Can Quantum Jumps Same as Dimension Jumps ?

In summary, Quantum jumps are same as dimension jumps. Matter such as electrons are 4D objects and photons are 3D objects and the continuous space between orbits is a 2D continuum. What happens when one electron jumps from one orbits to another orbit is that the 4D electron transforms to 3D energy and the 3D energy transforms to a 2D continuum then 2D continuum back to 3D energy and then back to a 4D electron at a lower or higher orbit whichever the case in question. The transformation of 2D continuous space (S) is given by: S = cE. Dimension analysis shows the 2D continuous space is proportional to an arbitrary surface area with the proportionality constant as force
  • #1
Antonio Lao
1,440
1
Can Quantum Jumps Same as Dimension Jumps ?

By going back to Bohr's stationary orbits of electrons, The idea of quantum jumps was born.

We can hypothesize that matter such as electrons are 4D objects and photons are 3D objects and the continuous space between orbits is a 2D continuum. So what happens when one electron jumps from one orbits to another orbit is that the 4D electron transforms to 3D energy and the 3D energy transforms to a 2D continuum then 2D continuum back to 3D energy and then back to a 4D electron at a lower or higher orbit whichever the case in question. And transformation of 2D continuous space (S) is given by:

[tex] S = cE [/tex]

where c is the speed of light in vacuum and it acts as dimension lowering constant for energy (E).

And by dimensional analysis, the 2D continuous space is proportional to an arbitrary surface area with the proportionality constant as force per unit of time. Futhermore force per unit time is proportional to the time derivative of acceleration with mass as the constant of proportionality.

[tex] \frac {Force}{time} = m \frac {\partial a}{\partial t}[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If the surface area changes with time then the gradient of continuous space is given by

[tex] \nabla S = m \frac {\partial \vec{a}}{\partial t} \frac{\partial Area}{\partial t}[/tex]

Futhermore for volume as a function of time, V(t) and given density [itex] \rho [/itex], the gradient of continuous space is given by

[tex] \nabla S = \frac {c^4 \rho_T}{\vec{r}} V(t) [/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #3
If we can define the ratio of instantaneous density to total density of the universe as a function of time given by

[tex]\frac{1}{\rho_T} \int_{0}^{\infty} \rho_i (t) dt = 1 [/tex]

then the instantaneous density is the sum of kinetic density and potential density given by

[tex] \rho_i = \rho_k + \rho_p [/tex]

If the total mass of the universe is the sum of total potential mass and total kinetic mass

[tex] m_T = m_k + m_p [/tex]

then instantaneous kinetic and potential volumes can be related to the total volume given by

[tex] \frac{m_T}{m_p} - \frac{V_k}{V_p} \left ( \frac{V_T - V_p}{V_k - V_T} \right ) = 1 [/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #4
[tex] \frac{m_T}{m_p} \geq 1 [/tex]

and

[tex] \frac{V_k}{V_p} \left ( \frac{V_T - V_p}{V_k - V_T} \right ) < 1 [/tex]

if

[tex] \frac{m_T}{m_p} = 1 [/tex]

then

[tex] \frac{V_k}{V_p} \left ( \frac{V_T - V_p}{V_k - V_T} \right ) = 0 [/tex]
 
  • #5
[itex]V_k [/itex] is the same as the instantaneous volume of radiation. [itex] V_p [/itex] is the instantaneous volume of matter. [itex] V_T [/itex] is the total volume of the universe at each epoch.
 
  • #6
The gradient of continuous space becomes a function of instantaneous density and volume.

[tex]\nabla S = \frac{c^4}{\vec{r}} \int_{0}^{\infty} \rho_i (t) V(t) dt [/tex]

From this, an integral force exist.

[tex] F = \frac{c^3}{\vec{r} \times \vec{r}} \int_{0}^{\infty} \rho_i (t) V(t) dt [/tex]
 
  • #7
This force is infinitely large because the term [itex] \vec{r} \times \vec{r} = 0 [/itex]. But if the r's are orthogonal and comparable to Planck length then the force is just simply large. If orthogonal r's is very large then the force is small.
 
  • #8
Orthogonality seems to be a necessary condition for the force to exist. This implies that orthogonal forces must exist and the extremely high magnitude of this force must be able to quantize spacetime at the local infinitesimal region of a spacetime continuum.
 
  • #9
For low velocity and small mass and together with the invariance, [itex] \vec{a} \cdot \vec{r} = c^2 [/itex], this force becomes Newton's 2nd law of motion.
 
  • #10
In post #7, the r's can become large only if the individual r's can be added collinearly together.

[tex] \vec{r} = \int_{0}^{\infty} \vec{r}_i [/tex]
 
  • #11
Collinearity implies that [itex] \vec{r} = \alpha \vec{r}_i[/itex] where [itex] \alpha[/itex] is an integer.
 
  • #12
When the linear momentum is zero and when both density and volume are functions of energy and time, the square of mass is given by

[tex] m^2 = \int \int \frac{\partial \rho^2}{\partial t} \frac{\partial V^2}{\partial t} dt dt [/tex]
 
  • #13
Furthermore, the square of mass is a new constant of nature given by

[tex] m^2 = \left( \frac{h}{ac} \right)^2 [/tex]

where h is Planck's constant, a is Planck length and c is the speed of light.
 
  • #14
Implication is the existence of real positive and negative root for mass given by

[tex] \pm \frac{h}{ac} [/tex]

without the use of complex number.
 
  • #15
The use of these roots is to constraint the value of

[tex] \frac {V_k}{V_p} \left( \frac{V_T - V_p}{V_k - V_T} \right) [/tex]

or

[tex] \frac {V_k}{V_p} \left( \frac{V_p - V_T}{V_T - V_k} \right) [/tex]

so that the expressions are always less than unity.
 
  • #16
Why is the quantum of mass using [itex] \pm \frac{h}{ac}[/itex] numerically equal to the Planck mass using [itex] \sqrt{\frac{hc}{G}}[/itex]?

If Planck's constant was determined first together with the speed of light and knowing the value of the Planck length, the value of the gravitational constant can be found by

[tex] G = \frac{a^2 c^3}{h}[/tex]
 
  • #17
In a planetary system where one of the earthlike planets is in a perpetual cloud cover, the inhabitants will never be able to have the opportunity of seeing the starry night sky. In this planet, there could be no Galileo nor Kepler and then nor Newton before Maxwell's and Planck's discoveries. Yet the scientists of this planet can derive the laws of electromagnetism and also quantum mechanics first and then discover the law of universal gravitation afterward.

Although Einstein's theories of relativity can clinch the final constancy of the speed of light, these are not necessary for the first order determination of the gravitational constant.
 
Last edited:
  • #18
Quite clever example of different paradigms and how they will guide our quests in different ways, but I was wondering if you did choose those examples to be discovered first(Maxwell equations without the displacement current concept and Plank's discoveries) because in the last analysis they have to do with more fundamental laws of nature than those of gravitation?

Regards

EP
Antonio Lao said:
In a planetary system where one of the earthlike planets is in a perpetual cloud cover, the inhabitants will never be able to have the opportunity of seeing the starry night sky. In this planet, there could be no Galileo nor Kepler and then nor Newton before Maxwell's and Planck's discoveries. Yet the scientists of this planet can derive the laws of electromagnetism and also quantum mechanics first and then discover the law of universal gravitation afterward.

Although Einstein's theories of relativity can clinch the final constancy of the speed of light, these are not necessary for the first order determination of the gravitational constant.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Epsilon Pi,

Will respond to your reply at the earliest possible time.
 
  • #20
Epsilon Pi said:
but I was wondering if you did choose those examples to be discovered first

I think all physical constants which are independent on other constants should appear in physical laws that are not depended on the sequential order of their discovery. For example, Planck's constant is depended on Boltzmann's constant therefore Boltzmann's constant must necessarily come first. Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and quantum theory are in sequential order. One must follow the other since the later one uses some constants found in the earlier theory.
 
  • #21
Unresolve relationships between mass, volume and density for some particles

Planck mass=10e(-5) gram, volume=10e(-99) cm^3, density=10e(+94) g/cm^3
proton mass=10e(-24) gram, volume=10e(-39) cm^3, density=10e(+15) g/cm^3
electron mass=10e(-28) gram, volume=10e(-39) cm^3, density=10e(+11) g/cm^3
photon mass=0 gram (?), volume= ?, density= ?
 
  • #22
Epsilon Pi said:
different paradigms

I am now reading Thomas S. Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' to get some ideas about paradigm shift.
 
  • #23
A TOE a futile intent?

By reading and reading T.S.K, I was wondering if the quest for a TOE, is not a futile one after all?
In this respect he wrote, in his classical, when arguing against Popper's falsification argument:
"...no theory ever solves all the puzzles with which it is confronted at a given time; nor are the solutions already achieved often perfect. On the contrary, it is just the incompleteness and imperfection of the existing data-theory fit that, at any given time, define many of all the puzzles that characterize normal science. IF ANY AND EVEN EVERY FAILURE TO FIT WERE GROUND FOR THEORY REJECTION, ALL THEORIES OUGHT TO BE REJECTED AT ALL TIMES".(The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, p.146)

Must not we resolve then first the incommensurability problem we have between the existing paradigms, QM and GTR, before going with any intent? or at least making a great effort in this sense?

Just some inquisitive thoughts in my mind

Regards

EP

Antonio Lao said:
I am now reading Thomas S. Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' to get some ideas about paradigm shift.
 
  • #24
Epsilon Pi said:
By reading and reading T.S.K, I was wondering if the quest for a TOE, is not a futile one after all?

If the derivation of a constant of a theory is independent from constants of other theories and furthermore if the theory can describe all other theories with consistency then this theory can be a TOE.

The theory of electromagnetism is the relative TOE to the theory of magnetism and the theory of electricity.

The theory of electroweak interaction is the relative TOE to the theory of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force.

Although relative TOEs do exist, it is the belief that an absolute TOE can also exist. But as pointed out previously, the gravitational constant can be derived from knowing the speed of light and Planck's constant and maybe guessing by trials and errors the value of the Planck length (needed for determining some quantity of volume) which will require some sort of uncertainty principle (if the mass is quantized) between the concept of density and volume.

My hunch is that the resolution can simply be done in one dimensional space or the quantization of 1D space and 1D time.

The theory of quantized 1D spacetime can resolve the theory of mass by the combined theories of density and volume. This theory implies the existence of two kinds of mass: the potential and the kinetic. It can also clarify the concept of electroweak charges and color charges by invoking a principle of a directional invariance.

So a theory that can describe both mass and charge using the physically revised concepts of density and volume can be called an absolute TOE.

A rough formulation of this uncertainty between density and volume at time=0 is given by

[tex]3^{-9} gram \leq \Delta \rho^2 \Delta V^2 \leq 4^{-9} gram[/tex]
 
  • #25
or

[tex] \left| \Delta \rho^2 \Delta V^2 \right| \leq \frac{1}{\pi^9}[/tex]
 
  • #26
If this is multiplied by square of time rate of change of area, the result is the square of energy.

and the Einstein's field equations can be made equivalent to square of energy by the product of a factor as the speed of light in vacuum.

[tex] c \left[ R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R \right] = - 8 \pi \frac{a^2 c^4}{h} T_{\mu \nu} [/tex]

In empty space at time=0, and considering vacuum fluctuation, the field equations become

[tex] cR_{\mu \nu} = \left(\psi_i \cdot \psi_j \right) \left(\phi_i \cdot \phi_j \right) \geq h^2 [/tex]
 
  • #27
Is it not a classical point of view, after all?

Hi Antonio and thank you very much!

An absolute TOE ? you really mean that? are you serious? in the same mansion of science?
Where is in your... -how would I say without trying to devaluate your great and noble intent- the duality of wave-particle, where is its rationalization?
It seems to me that the uncertainty principle is the one principle that identify in most cases QM, but where is in that description the duality of wave-particle, of space and time, ect?
Are you not seing things just a from classical point of view, or paradigm, just as those classical concepts such as mass and charge?

My best regards

EP

Antonio Lao said:
If this is multiplied by square of time rate of change of area, the result is the square of energy.

and the Einstein's field equations can be made equivalent to square of energy by the product of a factor as the speed of light in vacuum.

[tex] c \left[ R_{\mu \nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu \nu} R \right] = - 8 \pi \frac{a^2 c^4}{h} T_{\mu \nu} [/tex]

In empty space at time=0, and considering vacuum fluctuation, the field equations become

[tex] cR_{\mu \nu} = \left(\psi_i \cdot \psi_j \right) \left(\phi_i \cdot \phi_j \right) \geq h^2 [/tex]
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Epsilon Pi said:
Where is in your... -how would I say without trying to devaluate your great and noble intent- the duality of wave-particle, where is its rationalization?

[tex] \Delta \psi \Delta \phi \geq h [/tex]

is the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of wave-particle duality.
 
  • #29
But the expansion of [itex]cR_{\mu \nu} [/itex] give the following integral equations.
Let [itex]\zeta[/itex] be the product of Planck length and the speed of light c.

[tex] \left(m^2 - ma_m dt^2 \right) \left(n^2 - na_n dt^2 \right) \int \int a_m a_n dt dt \geq \zeta^2 [/tex]
[tex] \left(m^2 - ma_m dt^2 \right) \left(l^2 - la_l dt^2 \right) \int \int a_m a_l dt dt \geq \zeta^2 [/tex]
[tex] \left(n^2 - na_n dt^2 \right) \left(l^2 - la_l dt^2 \right) \int \int a_n a_l dt dt \geq \zeta^2 [/tex]

m, n, l are the quantum number of spacetime metrics.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
no, that principle does not describe the wave-particle duality; according to what I have learned it was the Schrodinger wave equation -the fundamental and complementary equation- the one that described so well the wave nature of matter-energy, i.e., of physical reality.
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.
That reality is after all always paradigm-determined, isn't it?

Best regards

EP
Antonio Lao said:
[tex] \Delta \psi \Delta \phi \geq h [/tex]

is the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of wave-particle duality.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
The [itex]a_i [/itex] where i=m, n, and l are the infinitesimal accelerations due to orthogonal forces.
 
  • #32
see my point before, please.

Regards
EP
Antonio Lao said:
The [itex]a_i [/itex] where i=m, n, and l are the infinitesimal accelerations due to orthogonal forces.
 
  • #33
Epsilon Pi said:
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.
 
  • #34
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.

[tex] \frac{dA}{dt} = ac [/tex]

Where A is area, a is Planck length and c is the speed of light.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
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


Antonio Lao said:
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.
 
<h2>1. Can quantum jumps and dimension jumps be considered the same thing?</h2><p>No, quantum jumps and dimension jumps are not the same thing. Quantum jumps refer to the sudden change in the state of a quantum system, while dimension jumps refer to the hypothetical idea of moving between different dimensions or parallel universes.</p><h2>2. Are quantum jumps and dimension jumps supported by scientific evidence?</h2><p>Quantum jumps are supported by experimental evidence in the field of quantum mechanics. However, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of dimension jumps.</p><h2>3. Can humans make quantum jumps or dimension jumps?</h2><p>There is no scientific evidence to suggest that humans are capable of making quantum jumps or dimension jumps. These concepts are still theoretical and have not been proven to occur in reality.</p><h2>4. Are quantum jumps and dimension jumps related to time travel?</h2><p>Quantum jumps and dimension jumps are not related to time travel. While time travel is a popular topic in science fiction, it is not supported by scientific evidence and is currently considered impossible according to our current understanding of physics.</p><h2>5. Can quantum jumps or dimension jumps be used for practical purposes?</h2><p>Quantum jumps have been observed in experiments and have practical applications in fields such as computing and cryptography. However, dimension jumps are purely theoretical and have no known practical applications.</p>

1. Can quantum jumps and dimension jumps be considered the same thing?

No, quantum jumps and dimension jumps are not the same thing. Quantum jumps refer to the sudden change in the state of a quantum system, while dimension jumps refer to the hypothetical idea of moving between different dimensions or parallel universes.

2. Are quantum jumps and dimension jumps supported by scientific evidence?

Quantum jumps are supported by experimental evidence in the field of quantum mechanics. However, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of dimension jumps.

3. Can humans make quantum jumps or dimension jumps?

There is no scientific evidence to suggest that humans are capable of making quantum jumps or dimension jumps. These concepts are still theoretical and have not been proven to occur in reality.

4. Are quantum jumps and dimension jumps related to time travel?

Quantum jumps and dimension jumps are not related to time travel. While time travel is a popular topic in science fiction, it is not supported by scientific evidence and is currently considered impossible according to our current understanding of physics.

5. Can quantum jumps or dimension jumps be used for practical purposes?

Quantum jumps have been observed in experiments and have practical applications in fields such as computing and cryptography. However, dimension jumps are purely theoretical and have no known practical applications.

Similar threads

  • Other Physics Topics
2
Replies
56
Views
4K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
0
Views
881
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
854
Replies
3
Views
945
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
680
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top