Quantum History
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Atomic clock behaviour in a gravitational field explained with 1905 Relativity
Next: The force of Gravity
From: BURT on 1 Jul 2010 17:45 On Jul 1, 2:04 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 1, 8:20 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote:> whoever schrieb:>>>> "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in > > >>>> this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only > > >>>> thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is > > >>>> unquestionably correct." > > > > I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. There's a few good quotes > > > around about QM. > > > <Still the problem remains: what does this theory describe. > > Since physics is a natural science (mainly), something must happen in > nature, that could be described by qm. The mechanism had to be > stunning simple and had to work as nature acts in general. > > It IS, and it does!! Planck was treating a resonator which he took > as stationary. On reading that portion of his paper, i decided the > only way a "resonator" could be "stationary" is that it has to be an > atom. An atom could be locally stationary, especially at zero degrees > kelvin, while things inside it kept circulating at give speeds. Those > things could then be considered "resonators". I then decided that the > only kind of thing that fits that requirement is an electron. > So I decided that if an electron IS the resonator in Planck's > treatment, one "beat" would be the time it took an electron to perform > one orbit in a typical atom, such as an h atom. So I found the length > of one such orbital path (2pir, where r is the radius of an H atom) > and multiplied that by the speed of an electron in its orbital path > (which is c', where c' = cFs and Fs is the fine structure constant). > The resulting number was nowhere near Planck's value of h. > Playing with the numbers on my hand calculator being one of my > hobbies, I did that for awhile and then > EUREKA!! I multiplied my 2pirc' number by the textbook value of > the weight of an electron (called the mass, m) and > BINGO!! The resulting number was EXACTLY > > That is with loads of > > > > > time, massively parallel and smooth. This isn't quite, how qm works, > > starting with the term 'quant' itself. So there should be something, > > that is kind of smooth, but has countable substructures. I personally > > think about vortices in fractal arrangement and multiplicative > > connections of a pointlike state to its neighborhood. Than we have > > something to count. These are patterns like a Moireé. Those could pop in > > and out of existence, behave in a statistical way, because they are not > > 'real'. > > > TH- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Vibrations never cancel. There is no superposition. Mitch Raemsch
From: Thomas Heger on 2 Jul 2010 03:59 glird schrieb: > On Jul 1, 8:20 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >> whoever schrieb:>>>> "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in >>>>>> this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only >>>>>> thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is >>>>>> unquestionably correct." >>> I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. There's a few good quotes >>> around about QM. >> <Still the problem remains: what does this theory describe. > Since physics is a natural science (mainly), something must happen in > nature, that could be described by qm. The mechanism had to be > stunning simple and had to work as nature acts in general. > > It IS, and it does!! Planck was treating a resonator which he took > as stationary. On reading that portion of his paper, i decided the > only way a "resonator" could be "stationary" is that it has to be an > atom. An atom could be locally stationary, especially at zero degrees > kelvin, while things inside it kept circulating at give speeds. Those > things could then be considered "resonators". I then decided that the > only kind of thing that fits that requirement is an electron. > So I decided that if an electron IS the resonator in Planck's > treatment, one "beat" would be the time it took an electron to perform > one orbit in a typical atom, such as an h atom. So I found the length > of one such orbital path (2pir, where r is the radius of an H atom) > and multiplied that by the speed of an electron in its orbital path > (which is c', where c' = cFs and Fs is the fine structure constant). > The resulting number was nowhere near Planck's value of h. > Playing with the numbers on my hand calculator being one of my > hobbies, I did that for awhile and then > EUREKA!! I multiplied my 2pirc' number by the textbook value of > the weight of an electron (called the mass, m) and > BINGO!! The resulting number was EXACTLY > Cool! So now we know a quantum resonator is an atom. Couldn't they call it atom in the first place? But how could we quantize light? I had an idea, that would fit to such an idea and that is to invert the picture and 'turn the atom inside out'. Than we have two opposite behaviors, like contraction and expansion, and both are the same. Or ' ones matter is the other ones radiation ' (in my personal kind of relativistic lingo). Than matter is kind of wrapped up wave. And we don't need particles at all! This 'turn inside out' is provided by a scheme called Wick rotation or to multiply an atom by i. That turns the timeline to the side and contraction is expansion than. TH
From: Thomas Heger on 2 Jul 2010 05:15 Thomas Heger schrieb: > glird schrieb: >> On Jul 1, 8:20 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: >>> whoever schrieb:>>>> "In fact, it is often stated that of all the >>> theories proposed in >>>>>>> this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only >>>>>>> thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is >>>>>>> unquestionably correct." >>>> I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. There's a few good quotes >>>> around about QM. >>> <Still the problem remains: what does this theory describe. >> Since physics is a natural science (mainly), something must happen in >> nature, that could be described by qm. The mechanism had to be >> stunning simple and had to work as nature acts in general. > >> It IS, and it does!! Planck was treating a resonator which he took >> as stationary. On reading that portion of his paper, i decided the >> only way a "resonator" could be "stationary" is that it has to be an >> atom. An atom could be locally stationary, especially at zero degrees >> kelvin, while things inside it kept circulating at give speeds. Those >> things could then be considered "resonators". I then decided that the >> only kind of thing that fits that requirement is an electron. >> So I decided that if an electron IS the resonator in Planck's >> treatment, one "beat" would be the time it took an electron to perform >> one orbit in a typical atom, such as an h atom. So I found the length >> of one such orbital path (2pir, where r is the radius of an H atom) >> and multiplied that by the speed of an electron in its orbital path >> (which is c', where c' = cFs and Fs is the fine structure constant). >> The resulting number was nowhere near Planck's value of h. >> Playing with the numbers on my hand calculator being one of my >> hobbies, I did that for awhile and then >> EUREKA!! I multiplied my 2pirc' number by the textbook value of >> the weight of an electron (called the mass, m) and >> BINGO!! The resulting number was EXACTLY >> > > Cool! > So now we know a quantum resonator is an atom. Couldn't they call it > atom in the first place? > But how could we quantize light? > I had an idea, that would fit to such an idea and that is to invert the > picture and 'turn the atom inside out'. Than we have two opposite > behaviors, like contraction and expansion, and both are the same. > Or ' ones matter is the other ones radiation ' (in my personal kind of > relativistic lingo). Than matter is kind of wrapped up wave. > And we don't need particles at all! > This 'turn inside out' is provided by a scheme called Wick rotation or > to multiply an atom by i. That turns the timeline to the side and > contraction is expansion than. > > TH here some random picks about Wick rotation: http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/the-partition-function-wick-rotation-and-the-path-integral/ http://www.physics.thetangentbundle.net/wiki/Quantum_field_theory/Wick_rotation http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=714 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation The idea is, to multiply a solution with i. That is like shifting something by 90� to the side and replace spacelike with timelike. If matter is timelike, than fields could be spacelike. But we could shift this relation 'sideways' and radiation turns to matter, for a timeline 'perpendicular' to ours - or: t'=i*t. If we would play around with those i and timelines, than we could see, that what we call space is spacetime without time and matter is spacetime without space. TH
From: glird on 2 Jul 2010 13:56 On Jul 2, 5:15 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > Thomas Heger schrieb: > > > glird schrieb: > >> On Jul 1, 8:20 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > >>> whoever schrieb: >>>> "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct." > > >>>> I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. > > >>> <Still the problem remains: what does this theory describe. Since physics is a natural science mainly), something must happen in nature, that could be described by qm. The mechanism has to be stunning simple and has to work as nature acts in general. > > >> < It IS, and it does!! Planck was treating a resonator which he took as stationary. On reading that portion of his paper, i decided the only way a "resonator" could be "stationary" is that it has to be an atom. An atom could be locally stationary, especially at zero degrees kelvin, while things inside it kept circulating at give speeds. Those things could then be considered "resonators". I then decided that the only kind of thing that fits that requirement is an electron. So I decided that if an electron IS the resonator in Planck's treatment, one "beat" would be the time it took an electron to perform one orbit in a typical atom, such as a hydrogen atom. So I found the length of one such orbital path (2pir, where r is the radius of an H atom) and multiplied that by the speed of an electron in its orbital path (which is c', where c' = cFs and Fs is the fine structure constant). The resulting number was nowhere near Planck's value of h. Playing with the numbers on my hand calculator being one of my hobbies, I did that for awhile and then EUREKA!! I multiplied my 2pirc' number by the textbook value of the weight of an electron (called the mass, m) and BINGO!! The resulting number was EXACTLY the textbook value of h! > > > > < Cool! So now we know a quantum resonator is an atom. Couldn't they call it atom in the first place? > The atom isn't the resonator. An "electron" INSIDE an atom is the moving thing called "a resonator". > > But how could we quantize light? Once released from an atom, nn electron is a portion of unstructured matter. By its presence at a spot in the everywhere-existing compressible expansively-pressurized material it is an increaed in the density (mass/unit volume, where mass denotes a QUANTITY OF MATTER whether or not it has any weight). That, in turn, causes an increase in the local pressure. Acordingly, a sorce- pressure-density gradient (grad s-d) instantly exists at the place where an electron escapes from its parent atom, releasing a quantity of energy (the ability to do work, based on an extra amount of pressure) equal to mx' times 2pir. Once released, this grad s-d is an unbalanced affair. A pressure difference cannot remain present in the dilute matter that fills a vacuum and/or the spaces betwween atoms. It will radiate way at c, and when it reacts with a visual cell in the retina of an eye, it is called "light". THAT is what light is. > >< I had an idea, that would fit such an idea and that is to invert the picture and 'turn the atom inside out'. Than we have two opposite behaviors, like contraction and expansion, and both are the same. > An atom is a matter-unit. (So is the Earth and the sun and a galaxy.) It has a dense spinning nucleus surrounded by a material field that decreases in density as you depart from the nuclear surface. If you 'turn the atom inside out", i.e. let its density gradients reverse direction, it would be a locally unstable "anti"wadevr. > > < Or one's "matter" is the other one's "radiation" (in my personal kind of relativistic lingo). Then matter is kind of a wrapped up wave. > A "wave" is a configuration. As such, it requires a material to be the thing so configured. In that sense, then Yes (sort of) a wave is kind of a wrapped up matter. (But I doubt that matter is a wrapped up wave.) > > And we don't need particles at all! We never did! A "particle" is a self-sustaining matter-energy configuration that owns the matter it is made of. Neither a quantum of action or a photon is that kind of thing. Planck's h is a quantity of action and his e_o is a quantity of energy=hf. Neither of them is a particle once released from an atom. Indeed, I am increasingly sure that an electron is not a particle either! !! When inside an atom, it is a "wavicle". (A wavicle is a circulating grad s-d that is a configuration when in the less-dense part of the shell-layer around a nucleus and becomes an unbounded bit of moving matter when in the denser part near the nucleus.) > > <This 'turn inside out' is provided by a scheme called Wick rotation or to multiply an atom by i. That turns the timeline to the side and contraction is then expansion. > The "timeline" is a mental construction that doesn't exist other than as a mathematical tool. If you want to plot a contraction as an exopansion, you don't turn the timeline to theside, you REVERSE it. > here some random picks about Wick rotation:http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/the-partition-function-wic...http://www.physics.thetangentbundle.net/wiki/Quantum_field_theory/Wic...http://dabacon.org/pontiff/?p=714http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_rotation > >< The idea is, to multiply a solution with i. That is like shifting something by 90° to the side and replace spacelike with timelike.> You are trapped in the lingo of Minkowski. If you want to UNDERSTAND what's actually happening, instead of merely calculate how much of thuhbt happens when you do thiop to it, you need to study metaphysics, not just physics. And if you want to understand only physics, you'd better not be misled by Minkowski's relativistic language, in which i=sqrt(-1) is "i"maginary. ><If matter is timelike, than fields could be spacelike. But we could shift this relation 'sideways' and radiation turns to matter, for a timeline 'perpendicular' to ours - or: t'=i*t. " Matter existed forever and always will. If you wish, you could call its EXISTENCE "timelike". A "field" is a volume of space, which could be called "spacelike". The only "relation" between the two is that a *material* field (a volume filled with matter) can undergo a structural change as time passes. Since there is no way to "shift this relation 'sideways'", the rest of your sentence is correct; i.e. _i_maginary. > <If we would play around with those i and timelines, then we could see that what we call space is spacetime without time and matter is spacetime without space. > If we do what you say, then do do it; and imagine that "do do" is doodoo without oo and "it" is a load without its shhh----.
From: BURT on 2 Jul 2010 14:24
On Jul 2, 10:56 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Jul 2, 5:15 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > > Thomas Heger schrieb: > > > > glird schrieb: > > >> On Jul 1, 8:20 am, Thomas Heger <ttt_...(a)web.de> wrote: > > >>> whoever schrieb: > >>>> "In fact, it is often stated that of all the theories proposed in this century, the silliest is quantum theory. Some say that the only thing that quantum theory has going for it, in fact, is that it is unquestionably correct." > > > >>>> I love that quote .. hadn't seen it before. > > > >>> <Still the problem remains: what does this theory describe. > > Since physics is a natural science mainly), something must happen in > nature, that could be described by qm. The mechanism has to be > stunning simple and has to work as nature acts in general. > > > > >> < It IS, and it does!! Planck was treating a resonator which he took as stationary. On reading that portion of his paper, i decided the only way a "resonator" could be "stationary" is that it has to be an > > atom. An atom could be locally stationary, especially at zero degrees > kelvin, while things inside it kept circulating at give speeds. Those > things could then be considered "resonators". I then decided that the > only kind of thing that fits that requirement is an electron. > So I decided that if an electron IS the resonator in Planck's > treatment, one "beat" would be the time it took an electron to perform > one orbit in a typical atom, such as a hydrogen atom. So I found the > length of one such orbital path (2pir, where r is the radius of an H > atom) and multiplied that by the speed of an electron in its orbital > path (which is c', where c' = cFs and Fs is the fine structure > constant). The resulting number was nowhere near Planck's value of h. > Playing with the numbers on my hand calculator being one of my > hobbies, I did that for awhile and then > EUREKA!! I multiplied my 2pirc' number by the textbook value of the > weight of an electron (called the mass, m) and > BINGO!! The resulting number was EXACTLY > the textbook value of h! > > > > > < Cool! > > So now we know a quantum resonator is an atom. Couldn't they call it > atom in the first place? > > > The atom isn't the resonator. An "electron" INSIDE an atom is the > moving thing called "a resonator". > > > > But how could we quantize light? > > Once released from an atom, nn electron is a portion of unstructured > matter. By its presence at a spot in the everywhere-existing > compressible expansively-pressurized material > it is an increaed in the density (mass/unit volume, where mass denotes > a QUANTITY OF MATTER whether or not it has any weight). That, in > turn, causes an increase in the local pressure. Acordingly, a sorce- > pressure-density gradient (grad s-d) instantly exists at the place > where an electron escapes from its parent atom, releasing a quantity > of energy (the ability to do work, based on an extra amount of > pressure) equal to mx' times 2pir. Once released, this grad s-d is an > unbalanced affair. A pressure difference cannot remain present in the > dilute matter that fills a vacuum and/or the spaces betwween atoms. > It will radiate way at c, and when it reacts with a visual cell in the > retina of an eye, it is called "light". THAT is what light is. > > > >< I had an idea, that would fit such an idea and that is to invert the picture and 'turn the atom inside out'. Than we have two opposite behaviors, like contraction and expansion, and both are the same. > > > An atom is a matter-unit. (So is the Earth and the sun and a > galaxy.) It has a dense spinning nucleus surrounded by a material > field that decreases in density as you depart from the nuclear > surface. > If you 'turn the atom inside out", i.e. let its density gradients > reverse direction, it would be a locally unstable "anti"wadevr. > > > > < Or one's "matter" is the other one's "radiation" (in my personal kind of > > relativistic lingo). Then matter is kind of a wrapped up wave. > > > A "wave" is a configuration. As such, it requires a material to be > the thing so configured. In that sense, then Yes (sort of) a wave is > kind of a wrapped up matter. (But I doubt that matter is a wrapped up > wave.) > > > > And we don't need particles at all! > > We never did! A "particle" is a self-sustaining matter-energy > configuration that owns the matter it is made of. Neither a quantum > of action or a photon is that kind of thing. Planck's h is a quantity > of action and his e_o is a quantity of energy=hf. Neither of them is a > particle once released from an atom. > Indeed, I am increasingly sure that an electron is not a particle > either! !! When inside an atom, it is a "wavicle". (A wavicle is a > circulating grad s-d that is a configuration when in the less-dense > part of the shell-layer around a nucleus and becomes an unbounded bit > of moving matter when in the denser part near the nucleus.) > > > > <This 'turn inside out' is provided by a scheme called Wick rotation or to multiply an atom by i. That turns the timeline to the side and contraction is then expansion. > > > The "timeline" is a mental construction that doesn't exist other > than as a mathematical tool. If you want to plot a contraction as an > exopansion, you don't turn the timeline to theside, you REVERSE it. > > > here some random picks about Wick rotation:http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/09/06/the-partition-function-wic... > > >< The idea is, to multiply a solution with i. That is like shifting something by 90° to the side and replace spacelike with timelike.> > > You are trapped in the lingo of Minkowski. > If you want to UNDERSTAND what's actually happening, instead of merely > calculate how much of thuhbt happens when you do thiop to it, you need > to study metaphysics, not just physics. And if you want to understand > only physics, you'd better not be misled by Minkowski's relativistic > language, in which i=sqrt(-1) is "i"maginary. > > ><If matter is timelike, than fields could be spacelike. But we could shift this relation 'sideways' and radiation turns to matter, for a timeline 'perpendicular' to ours - or: t'=i*t. " > > Matter existed forever and always will. If you wish, you could call > its EXISTENCE "timelike". A "field" is a volume of space, which could > be called "spacelike". The only "relation" between the two is that a > *material* field (a volume filled with matter) can undergo a > structural change as time passes. Since there is no way to "shift this > relation 'sideways'", the rest of your sentence is correct; i.e. > _i_maginary. > > > <If we would play around with those i and timelines, then we could see that what we call space is spacetime without time and matter is > > spacetime without space. > > > If we do what you say, then do do it; and imagine that "do do" is > doodoo without oo and "it" is a load without its shhh----. We don't quantize light. It remains a wave. Only free atoms vibrate. Mitch Raemsch |