1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Phase duality: Quantum mechanics inside-out

  1. Feb 9, 2004 #1
    My first article at http://www.quantumdream.net seeks to extend the quantum wavefunction to unexplored symmetric solutions. These obey the postulates of conventional quantum mechanics, but yield eigenvalues reciprocal to those accustomed.

    To construct the inverse from the traditional wavefunction, interchange Planck's constants with co-occurring variable actions. The unprecedented phase space states that derive reflect standard states through h.

    Please see my article for the full significance of wavefunction phase duality.
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 14, 2004 #2
    I welcome your objectivity.
  4. Feb 14, 2004 #3
    Hi Loren Booda,

    First I want to say that you have a soul of an artist, which is a great gift and I wish you will find your way to fulfill it.

    Theory and experiments results are both depended on our understanding.

    And better understanding leading to better experiments that are based on more developed theoretical tools and vice versa.

    I think that Math language is far behind the insights that where discovered by modern physics in the last 80 years and it is about time to close this gap and change some fundamental paradigms of Math language.

    Please look at my website, and I'll be glad to get your remarks and insights:



    Last edited: Feb 14, 2004
  5. Feb 14, 2004 #4

    At brief glance, your "Theory Development" begs observance of conventional mathematics before an attempt to delve in the abstract. Its definitions seem to embrace more arbitrary statements than mathematical meaning. Your assertions there appear to me either so general or so extraneous as to be mostly insubstantial.

    Your "Goal" is better, though its .pdf jungle is very inconveniant, and hinders me from further understanding. I refer you to study Niels Bohr's complementary principle before you pursue your Goal further.

    Remember, yours is like my site was many years ago. I hate getting criticism for my ideas, but I recognize that it is a necessary process of the scientific method.

    I had intended this thread to discuss specifically the first article of my website.
  6. Feb 15, 2004 #5
    Then you missed the point of my work, which first of all says that there is no one and only one method to develop Math language, because any theory is nothing but a model of some explained thing and defenetly not the thing itself.

    My work is the result of almost 30 years of observation on pure and applied Math language, and this observation deeply changing Set's and Number's concepts.

    For example, please read:


    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/P0is1.pdf (and its links)

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AHA.pdf (and its links)

    For better understenting.
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2004
  7. Feb 15, 2004 #6

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    But you repeatedly demonstrate that you do not understand that which you seek to diminish. The concept of sets and numbers are well understood, if you claim otherwise, and that they do not satisfy your new rules, then you are defining something new that is in addition to what went before. It is up to you to demonstrate that this new structure is something worth studying mathematically, and until such time as you provide concrete definitions and deductions rather than assumptions about what ought to be morally true you won't convince many people.

    In order to break the rules, first you must know what they are.

    Perhaps this is just because your statements are nebulous and, using a fairly common phrase in England, touchy-feely, that is they are not concrete, but somewaht fuzzy, a perjorative term for what the social sciences often claim is solid mathematics (IQ scores and so on). That's not a perfect definition but it adequately expresses the spirit of it. Which is rather like your statements - they only express some vague idea.
  8. Feb 15, 2004 #7
    Vagueness can be reduced only by team work.

    What I start here it is too big for one person, and it can
    be (in this stage) no more then a trigger for a new research.

    A lot of work by a lot of interested people still has to be done.

    It is going to be a very hard time in the beginning for the people
    who will work to develop these ideas, because any paradigm's change
    is not welcome by any community, but it is ok because any paradigm's change is like a mutation (not an addition) of the current paradigm, and it must clearly show that it is better than the current paradigm.

    Meanwhile I am alone it this journey but I am sure that it is a temporary situation, because simplicity and symmetry are my friends in this journey.

    Again, please read:


    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/P0is1.pdf (and its links)

    http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/AHA.pdf (and its links)

    For better understenting.

    I am not going to write more about my work here, because this is Loren Booda's thread.
    Last edited: Feb 15, 2004
  9. Mar 7, 2004 #8
    Let's get back on track. Can any of you contribute constructive criticism regarding the above dissertation?
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 20, 2017
  10. Mar 8, 2004 #9


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor


    I am impressed that you ask for constructive criticism of your ideas. I don't doubt that there are experts here who can read your website and pass some constructive criticism along to you.

    I looked at your cubic equation slope derivation enough to satisfy myself that it is probably correct. (I didn't fine-tooth-comb it enough to be certain, but the steps you took looked plausible.) I find it impressive that you knew differential calculus well enough at age 16 to do that.

    I am no expert (on anything), but I will make a few comments on the fine structure constant part of your website. You say that it is "the relative strength of the electromagnetic vs the strong force." I suppose that it is fair to say that, to the extent that the coupling constant for strong nuclear interactions between nucleons by pions is approximately equal to one. But it seems like your statement that I have quoted is a little misleading, in that alpha is a dimensionless number that could be calculated from quantum electrodynamics alone, without any reference whatsoever to the quantum theory of the strong nuclear force. If the latter had been found to have a coupling constant for nucleon strong interactions of, say, 0.1, (as, a priori, it could have) you probably would not claim that it is "the relative strength of the electromagnetic vs the strong force." No huge deal, just nitpicking a little.

    But from a modern point of view, the strong interactions between nucleons are considered to be a complicated, downright messy phenomenon, involving baryons and mesons which are themselves composites of more elementary particles. The quark interactions mediated by gluons are considered more fundamental. I am not sure what the dimensionless coupling constant is for quark-quark chromodynamic interactions, but I would guess it may well not be all that close to 1.

    Aside from all considerations of strong or chromodynamic forces, isn't the modern viewpoint that the coupling constant in quantum electrodynamics is an "effective" or "running" constant, in the sense that it has a value that depends on details of the measurement? In particular, the value of it that you quote on your website pertains to an elementary electric charge that is screened by vacuum polarization and seen from an infinite distance. The coupling "constant" goes up in value when measured at ever smaller distances where screening is incomplete, right? So in view of that, can you realistically expect that alpha is really all that fundamental of a number, and that it has ties to the size of the universe? (I am not trying to say that it couldn't, I am just questioning what motivates you to believe that it does.)
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2004
  11. Mar 8, 2004 #10

    I'm happy to have your contribution. I shall mull over the particular significance of the fine-structure ratio between e2/r2 (the force of the electronic charge) and - especially - hc/r2 (the "force" of uncertainty). Anyone care to speculate on the meaning of this "force"?

    Note: I wonder if the fine-structure constant should otherwise, for strong force calculations, incorporate charges of magnitude e/3 and 2e/3, regarding quarks.
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2004
  12. Mar 8, 2004 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I would think that when considering the electrodynamic behavior of quarks one should use e/3 and 2e/3, but some other entirely different color coupling "constant" when considering the chromodynamic behavior of quarks. And I would think this other constant would be a running constant as well, which is to say it would be sensitive to distance from a color charge such as a quark or a gluon.

    Can you educate me a bit on asymptotic freedom? Is it correct to say that the coupling "constant" for chromodynamics gets smaller as the distance gets smaller?
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2004
  13. Mar 8, 2004 #12
    I assume that other than allowing "asymptotic freedom" on the comparatively small scale of a "free" quark, the strong coupling "constant" is otherwise unchanging and unitary due to quark confinement over extended distances.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook