Can Quantum Jumps Same as Dimension Jumps ?

[Antonio Lao]

The a_i where i=m, n, and l are the infinitesimal accelerations due to orthogonal forces.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

see my point before, please.

Regards
EP

The a_i where i=m, n, and l are the infinitesimal accelerations due to orthogonal forces.

 

[Antonio Lao]

As I have understood things the uncertainty principle has to do with that impossibility we have to have an exact, as it were, an absolute description of physical reality

If this is the case, then I was wrong all this time in believing that the product of uncertainty in wavelength (a property of wave) and the uncertainty in momentum (a property of particle) is greater than or equal to Planck's constant.

 

[Antonio Lao]

Anyway, by doubling the uncertainty, multiplied by itself, and at time=0, which is the singularity of the big bang, I get an uncertainty in the square of a time rate of change of an infinitesimal area.

\frac{dA}{dt} = ac

Where A is area, a is Planck length and c is the speed of light.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Yes, but this talks about the impossibility we have to have an "ABSOLUTE description" of physical reality.
On the other hand it is Schrodinger wave equation the one that talks us about the wave nature in a precise mathematical description, even though, of course, and here I recognize your point, both:
- the uncertainty principle and
- additionally the Schrodinger wave equation

are fundamentals in describing QM; you cannot describe mathematically, in congruent way, the one without the other.

Regards

EP

If this is the case, then I was wrong all this time in believing that the product of uncertainty in wavelength (a property of wave) and the uncertainty in momentum (a property of particle) is greater than or equal to Planck's constant.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The uncertainty is between change in area and change in frequency of a wave.

\Delta A \Delta f \geq ac

 

[Epsilon Pi]

I thought uncertainty was related with that impossibility we have to measure, at the same time, two entities that cannot be reduced one to the other such as, wave and particle, or time and space, or momentum and position? a reason why its description had to be done with a complex differential equation such as the Schrodinger wave equation.

Regards

EP

The uncertainty is between change in area and change in frequency of a wave.

\Delta A \Delta f \geq ac

 

[Antonio Lao]

Schroedinger's equation is non-relativistic. Dirac's equation is relativistic. The transition is the energy formulation from

E =\frac{p^2}{2m}

to

E^2 = c^2 p^2 + m^2 c^4

I derived the the square of mass by assuming that linear momentum is zero.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

I really thought Schrodinger's wave equation was an equation that described the behavior of an entity such as the electron that sometimes can have the velocity of light; so just in those cases should we make the corresponding relativistic formulation or correction?

Regards

EP

Schroedinger's equation is non-relativistic. Dirac's equation is relativistic. The transition is the energy formulation from

E =\frac{p^2}{2m}

to

E^2 = c^2 p^2 + m^2 c^4

I derived the the square of mass by assuming that linear momentum is zero.

 

[Antonio Lao]

thought uncertainty was related with that impossibility we have to measure, at the same time, two entities that cannot be reduced one to the other such as, wave and particle, or time and space

For 1D spacetime quantization, there exists uncertainty in the transformation of 1D space to 2D space (surfaces) to 3D space (volumes) and the product of this uncertainty with inverse uncertainty of time which is uncertainty in frequency of wave is greater or equal to product of Planck length and speed of light. Actually, it is the absolute value of the uncertainty because a negative part also exists as well.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The area uncertainty comes from its degree of freedom to become 1D or 3D. Like a incremental plane contracting to a line by motion or transforming into a volume. We are not certain how this incremental area would want to do, becomes 1D or 3D?

 

[Epsilon Pi]

An ABSOLUTE value of UNCERTAINTY?

How can you talk about an ABSOLUTE value of UNCERTAINTY? Is not this a great contradiction?

Regards

EP

Actually, it is the absolute value of the uncertainty because a negative part also exists as well.

 

[Antonio Lao]

How can you talk about an ABSOLUTE value of UNCERTAINTY? Is not this a great contradiction?

\left| ? \right| \geq n

is the same as

? \geq n

and

? \leq -n

The uncertainty approaches zero from left and right.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I really thought Schrodinger's wave equation was an equation that described the behavior of an entity such as the electron

Schrodinger's equation was capable of resolving the one-electron hydrogen (neutral atom) spectra. But Dirac's equation is the one for the multiple electrons atoms because of charge and spin in fine structure spectra.

 

[Antonio Lao]

The positive and negative uncertainties as depicted by the uncertainty in frequency can resolve the concavity and convexity of quantized spacetime structures. One structure, from 2D surface to 1D string to 0D vacuum, resulting in the reality of the graviton with mass=0. The other structure, from 2D to 3D, and quickly to 4D and then bypassing 3D, 2D, and 1D jumps to 0D vacuum, resulting in the reality of the Higgs boson.

 

[Antonio Lao]

A clearer inequality formulation for the uncertainty in the quantum of mass is

-\Delta mass \leq -\frac{h}{l_p c} \leq 0 \leq +\frac{h}{l_p c} \leq +\Delta mass [/itex]<br /> <br /> where h is Planck&#039;s constant, l_p is Planck length, and c is light speed.

 

[Epsilon Pi]

the need of a symbolism that includes complementarity?

Oh, thank you, Antonio for another version of the uncertainty inequality, but are you sure there are not others ways, to represent the impossibility we have to measure at the same time those dualities we find at atomic levels, such as wave and particle?
Cannot those dualities be rationalized, as it were, in a complex mathematical description, i.e., a basic unit system which is not anymore an inequality?, but an equation in which the equal sign is not precisely a symbol JUST to reduce the one to the other? a symbol that permits us to include both, yes-or-no, and complementarity?
With such a representation for sure we will have another version of that uncertainty principle and we will have the chance to recover our way to a better description of physical reality not so obscure, which is my main concern in regards to modern physics and which was as I have shown in a paper, the main concern too of Ferdinand de Saussure when was confronted with those dualities of the Linguistic Sign.

Regards

EP

A clearer inequality formulation for the uncertainty in the quantum of mass is

-\Delta mass \leq -\frac{h}{l_p c} \leq 0 \leq +\frac{h}{l_p c} \leq +\Delta mass [/itex]<br /> <br /> where h is Planck&#039;s constant, l_p is Planck length, and c is light speed.

 

[Antonio Lao]

but are you sure there are not others ways, to represent the impossibility we have to measure at the same time those dualities we find at atomic levels

The fault of the quest for the principle of duality lies in the analysis of periodic functions. Given a period T time units, the inverse of T is the frequency. But what is the meaning of time inverse?

Time inverse can appear to be just a velocity magnitude with the distance factor normalized and turned into a dimensionless quantity.

But distance can only be normalized if we assume that there exist a maximum distance to gauge it to.

\frac{1}{d_{max}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d_i = 1

 

[Epsilon Pi]

Thank you for your reply! You really have touched a point that concern me the most!
No, the fault of the quest for -what you now call the principle of duality, term, that I have used somewhere to identify: a binary logic, bilateral symmetry as was defined by Hermann Weyl, according to whom, all the theory of relativity rests on it- lies on that need to have a symbolism in which the third is included -not excluded as with the binary logic- or else the use of complex numbers that makes it possible to rationalize duality.
Of course, for our own convenience we have to reduce, in some cases, time to space, by defining a close system and then we will have a mathematical conception of time similar to that of space, that not only has the problem you have described, but additionally, it is a conception of time not in agreement with irreversible processes or the two arrows of time: in this wrong conception of time it can flow in both directions: positive and negative.
Now, thanks to your answer it is even more quite clear for me, why we have such a great difficulty in modern physics to even try to see things in a different way

Regards

EP

The fault of the quest for the principle of duality lies in the analysis of periodic functions. Given a period T time units, the inverse of T is the frequency. But what is the meaning of time inverse?

Time inverse can appear to be just a velocity magnitude with the distance factor normalized and turned into a dimensionless quantity.

But distance can only be normalized if we assume that there exist a maximum distance to gauge it to.

\frac{1}{d_{max}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d_i = 1

 

[Antonio Lao]

in this wrong conception of time it can flow in both directions

You might have just rescued me from falling into the trap of further futile analysis in the quantification of the double time integrals

\int_{0}^{-\infty} \int_{+\infty}^{0} E(t) E^{*}(t) dt dt

 

[Epsilon Pi]

The kind of beautiful integral I liked so much when I was a mathematical student, and it even has a negative time

Thanks!

EP

You might have just rescued me from falling into the trap of further futile analysis in the quantification of the double time integrals

\int_{0}^{-\infty} \int_{+\infty}^{0} E(t) E^{*}(t) dt dt