Does Energy Determine the Spread of Matter in Space?

[neomahakala108]

is it true that 'Spread of Energy in Space' determines 'Spread of Matter in Space', at given point in time?

i am undergraduate computer scientist of University of Warsaw, MIM (programmer, but also a little of theoretist, hacker & mathematician) with about 5-year Java Programming Professional Experience & more.

trying to learn quantum physics, for Quantum Computers mostly.

perhaps will prepare properly software that can model how energy spread in space determines spread of matter in space, probabilisticly or not.

with time i'll focus on Mathematics, full 5-year College Course, if i can.

edit: provided link to University.

 

[bhobba]

is it true that 'Spread of Energy in Space' determines 'Spread of Matter in Space', at given point in time?

Not sure what you mean by this.

But matter is a form of energy so obviously the above is trivially true - but I suspect I may not be interpreting what you had in mind as was intended.

For the real essence of QM see the following:
http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html

Thanks
Bill

 

[neomahakala108]

Not sure what you mean by this.

But matter is a form of energy so obviously the above is trivially true - but I suspect I may not be interpreting what you had in mind as was intended.

thanks for trying.

Spread of Energy in Space, is placement of Energy Particles in Space.
Spread of Mass in Space, is placement of Matter Particles in Space.

i am aware of Probabilistic Nature of Quantum Thinking.

Determines means: implies, in non-random way.

But i didn't mean to exclude probabilistic placements.

 

[bhobba]

Spread of Energy in Space, is placement of Energy Particles in Space.

Energy particles?

Thanks
Bill

 

[neomahakala108]

Energy particles?

such as photons or matter particles.

--

As for original question:

"is it true that 'Spread of Energy in Space' determines 'Spread of Matter in Space', at given point in time?"

as i imagine, but i am just a stupid beginner, it's wavefunction transformation to wavefunction.

as i imagine wavefunction, it can be discrete, probabilistic function of proper (high enough) density. at a given point we have probability of finding a certain number of particles with given Physical Properties.

so conclusion is that wavefunction that includes nonmatter is just sum (disjunction) of matter-only wavefunction with rest of wavefunction.

but i do not know if it's oversimplification, if this makes sense at all - for i lack depth of understanding Physics.

 

[bhobba]

such as photons or matter particles.

Matter particles are matter. Photons are indeed energy - but electromagnetic energy. Matter is a form of energy from Einstein's famous relation E=Mc^2. Note - and this is very important - it says matter is a form of energy - not energy is a form of mass - which actually doesn't make any sense.

so conclusion is that wavefunction that includes nonmatter is just sum (disjunction) of matter-only wavefunction with rest of wavefunction.

You need to move back a bit.

A wavefunction is just one way of expressing a state.

A state, from the formalism, is, similar to probabilities in that it allows us to calculate long term probabilities. It's not real - it just helps us in calculations.

From that perspective your statement makes no sense.

Indeed it makes no difference whether what you are observing is matter or another form of energy like photons which is EM Energy.

Again - matter (eg electrons, quarks etc) is a form of energy. Electromagnetic radiation (ie photons) is a form of energy. But they are not the same kinds of energy. They can be transformed from one to another - but are different.

Thanks
Bill

 

[neomahakala108]

Matter particles are matter. Photons are indeed energy - but electromagnetic energy. Matter is a form of energy from Einstein's famous relation E=Mc^2. Note - and this is very important - it says matter is a form of energy - not energy is a form of mass - which actually doesn't make any sense.



You need to move back a bit.

A wavefunction is just one way of expressing a state.

A state, from the formalism, is, similar to probabilities in that it allows us to calculate long term probabilities. It's not real - it just helps us in calculations.

From that perspective your statement makes no sense.

Indeed it makes no difference whether what you are observing is matter or another form of energy like photons which is EM Energy.

Again - matter (eg electrons, quarks etc) is a form of energy. Electromagnetic radiation (ie photons) is a form of energy. But they are not the same kinds of energy. They can be transformed from one to another - but are different.

Thanks
Bill

thanks again.

from abstract thinking viewpoint if matter is form of energy, it's energy in that form.

but this does NOT imply that if something is energy, then it is matter - it can be energy in different form.

 

[bhobba]

from abstract thinking viewpoint if matter is form of energy, it's energy in that form. but this does NOT imply that if something is energy, then it is matter - it can be energy in different form.

Yes.

Understanding subtleties is often important.

Thanks
Bill

 

[neomahakala108]

A wavefunction is just one way of expressing a state.

A state, from the formalism, is, similar to probabilities in that it allows us to calculate long term probabilities. It's not real - it just helps us in calculations.

is probabilistic nature of the state caused by observation interference?

--

why i need this information?

to prepare software for Modelling & Analysis of Particle Interactions on Quantum Level (not just yet, first i'll learn).

Perhaps Physical System on Quantum Level can be modeled as Objects in Space, that when observed give probabilistic results, either Summaries with Probabilities, or a random Values from their Random Event Spaces.

Statistics then can be used.

full article:

http://dragonfly-algorithm.blogspot.com/2014/07/energy-interactions.html

 

[bhobba]

is probabilistic nature of the state caused by observation interference?

Its inherent in its very nature.

Axiomatically it is a result of the mapping of the outcomes of observations to POVM's. See post 137:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=763139&page=8

to prepare software for Modelling & Analysis of Particle Interactions on Quantum Level (not just yet, first i'll learn).

If that is what you want to do you need to study a book on advanced QM like Ballentine:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/9810241054/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Get a copy and post here with any questions.

You will not learn about QM in enough detail to accomplish that task by posting about foundational issues on this forum.

Thanks
Bill

 

[neomahakala108]

thanks Bill.

added the book to wish list on Amazon.

for now i read 'Quantum Physics' by Alastair I.M. Rae (beginners guide).