0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
IF it did become clear that the quantum world is subject to 'differently oriented' time structure/s, logical process denotes that this avenue of investigation through time dilation considerations could 'perhaps' either lead to quantum being united with classical physics or quantum being united with gravity.
have a look at: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.14183!/file/photon.pdf
how can you deduce that the photon which exits a piece of glass is the same which entered?
Quote from: lightarrowhave a look at: http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.14183!/file/photon.pdfThanks for that link. Over the past week, I have read these 6 essays on “What is a Photon?”. I learnt quite a lot about the quantum nature of light, and where the boundary is drawn between classical and quantum representations of light.As I now understand it:Maxwell’s equations allow light to carry any energy at any frequency. However, quantum theory tells us that there is a minimum energy for light, E=hf. This minimum quantum of energy is called a photon.Maxwell’s equations work for high intensity light as it is propagating through space (or glass); in this case you can ignore the quantisation of energy.
Maxwell did not predict photons – but someone forgot to tell the photons. A photon still obeys Maxwell’s equations as it is propagating through space (or glass).
[/li][li]A photon is described by its energy, spin/polarization and momentum (where momentum is a vector, giving the photon’s direction).
[/li][li]There was an interesting discussion about why quantum descriptions of the photon don’t ascribe a definite position vs time to the photon (apparently, this is beyond the usual fuzziness described by Heisenberg?).
[/li][li]The characteristics of entangled photons or parametric down-conversion is not described by classical optics.[/li][li]Nor are photons which can take multiple paths through an optical bench.[/li][li]Clearly, quantum representation of light is a more complete description of light than classical optics. [/li][/list]Quotehow can you deduce that the photon which exits a piece of glass is the same which entered?This example does not involve entangled photons, mirror mazes, Lamb shifts or Bose-Einstein condensates, so I don't think we need the full power of a quantum representation to crack this particular nut (mainly Planck’s hypothesis which quantizes the energy of a light beam into a stream of photons). From classical optics, we can measure the polarization of a beam of photons striking a detector. In addition, using classical particle physics, we can determine the energy and position vs time of bunches of photons or individual photons (subject to diffraction limits and Heisenberg’s limits), allowing us to determine the path of a beam of photons on either side of the glass block.A photon exiting a sheet of glass has the same energy, spin and momentum as the one which entered*. In the quantum world, if these parameters are the same, it is the same photon.
This brings up the possibility that in the total absence of gravitation the photon would have no angular momentum.
If we move away from photons for a second and consider particles with rest mass we can propose something interesting. I will state straight away that a particle with rest mass, if it could travel at c,
cannot possibly have angular momentum. This is because the velocity of angular momentum would be summed to the straight line velocity giving an overall value > c.
But lightarrow, what if they could?What IF relativity has its place in describing motions relative to each other in relation to the observer but is inadequate when describing the universe. (There is evidence of this)
IF a particle 'can' travel faster than the speed of light,
a very massive body (black hole) jets very small bodies of mass (particles) into space - potentially at a rate faster than the light speed we experience on earth
possibility that the mathematics of quantum are operating minus an important factor - this being time dilation
True enough... However the stark, in your face facts remain that quantum, all these years later is not reconciled with gravity, relativity, all these years later does not 'fully' describe the universe, and Planck's h constant was derived before it was possible to 'measure' time and time dilation with such great accuracy... And LHC, despite its multitude of funding, hasn't really brought the situation much further along at-all considering...So...where do you go from there?Can you explain what the efforts made to integrate time dilation into quantum mechanics consisted of? Were they successful? And why is it that time dilation is thought to be relativistic? It's an actual phenomenon of the universe and does not need relativity to explain it...
Quote from: jeffreyH on 10/08/2015 22:49:21If we move away from photons for a second and consider particles with rest mass we can propose something interesting. I will state straight away that a particle with rest mass, if it could travel at c,But it can't, so every consequence of an incorrect assumption have to be incorrect.Quote cannot possibly have angular momentum. This is because the velocity of angular momentum would be summed to the straight line velocity giving an overall value > c.This is not true, velocities composition is not a mere sum, relativistically.--lightarrow
Can you give some concrete examples of where quantum falls short? I don't mean "it's not elegant" or "it doesn't make sense" or "disagrees with gravity or relativity." In which situations do they disagree? How much different are their predictions, and which one is right? (if "neither" you have to explain how the correct answer was determined).Then we focus our attention on those descrepancies.
We use imaginary and complex numbers as a way to determine eigenvalues. Those numbers don't exist
and yet they are used. We use the impossible to find the possible
so why not use the impossible with respect to the speed of light? If you take a spiral, it moves along a straight line path as well as an angular path. If we project each infinitesimal point from the spiral path onto the straight line path we can see that the path of the spiral is moving faster than the straight line path is indicating. It travels a greater distance. We need to add the difference to get the correct result.
Well lightarrow, to say so I'm going to reply to your post above even though it isn't directed at me, because that is something I can do, in the hope that Jeff is busy doing some mathematics, which I can't do.Your reasoning is coming over as slightly cockeyed. It is, as Jeff stated, perfectly normal to use imaginary numbers (and therefore imaginary concepts,
which are actually also mathematical in practice) to equate and then renormalise, whether dealing with quantum or classical physics. I believe it is actually the basis of Gauge theory. (although I do stand to be corrected, as I'm otherwise unfamiliar with Gauge theory.) The link below is quite interesting with regards to rest mass and the photon.http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.htmlIf Jeff is considering rest mass then he 'is' operating within the region of quantum, and your reasoning does not hold. If imaginary numbers can be used to determine the reality of the hidden quantum world, then logic derives that imaginary concepts may also be used in a similar fashion.
We can no more 'prove' that a particle of any kind can or cannot reach the speed of light in a reference frame of a greater gravity field than our own, than we can prove if a photon has mass or not.
Therefore, as with the photon, any concept can be 'experimented' with, so long as one keeps track and renormalises as appropriate. It may even turn out that to do so 'could' reveal some other hidden reality of our universe as indeed you have stated using imaginary numbers reveals the reality of quantum!
You say that velocities do not sum up, I don't pretend to understand 'exactly' where you are coming from with this - I'm sure I might not be the only one, could you please explain?
We use imaginary and complex numbers as a way to determine eigenvalues. Those numbers don't exist and yet they are used.
To sum up the world of quantum, on a basic level there isn't really a lot to it. Particles have spin, spin can be oriented. If you orient a particle it's spin will remain oriented in that direction. Therefore, we can harness the electron to our purpose. We have to take round the houses methods in order to calculate quantum through probability because p x q does not sum up to the same as q x p, this being because when attempts are made to measure simultaneously a pair of conjugate variables: position and momentum or energy and time, the limitations of these concepts become evident.Anyone else wish to condescend me?
What notion would that be then?
I meant following my example.
... outside of the fact that p x q does not sum up to q x p ...
Yes. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to be precise.
If you have an interest in quantum physics then try to find out why [tex]\sigma_1 n_1 + \sigma_2 n_2 + \sigma_3 n_3[/tex] is important and what it means. It is to do with the electron. Also try to find out what <a|b><a|b>* means. It is to do with probability.
I'm sorry Pete, but I actually did answer your question of "do I mean "equal?"...In England "sum" can mean add". If something doesn't add up, they are not equal.
I'm sorry Pete, but I actually did answer your question of "do I mean "equal?"...
What do you mean by "p x q does not sum up to q x p?"
In England "sum" can mean add". If something doesn't add up, they are not equal. So what I was saying was that pxq does not add up to, sum to, or equal the same as qxp. Ok?
So when I replied "yes" in post 87, that was indeed what I was saying yes to!
I'm sorry, but I don't really think one has to spend a great deal of time studying a field to realise that a suggestion that questions the mathematical structure of Planks h constant, due to a possible factor of quantum time dilation actually relates only as far as Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and that any investigation into calculating quantum probability is totally and utterly irrelevant and has no bearing whatsoever on the structure of Planck's h constant.In fact one of the most logical approaches would be to study the Planck unit in relation to particle mass.
May I suggest you partake of a hot chocolate with brandy and let Jeff answer for himself?
Look Jeff, you haven't responded, which surprises me because logically speaking it is your only move. A move that, it may surprise you, would be received amenably by me.I consider myself to be an emotional environmentalist and at least 'try' to take care not to leave my footsteps floating in someone's head.I actually have quite a lot of respect for you in most instances. When someone speaks to me here, (or I develop an interest), I make a point of reading a lot of their posts in order to get a measure of them. (I read incredibly fast). Pete's statement, (which I would spend the considerable time locating to quote him were it not for the fact that I seem unable to quote Pete anymore,) ... however it stated "Jeff is quite a bright boy"... and I do feel this 'is' a valid statement.I cordially invite you to perhaps pm me so that we can bury the hatchet. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to put my 'little lawyer' back in my breast pocket and problems 'always' have solutions if one changes ones perspective.