Phase space geometry for a deterministic quantum mechanics

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on constructing a phase space where each point is the center of a circle defined by Planck's constant, suggesting a novel approach to quantum mechanics. It proposes that this configuration allows for an inversion of conventional phase space, potentially doubling its effective dimensionality and enabling a one-to-one correspondence between quantum states and measurements. The concept of mirror symmetry is introduced, positing that it can compactify the macroscopic phase space while linking quantum and classical dynamics. Participants express confusion regarding the mathematical underpinnings and the deterministic nature of quantum mechanics, questioning the feasibility of the proposed model. Overall, the thread explores the intersection of quantum theory and classical physics through innovative phase space geometry.
Loren Booda
Messages
3,108
Reaction score
4
Construct a phase space where every point is center to a circle of radius h, Planck's constant. Particular to such a given point, outside its radius lies conventional phase space and inside, conventional phase space inverted through h - together potentially doubling the effective dimensionality. Their mirror symmetry enables quantum measurement to compactify microscopically the entire range of macroscopic phase space.

Quantum mechanics is thus determinable, manifesting as a one-to-one correspondence between a global phase point and its twin, accessible locally by measurement. Concealed within the quantum scale resides the correlate to uncertainty, reciprocal through h: classical dynamics. Inverted phase space and its corresponding wavefunction that predicts a spectrum of virtual particles are direct consequences of the conventional quantum wavefunction, de Broglie's and Einstein's postulates, and the linearity of Schroedinger's equation (http://www.quantumdream.net). The dual wavefunctions interfere to generate familiar particles and complete the phase space landscape with the extra information needed to coincide quantum with classical causality.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mmm... I don't really understand much of this stuff, but it sounds really interesting!
 
Wow sounds pretty deep !.

"Construct a phase space where every point is center to a circle of radius h, Planck's constant."

Isn't Planck's constant a measure of E and not of space? Perhaps you meant Planck length ?

"Particular to such a given point, outside its radius lies conventional phase space and inside, conventional phase space inverted through h - together potentially doubling the effective dimensionality."

Hmm do you have the maths to explain this better? Doubling the dimensions in relation to...? How does it double?

"Their mirror symmetry enables quantum measurement to compactify microscopically the entire range of macroscopic phase space.

How so ? I've always been taught that QM doesn't lend itself to principles that determine interaction at larger then at the molecular level ( with exceptions -QED)..eh damn American education system.

"Quantum mechanics is thus determinable....."

I'm sorry but QM is anything but deterministic. Perhaps I have misunderstood your post . Sorry if I'm a dullard but if you could walk us through the finer points of your proposal I'm sure we'd all appreciate it .
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top