To confirm the experiment of the quantum jump of the electron through a contraction in the fabric of space-time, an experiment must be conducted to prove the validity of the equation by using combine two experiences, one by David Jeffrey Wineland and the other an attosecond experiment. If we use rapid observation using attoseconds of the electrons during the quantum jump, just as David Jeffrey Wineland used high-energy ultraviolet radiation to detect the jump. The electron does not move from its place, not because time has stopped, but because space-time is what acquires energy. This is the explanation of (the quantum Zeno effect). After the space-time fabric gains energy, it contracts and causes wave interference between the two levels by contracting the higher energy level to the level occupied by the electron. That is, the electron will remain fixed in its position.
One possible perspective is that the quantum Zeno effect could arise not only from continuous observation but from interactions across higher-dimensional spaces. If the quantum vacuum acts as an interface between dimensions, this may create interference effects that “stabilize” the particle’s position due to fluctuations in the spacetime fabric itself. This approach suggests that the quantum Zeno effect may reflect deeper multi-dimensional interactions that subtly influence observable quantum phenomena.
if I may comment on a few key points;
1. Scientific Consistency:
• The idea that spacetime “contracts” at quantum scales due to energy absorption requires more justification. While spacetime dynamics are well-studied in general relativity, applying these concepts at the scale of quantum jumps lacks established theoretical or empirical support.
2. Quantum Mechanics vs. Spacetime Dynamics:
• In conventional quantum mechanics, energy levels and transitions are intrinsic properties of the quantum system, not spacetime. Introducing spacetime contraction here could conflict with existing quantum field theory unless further clarified or supported by a new theoretical model.
3. Role of Observation:
• The explanation appears to conflate the effect of “observation” with physical energy interactions (e.g., UV radiation). In the quantum Zeno effect, observation traditionally refers to a measurement collapsing a wavefunction, not necessarily involving energy transfer. This distinction is crucial and needs clearer articulation.
4. Experimental Feasibility:
• The suggested combination of Wineland’s techniques with attosecond experiments to validate spacetime contraction feels speculative without a precise method to measure the proposed spacetime effects. How would one isolate and detect spacetime contraction versus standard quantum interference effects?
5. Terminology and Precision:
• Phrases like “space-time acquires energy” and “contracts and causes wave interference” are evocative but need more rigorous definitions. How does this contraction manifest mathematically? What physical quantity describes this “acquisition of energy”?
suggestions/ Recommendations ( not addre
s to anyone in particular)
1. Strengthen Theoretical Framework
• Provide a more detailed theoretical foundation for how spacetime could interact with quantum energy levels. Referencing existing quantum gravity theories or speculative models (like loop quantum gravity or string theory) could lend support.
2. Clarify the Role of Observation
• Distinguish between measurement-induced wavefunction collapse (quantum Zeno effect) and energy absorption due to experimental interventions. This distinction will prevent conflation of quantum measurement and physical energy dynamics.
3. Address Feasibility
• Elaborate on how experimental results would differentiate between standard quantum mechanics predictions and the proposed spacetime dynamics. For example, describe specific signatures (e.g., modified interference patterns) that would confirm spacetime contraction.
4. Refine Language
• Replace speculative or metaphorical phrases with precise scientific terminology. Clearly articulate how this idea modifies or complements existing quantum me
I agree with what you say, Dr. Harri Shore, and I will explain the points you made.
1) In my research, I explained the theoretical results shown by my equation and compared them with quantitative experimental results, such as the quantum jump of the electron. What has been achieved is that the results shown by my equation match the experimental results of the quantum leap.
2) I have created a theoretical model to relate the fabric of space-time to a property of quantum mechanics. I introduced Planck energy into the equation of general relativity to explain what happens during a quantum jump.
3) Explain the role of observation where quantum transfer occurs due to the absorption of energy as a result of experimental interventions. This was also supported by Dr. Jose Oreste Mazzini, who showed how the wave function collapses during measurement. The important thing is that we agree on the same theory, meaning that the role of this theory is to find a relationship between general relativity and quantum mechanics.
This site presents research.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385206551_Reinterpreting_the_Double_Slit_Experiment_Quantum_Jumps_and_Hidden-Values
4) Well, about that, I made a mistake in explaining this. The point is that previous experiences that were interpreted will be reinterpreted again according to my equation. This equation can also predict the results conducted by Niels Bohr.
5) Well, I can show you the equation, and you can mathematically judge the equation. I have published a paper related to how I solved my equation and how it shows the same results that Niels Bohr predicted while explaining the quantum leap.
This site presents research that presents theoretical results and compares them with practical results.
https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202411.1741/v1
- Badges
- Science method