a large particle" Planck's constant is the smallest unit of angular momentum change for the whole subatomic zoo.

 

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.

 

Note that the classical electron radius should not be mistaken for the physical size - it is a classical (i.e. wrong) calculation.