Explaining Quantum Theory Math

In summary: Take a look for yourself.In summary, the author is talking about how zero point energy and vacuum energy are both possible, but we don't know much about them yet. He thinks that anybody can say anything and it may be right, and it's nearly impossible to prove them wrong.
  • #1
wolram
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
4,446
558
i have found this link, the other one returned to german for some reason, http://quantumtheory.de/en.html
i can't follow the math so can somone explain please ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
When you see something that begins like this:

"By assigning the elementary Planck units to the units of Newton’s Gravitational Constant (G), it resulted in G being a function of vacuum (zero point) energy (ZPE)"

you can pretty much just go ahead and say "crackpot" and close the window.

- Warren
 
  • #3
i canot understand why someone would spend their time trying to fool
us plebs, is all this stuff on the net about obtaining energy from
ZPE nonsence? on the surface it looks convincing, i found myself going round in circles reading and re reading the content, intuitivly
it didnt make sense but i lack the experience to dismiss it out of hand, is there a way an educated person can "BOOKMARK" these pages
as crackpot and list them on a web site?
 
  • #4
Originally posted by wolram
is all this stuff on the net about obtaining energy from
ZPE nonsence?

Not necessarily all, but there are a lot of them. NASA thinks that zero point energy and vacuum energy are worth investigation, at least. These ideas are part of their long-term research concepts in http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/advanced_propulsion_020522-1.html

I think the problem is that these phenomena are theorized to exist, but porrly understood. So we know they may exist, but we know little else about them. This means that anyone can say almost anything and they might be right. It's nearly imposible to prove them wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
Sakharov of the Russian Academy was the first to propose that ZPE in a vacuum and gravity are one and the same entity in 1976. His work was not published in the west until 1983 when a USA physicist was about to publish a similar paper. Eventually they agreed to a joint publication in Physics Review under both names.
Look at Newton's concept of corpuscular gravity and you will see that it has a zero point at its centre so Newton was actually way ahead of the field although he failed to realize the significance of the zero point.
Now add a line to Newton's graph and you have the so-called anti-gravity. It is then only necessary to realize that the 'anti-gravity' force is created by the adjacent gravitons, to realse that there is no such reality as 'anti-gravity' but, only Newton's corpuscular gravitons (i.e. vacuum fields) acting in opposition to each other. That is to say that gravity is its own anti-force.
 
  • #6
anti-gravity is levity

Originally posted by elas
Sakharov of the Russian Academy was the first to propose that ZPE in a vacuum and gravity are one and the same entity in 1976. His work was not published in the west until 1983 when a USA physicist was about to publish a similar paper. Eventually they agreed to a joint publication in Physics Review under both names.
Look at Newton's concept of corpuscular gravity and you will see that it has a zero point at its centre so Newton was actually way ahead of the field although he failed to realize the significance of the zero point.
Now add a line to Newton's graph and you have the so-called anti-gravity. It is then only necessary to realize that the 'anti-gravity' force is created by the adjacent gravitons, to realse that there is no such reality as 'anti-gravity' but, only Newton's corpuscular gravitons (i.e. vacuum fields) acting in opposition to each other. That is to say that gravity is its own anti-force.

For no particularly good reason, some of us took Latin in high school. Gravis means heavy and the opposite of gravis is levis.

Anti-gravity is levity.

It was very good of Newton to have a concept of, as you say, "corpuscular gravitons". It would undoubtably delight some of us if you could provide a web-link to a drawing showing, as you say, "Newton's graph" and his corpuscules. Perhaps Newton even made such a drawing? I, for one, would relish seeing it.
 
  • #7
Newton is on record as saying "...perhaps the universe is corpuscular in nature". Almost any elementary textbook on gravity will contain Newton's graph for a gravity field without a central body.
 

1. What is quantum theory math?

Quantum theory math is a mathematical framework used to describe and understand the behavior of particles at the quantum level. It combines principles from quantum mechanics, which explains the behavior of particles at a subatomic level, with mathematical concepts such as linear algebra and differential equations.

2. Why is quantum theory math important?

Quantum theory math is important because it allows us to make accurate predictions and calculations about the behavior of particles at the quantum level. It also provides a deeper understanding of the fundamental nature of matter and energy.

3. How does quantum theory math differ from classical math?

Quantum theory math differs from classical math in that it takes into account the probabilistic nature of particles at the quantum level. This means that instead of predicting exact outcomes, quantum theory math gives probabilities for different outcomes to occur.

4. What are some key concepts in quantum theory math?

Some key concepts in quantum theory math include wave-particle duality, superposition, and entanglement. These concepts help to explain phenomena such as the double-slit experiment and quantum teleportation.

5. Is quantum theory math difficult to understand?

Quantum theory math can be difficult to understand due to its abstract nature and the fact that it involves complex mathematical concepts. However, with patience and effort, it is possible to develop a basic understanding of the principles and equations used in quantum theory math.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
6
Views
507
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
7
Replies
232
Views
16K
Replies
2
Views
621
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
11
Views
936
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
5
Views
1K
Back
Top