- #36
Antonio Lao
- 1,440
- 1
The uncertainty is between change in area and change in frequency of a wave.
[tex] \Delta A \Delta f \geq ac [/tex]
[tex] \Delta A \Delta f \geq ac [/tex]
Antonio Lao said:The uncertainty is between change in area and change in frequency of a wave.
[tex] \Delta A \Delta f \geq ac [/tex]
Antonio Lao said:Schroedinger's equation is non-relativistic. Dirac's equation is relativistic. The transition is the energy formulation from
[tex] E =\frac{p^2}{2m} [/tex]
to
[tex] E^2 = c^2 p^2 + m^2 c^4 [/tex]
I derived the the square of mass by assuming that linear momentum is zero.
Epsilon Pi said: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
Antonio Lao said:Actually, it is the absolute value of the uncertainty because a negative part also exists as well.
Epsilon Pi said:How can you talk about an ABSOLUTE value of UNCERTAINTY? Is not this a great contradiction?
Epsilon Pi said:I really thought Schrodinger's wave equation was an equation that described the behavior of an entity such as the electron
Antonio Lao said:A clearer inequality formulation for the uncertainty in the quantum of mass is
[tex] -\Delta mass \leq -\frac{h}{l_p c} \leq 0 \leq +\frac{h}{l_p c} \leq +\Delta mass [/itex]
where h is Planck's constant, [itex]l_p[/itex] is Planck length, and c is light speed.
Epsilon Pi said: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
Antonio Lao said: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.
[tex] \frac{1}{d_{max}} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} d_i = 1 [/tex]
Epsilon Pi said:in this wrong conception of time it can flow in both directions
Antonio Lao said:You might have just rescued me from falling into the trap of further futile analysis in the quantification of the double time integrals
[tex] \int_{0}^{-\infty} \int_{+\infty}^{0} E(t) E^{*}(t) dt dt [/tex]