What if the H constant was larger?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Varon
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Constant
Varon
Messages
547
Reaction score
1
If H constant were larger, how would macroscopic object behave? Can we see any superposition or feel it for example interfering with yourself when you are skiing and there is a tree in front of you? Pls. enumerate the possible behavior or effects of macroscopic objects if H were larger. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By H you mean the Hubble constant? Or you mean Planck's constant (usually little h)?
 
Matterwave said:
By H you mean the Hubble constant? Or you mean Planck's constant (usually little h)?

Planck constant... so it's small letter h. But when used in a message title.. it changed to capital H.
 
Varon said:
If H constant were larger, how would macroscopic object behave? Can we see any superposition or feel it for example interfering with yourself when you are skiing and there is a tree in front of you? Pls. enumerate the possible behavior or effects of macroscopic objects if H were larger. Thanks.

In my opinion

you would either hit the tree or pass by the left or the right of it,

However...

your wave would split in two and effect your trajectory...in such a way to form a crude/vague interference pattern...if there were a screen (say a cotton filled large mattress(es)) farther down the tree

this happens even in today's universe, the effect is so minor that we cannot even measure it.
 
The Planck constant has no physical meaning at all. Changing its value is equivalent to changing measurement units. So if it was "larger", it would mean that you are using smaller distance/time unit or smaller energy/momentum unit. So, basically, you are watching smaller objects. Your definition of "macroscopic" embraces smaller things.

For smaller objects, the wavelength of matter waves is bigger compared to your observation scale, so quantum effects are stronger. That's it.
 
Most fundamental physics is done in fundamental units, where c and h are taken to be 1 (actually h-bar is taken to be 1). Thus, nothing would change. It would only be in the fantastical situation where we could actually COMPARE two universes where we would notice the difference. The "smallness" of h in our everyday units of energy isn't an artifact of our universe having a small h. It's due to the fact that a system must be so large and so removed from quantum effects in order for intelligent life to occur. This is the case for us at least, I don't think one could say this NEEDS to happen.
 
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...
Back
Top