There are many kinds of certainty in the world, but there is only one kind of uncertainty.
I: We can think of all mathematical arguments as "causal" arguments, where everything behaves deterministically*. Mathematical causality can be divided into two categories**: The first type, structural causality - is determined by static types of relations such as logical, geometrical, algebraic, etc. For example, "∵ A>B, B>C; ∴ A>C"; "∵ radius is R; ∴ perimeter = 2πR"; ∵ x^2=1; ∴ x1=1, x2=√-1; .......The second category, behavioral causality - the process of motion of a system described by differential equations. Such as the wave equation ∂^2/ ∂t^2-a^2Δu=0 ...
II: In the physical world, physics is mathematics, and defined mathematical relationships determine physical causality. Any "physical process" must be a parameter of time and space, which is the essential difference between physical and mathematical causality. Equations such as Coulomb's law F=q1*q2/r^2 cannot be a description of a microscopic interaction process because they do not contain differential terms. Abstracted "forces" are not fundamental quantities describing the interaction. Equations such as the blackbody radiation law and Ohm's law are statistical laws and do not describe microscopic processes.
The objects analyzed by physics, no matter how microscopic†, are definite systems of energy-momentum, are interactions between systems of energy-momentum, and can be analyzed in terms of energy-momentum. The process of maintaining conservation of energy-momentum is equal to the process of maintaining causality.
III: Mathematically a probabilistic event can be any distribution, depending on the mandatory definitions and derivations. However, there can only be one true probabilistic event in physics that exists theoretically, i.e., an equal probability distribution with complete randomness. If unequal probabilities exist, then we need to ask what causes them. This introduces the problem of causality and negates randomness. Bohr said "The probability function obeys an equation of motion as did the co-ordinates in Newtonian mechanics "[1]. So, Weinberg said of the Copenhagen rules, "The real difficulty is that it is also deterministic, or more precisely, that it combines a probabilistic interpretation with deterministic dynamics" [2].
IV: The wave function in quantum mechanics describes a deterministic evolution energy-momentum system [3]. The behavior of the wave function follows the Hamiltonian principle [4] and is strictly an energy-momentum evolution process***. However, the Copenhagen School interpreted the wave function as "probabilistic" nature [23]. Bohr rejected Einstein's insistence on causality by replacing the term "complementarity" with his own invention, "complementarity". Bohr rejects Einstein's insistence on causality, replacing it with his own invention of "complementarity" [5].
Schrödinger ascribed a reality of the same kind that light waves possessed to the waves that he regards as the carriers of atomic processes by using the de Broglie procedure; he attempts "to construct wave packets (wave parcels) that have relatively small dimensions in all directions," and which can obviously represent the moving " and which can obviously represent the moving corpuscle directly [4][6].
Born and Heisenberg believe that an exact representation of processes in space and time is quite impossible and that one must then content oneself with presenting the relations between the observed quantities, which can only be interpreted as properties of the motions in the limiting classical cases [6]. Heisenberg, in contrast to Bohr, believed that the wave equation gave a causal, albeit probabilistic description of the free electron in configuration space [1].
The wave function itself is a function of time and space, and if the "wave-function collapse" at the time of measurement is probabilistic evolution, with instantaneous nature, [3], neither time (Δt=0) nor spatial transition is required. then it is in conflict not only with the Special Relativity, but also with the Uncertainty Principle. Because the wave function represents some definite energy and momentum, which appear to be infinite when required to follow the Uncertainty Principle [7], ΔE*Δt>h and ΔP*Δx>h.
V: We must also be mindful of the fact that the amount of information about a completely random event. From a quantum measurement point of view, it is infinite, since the true probability event of going from a completely unknown state A before the measurement to a completely determined state B after the measurement is completely without any information to base it on‡.
VI: The Uncertainty Principle originated in Heisenberg's analysis of x-ray microscopy [8] and its mathematical derivation comes from the Fourier Transform [8][10]. E and t, P and x, are two pairs of commuting quantities [11]. While the interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle has been long debated [7][9], "Either the color of the light is measured precisely or the time of arrival of the light is measured precisely." This choice also puzzled Einstein [12], but because of its great convenience as an explanatory "tool", physics has extended it to the "generalized uncertainty principle " [13].
Is this tool not misused? Take for example a time-domain pulsed signal of width τ, which has a Stretch (Scaling Theorem) property with the frequency-domain Fourier transform [14], and a bandwidth in the frequency domain B ≈ 1/τ. This is the equivalent of the uncertainty relation¶, where the width in the time domain is inversely proportional to the width in the frequency domain. However, this relation is fixed for a definite pulse object, i.e., both τ and B are constant, and there is no problem of inaccuracy.
In physics, the uncertainty principle is usually explained in terms of single-slit diffraction [15]. Assuming that the width of the single slit is d, the distribution width (range) of the interference fringes can be analyzed when d is different. Describing the relationship between P and d in this way is equivalent to analyzing the forced interaction that occurs between the incident particle and d. The analysis of such experimental results is consistent with the Fourier transform. But for a fixed d, the distribution does not have any uncertainty. This situation is confirmed experimentally, "We are not free to trade off accuracy in the one at the expense of the other."[16].
The usual doubt lies in the diffraction distribution that appears when a single photon or a single electron is diffracted. This does look like a probabilistic event. But the probabilistic interpretation actually negates the Fourier transform process. If we consider a single particle as a wave packet with a phase parameter, and the phase is statistical when it encounters a single slit, then we can explain the "randomness" of the position of a single photon or a single electron on the screen without violating the Fourier transform at any time. This interpretation is similar to de Broglie's interpretation [17], which is in fact equivalent to Bohr's interpretation [18][19]. Considering the causal conflict of the probabilistic interpretation, the phase interpretation is more rational.
VII. The uncertainty principle is a "passive" principle, not an "active" principle. As long as the object is certain, it has a determinate expression. Everything is where it is expected to be, not this time in this place, but next time in another place.
Our problems are:
1) At observable level, energy-momentum conservation (that is, causality) is never broken. So, is it an active norm, or just a phenomenon?
2) Why is there a "probability" in the measurement process (wave packet collapse) [3]?
3) Does the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function conflict with the uncertainty principle? How can this be resolved?
4) Is the Uncertainty Principle indeed uncertain?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
* Determinism here is a narrow sense of determinism, only for localized events. My personal attitude towards determinism in the broad sense (without distinguishing predictability, Fatalism, see [20] for a specialized analysis) is negative. Because, 1) we must note that complete prediction of all states is dependent on complete boundary conditions and initial conditions. Since all things are correlated, as soon as any kind of infinity exists, such as the spacetime scale of the universe, then the possibility of obtaining all boundary conditions is completely lost. 2) The physical equations of the upper levels can collapse by entering a singularity (undergoing a phase transition), which can lead to unpredictability results.
** Personal, non-professional opinion.
*** Energy conservation of independent wave functions is unquestionable, and it is debatable whether the interactions at the time of measurement obey local energy conservation [21].
† This is precisely the meaning of the Planck Constant h, the smallest unit of action. h itself is a constant of magnitude Js. For the photon, when h is coupled to time (frequency) and space (wavelength), there is energy E = hν,momentum P = h/λ.
‡ Thus, if a theory is to be based on "information", then it must completely reject the probabilistic interpretation of the wave function.
¶ In the field of signal analysis, this is also referred to by some as "The Uncertainty Principle", ΔxΔk=4π [22].
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References：
[1] Faye, J. (2019). "Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy from .
[2] Weinberg, S. (2020). Dreams of a Final Theory, Hunan Science and Technology Press.
[3] Bassi, A., K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh and H. Ulbricht (2013). "Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests." Reviews of Modern Physics 85(2): 471.
[4] Schrödinger, E. (1926). "An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules." Physical Review 28(6): 1049-1070.
[5] Bohr, N. (1937). "Causality and complementarity." Philosophy of Science 4(3): 289-298.
[6] Born, M. (1926). "Quantum mechanics of collision processes." Uspekhi Fizich.
[7] Busch, P., T. Heinonen and P. Lahti (2007). "Heisenberg's uncertainty principle." Physics Reports 452(6): 155-176.
[8] Heisenberg, W. (1927). "Principle of indeterminacy." Z. Physik 43: 172-198. “不确定性原理”源论文。
[9] https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/qt-uncertainty/; 对不确定性原理更详细的历史介绍，其中包括了各种代表性的观点。
[10] Brown, L. M., A. Pais and B. Poppard (1995). Twentieth Centure Physics（I）, Science Press.
[11] Dirac, P. A. M. (2017). The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, China Machine Press.
[12] Pais, A. (1982). The Science and Life of Albert Einstein I
[13] Tawfik, A. N. and A. M. Diab (2015). "A review of the generalized uncertainty principle." Reports on Progress in Physics 78(12): 126001.
[14] https://www.princeton.edu/~cuff/ele301/files/lecture8_2.pdf;
[15] 曾谨言 (2013). 量子力学（QM）, Science Press.
[16] Williams, B. G. (1984). "Compton scattering and Heisenberg's microscope revisited." American Journal of Physics 52(5): 425-430.
Hofer, W. A. (2012). "Heisenberg, uncertainty, and the scanning tunneling microscope." Frontiers of Physics 7(2): 218-222.
Prasad, N. and C. Roychoudhuri (2011). "Microscope and spectroscope results are not limited by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle!" Proceedings of SPIE-The International Society for Optical Engineering 8121.
[17] De Broglie, L. and J. A. E. Silva (1968). "Interpretation of a Recent Experiment on Interference of Photon Beams." Physical Review 172(5): 1284-1285.
[18] Cushing, J. T. (1994). Quantum mechanics: historical contingency and the Copenhagen hegemony, University of Chicago Press.
[19] Saunders, S. (2005). "Complementarity and scientific rationality." Foundations of Physics 35: 417-447.
[20] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/;
[21] Carroll, S. M. and J. Lodman (2021). "Energy non-conservation in quantum mechanics." Foundations of Physics 51(4): 83.
[22] https://math.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Differential_Equations/Introduction_to_Partial_Differential_Equations_(Herman)/09%3A_Transform_Techniques_in_Physics/9.05%3A_Properties_of_the_Fourier_Transform;
[23] Born, M. (1955). "Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics." Science 122(3172): 675-679.
=========================================================
Dear Chian Fan.
While I agree with you on the general issues raised in the discussion, the specific issues 1)-4) seem too narrow.
The subtitle of the discussion "There are many kinds of certainty in the world, but there is only one kind of uncertainty" is so good (and wise) that it allows to go straight to the main point. The only fundamental uncertainty in the world is the action quantum h (Planck's constant). Which, according to de Broglie, we can put in correspondence with each free particle, having mass or massless h=pλ. And after discovering the integer quantum Hall effect by von Klitzing, this quantum can bind many particles together, forcing them to behave as a single whole. This is especially important for the condensed state of matter. That wavelength λ, which corresponds to the momentum of a free particle p, is a measure of uncertainty. We can't say anything about the exact coordinate of a particle inside this region if its momentum is known. But in fact, we cannot accurately determine (measure) the momentum of particle, since this requires knowledge of its coordinates. So we come to the Heisenberg uncertainty ΔpΔx≥h, which speaks precisely about the state of the particle, but not about the behavior of its mathematical model, which is the wave function. For which they later came up with a probabilistic interpretation, and now they are suffering with it. No wonder Heisenberg said that two states are needed to describe a particle - before the transition and after it, and what happens between them cannot be determined. In this respect, the quantum of action h is very similar to the generalized function introduced by Sobolev and Schwartz, about which I wrote to you earlier.
All other uncertainties in nature are not true - we just do not know what is happening there, but we could find out.
Now about the motion of the particle. Since the time of Maupertuis, Lagrange and Hamilton, we know well that the motion of a particle in classical mechanics is determined by the principle of least action. But we do not know very well on what foundation it rests and how the quantum of action is connected with it. The Schrödinger equation looks great and does the necessary calculations well, but it's just a mathematical model. But even with it, one can see that the motion of the particle occurs sequentially: one action quantum after another, since the wave function is periodic in the action quantum.
Thus, by quantum of action h, we connect the static properties of particle with its dynamic behavior and to some extent answer the questions 1)-4).
Yours Dulin Mikhail.
The statistical interpretation of the wave function is logically independent of the uncertainty principle. The statistical interpretation simply relates the wave function-as provided by Schrödinger's equation-to the probability density in phase space. And, once one has the probability density, one can forget about the wave function (indeed one must-the wave function only serves to define the probability density, it's not an observable quantity); the probability density obeys the rules of any probability.
The probability density does, of course, depend on Planck's constant and has the property that its average values are the classical quantities. But it contains much more information, namely about the quantum fluctuations-just like the probability density of a physical quantity, in equilibrium in a thermal bath, contains information about the thermal fluctuations.
The uncertainty principle is a relation between the variances-deduced from the corresponding probability distributions-of canonically conjugate quantities (in the sense of Hamiltonian mechanics, whether quantum or classical). These variances vanish in the classical limit, since the classical quantities aren't sensitive to quantum fluctuations, about their average-classical-values, so the uncertainty principle becomes the trivially true relation 0 x 0 = 0.
I see at least two types of uncertainties:
a) Internal, i.e. the uncertainty of the measurement is due to the properties of the particle
b) due to the environment, i.e. the particles are completely dependent on the effects from outside to inside and therefore the statistics have the Planck limit
The interpretation "b" allows QM and GR to be combined without contradiction.
Dear Stam Nicolis
“The statistical interpretation of the wave function is logically independent of the uncertainty principle.”
Let's consider the electron. When an electron is diffracted through a single slit, is it described by a wave function? When the electron is bound by the nucleus, is it described by a wave function? When single-slit diffraction, we say that where it appears on the screen is probabilistic and obeys the uncertainty relation. When orbital electrons, we say that it appears somewhere is also probability. How is it not obeying the uncertainty relation?
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan
I have some questions regarding your formulation of the following quote:
You wrote: ":In the physical world, physics is mathematics, and defined mathematical relationships determine physical causality. Any "physical process" must be a parameter of time and space, which is the essential difference between physical and mathematical causality. Equations such as Coulomb's law F=q1*q2/r^2 cannot be a description of a microscopic interaction process because they do not contain differential terms."
Reformulating your first sentence as follows would summarize how I relate mathematics to physical causality:
"In the physical world, physical processes can be described with mathematics, and defined mathematical relationships are determined by the level of understanding that we have of physical processes."
Given that mathematics is a language, is it really conceivable that the descriptive language would determine what it is meant to describe?
If a description is incomplete or incorrect, does it really change any aspect of whatever real process or object was meant to be described, possibly incompletely or incorrectly?
About the Coulomb equation F=q1*q2/4πε0r2, that was adapted by Gauss by removing one charge to establish the E-field (E=q/4πε0r2) – first Maxwell equation – is it conceivable that it would not really account for the force between two charges – two electrons, or an electron and a proton, for example – given that the exact amount of energy induced in them can be calculated with this equation between any two such charged particles simply by multiplying the force by the distance separating the charges at any given moment during their varying distance interaction?
Why would the detail that it does not contain differential terms disqualify it from applying to subatomic interactions between charged particles, or to any physical application involving charged particles, given that the only variable in the equation can be set to any possible distance between said charges?
I would appreciate your comments and opinions on these issues.
Best Regards, André
Dear André Michaud
It's glad to see your query here. It is true that I did not express my point clearly.
1) Regarding the relationship between math and physics, this is almost part of the ultimate theory, and answering it clearly in short is impossible, and I am not capable of doing so. Later I will try to present a discussion for your insights (抛砖引玉).
However, we cannot doubt that physical processes are spatio-temporal processes. I emphasize "process" with the clear intention of reinforcing the role of time and space in physics. Anything outside of time and space can only be an abstraction, not something fundamental. For example, coulomb's law and the law of gravity.
You are quite right when you say, "In the physical world, physical processes can be described with mathematics, and defined mathematical relationships are determined by the level of understanding that we have of physical processes." but this is a conclusion from pragmatism. My view is that mathematics is the mathematics of nature, and physics is the physics of nature, and they exist without humans. The mathematical language of humans is to try to discover and match natural math as accurately as possible, and for the most part it does. The physics of nature is the natural deduction process of natural math, but the physics of humans is the process of humans using math to discover physics. Thus in physics, there is no wrong mathematics, only wrongly used mathematics; or correctly used mathematics, but wrongly understood physics.
2) Regarding Coulomb's law, by differential terms I specifically mean differential terms for time and space. It has a definition of force, but it does not define motion, and only with the addition of Newton's laws can the description of a physical process be accomplished. A process should be directly described by an equation. Thus it is only an expression that can be abstracted at long distances, "force". At microscopic distances it clearly fails. Hence there is no concept of force in quantum field theory. In fact, what exactly is a force is not well defined by physics, only well described. Force is not correct physics (the definition of correct physics depends on the reference point set), but it is physics that works. It is clearly impossible to unify the four forces if we are not clear about what a force is. The force can be manifested in many different ways, but the explanation of its origin must be the same, and only then will the conflict in manifestations be eliminated. This was discussed earlier, and I said it was worth opening a new topic for discussion, but it has been in arrears. I hope I will be able to deliver it soon.
The main purpose of this discussion is to have the Copenhagen Interpretation revisited. It gave quantum mechanics a grounding in the last century, but not a solid foundation, and may have hindered, restricted, or even misled physics today.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan
Thank you for your answer. However, when so many certainties as you state are already established in someone's worldview, I know of no way that they can be reconsidered. So I will not comment or argue these issues.
The available alternate possibilities and possible solutions that electromagnetism put at our disposal all are available anyway for anybody interested in my articles, with direct references to all historical formal sources, all available on the internet, given that they all are now in the public domain.
You wrote: "The main purpose of this discussion is to have the Copenhagen Interpretation revisited. It gave quantum mechanics a grounding in the last century, but not a solid foundation, and may have hindered, restricted, or even misled physics today."
I completely agree that the Copenhagen interpretation must be gotten rid of.
This is what I have been working at for the past 25 years.
The Copenhagen interpretation has been the scourge of the past hundred years in physics, and it contributed absolutely nothing other than endless arguments and waste of time for mainstream in lieu of fundamental research, combined with general disregard and disappearing of any referencing to the historical foundational discoveries that underlie real physics.
I observed that the equations of QM always were fine as they were initially conceived and owe absolutely nothing to the Copenhagen interpretation. The only issue is that they have been disconnected from their historical classical formal grounding foundations by the Copenhagen interpretation, thus preventing further progress from their states established 100 years ago.
I expect that this will be remedied by the upcoming generation. My contribution is the set of historical formal references that I located over the past decades that they can lean on for the purpose.
Best Regards, André
It was the same Schrödinger who wrote:
"JULY 1952 COLLOQUIUM
I • Introduction
Let me say at the outset, that in this discourse, I am opposing not a few special statementa of quantum mechanics held today, I am opposing as it were the whole of it, l am opposing its basic views that have been shaped 25 years ago, when Max Born put forward his probability interpretation, which was accepted by almost everybody. It has been worked out in great detail to form a scheme of admirable logical consistency that has been inculcated ever since to every young student of theoretical physics.
The view I am opposing is so widely accepted, without ever being questioned, that I would have some difficulties in making you believe that I really, consider it inadequate and wish to abandon it. It is, as I said, the probability view of quantum mechanics. You know how it pervades the whole system, it always implied in everything a quantum theorist tells you. Nearly every result he pronounces is about the probability of this or that or that . . . happening-with usually a great many alternatives. The idea that they be not alternatives but all really happen simultaneously seems lunatic to him, just impossible. "
The Basic Unit System Concept is based on a metric of a differential element of the space time continuum based on the most beautiful equation of mathematics.
J()
DS = Abs(DS) * e
It is this metric the one that permits to deduce all the fundamental equations of physics such as that one of the Pendulum and the Schrödinger Wave Equation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2166078_The_Principle_of_Synergy_and_Isomorphic_Units_a_revised_version
“In the fall 1988 issue of the Mathematical Intelligencer, a scholarly quarterly journal of mathematics sponsored by the prestigious publisher of mathematics books and journals, Springer-Verlag, there was the call for a vote on the most beautiful theorem in mathematics. Readers of the Intelligencer, consisting almost entirely of academic and industrial mathematicians, were asked to rank twenty-four given theorems on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the most beautiful and 0 the least. The list contained, in addition to eip + 1 = 0...
The results, from a total of 68 responses, were announced in the summer 1990 issue... So, it is official: eip + 1 = 0 is the most beautiful equation in mathematics!”
Dr. Euler’s Fabulous Formula
Paul J. Nahin
see attachment
Dear Edgar Paternina
”JULY 1952 COLLOQUIUM“.
I have not found a source for this speech. Do you have a link to more detailed information?
I've also heard that de Broglie, who was head of the French Board of Education at the time, was even more decisively opposed to quantum mechanics and wouldn't let his students study it. and he was criticized by some for this. I don't know if this is true or not.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan
Thanks for your reply!
In fact it is from the following book in the attachment.
Yes de Broglie also contributed to the dual nature of particles, that as a matter of fact was solved with Schrödinger Wave Equation based on complex number which I have deduced with a concept I have named a Basic Unit System, that is based on Euler Relation, I mean complex numbers, a concept that permits to deduce even the pendulum formula, and that I have assimilated too with that ancient unit of Taoism of yin and yang, see too in the attachment.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2166078_The_Principle_of_Synergy_and_Isomorphic_Units_a_revised_version
In fact there “A historic experiment managed to visualize in real time the quantum entanglement of two particles of light that, amazingly, form the philosophical figure of 'yin yang'.”
By HISTORY Latin America on August 25, 2023 at 18:18 HS
I suppose there must be a version of HISTORY in english too, that would recommend.
Best regards
Edgar Paternina
If we factor in the idea of energy conservation and thus momentum conservation, the uncertainty in momentum is zero for any given system. As such, the uncertainty principle is purely contributed from measurement uncertainty. We are measuring the electrical momentum or magnetic momentum of electromagnetic wave separately which is a wave that naturally carries the formulated uncertainty. But adding the two there is no uncertainty. For example, we see the water wave in the kinetic momentum but if we add potential momentum of the water molecules, each molecule carries the same momentum over time and same energy over time just converting one form to the other.
Thus I agree with @Chian Fan analysis that we missing the phase information which is statistical.
Dear Jixin Chen
Certainly if we have relations between the two state variables, then there is no uncertainty, just I have shown in the attachment when deducing the pendulum formula:
The photograph of this privileged state in which both vectors, gives us weighting mass and inertia mass are equalized, , condition which actually produces the steady state of the pendulum system and which allows us to find its laws related to period, trajectory and gravity.
In this case when weighting mass and inertia mass are equalized, the system of the pendulum, so there is no uncertainty.
Best regards
Edgar Paternina
Edgar Paternina ,
In deed, if we treat photon as a packet of rotational pendulum, it can be a particle with full certainty rather than duality, the left uncertainty is in its phase and we can lock in phase in a laser. This is why Einstein’s photoelectric theory works at 100% certainty in the energetic field.
Jixin
Yes, phase or angle and amplitud, are the two state variables of the Basic Unit System, of the differential metric of the space time continuum, inmersed in the Complex Plane or in plane of Form(being form a sort of fifth sphere of reality than contains the whole space time continuum), so if they are related by laws then its state can be determined, just as in a power system, in which reactive power and active power must be related in order to be able to determine its state...in fact in Electrical Engineering, we have a State Estimator for the whole power system that must be balanced in three phases so it behaves as a steady state system
Edgar
Dear Edgar Paternina
Thank you for your reply! The ideas in your paper are creative. I look forward to studying them sometime. Regarding the "yin-yang" diagram, it seems too deliberate to believe it is real. But the implications are worth taking seriously.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan
Actually I also had the same impression when I saw that image, especially that HISTORY, among its common themes are those that have to do with Sc-Fi, but the fact is that I am so convinced of the validity of the concept of the Basic Unit System that has allowed me to derive the fundamental equations of physics from a new approach based on Euler's Relation and therefore on complex numbers, which as an electrical engineer I has proven its validity in the real world, especially in a Control Center of a power system, through mathematical algorithms, which determine the state of that system of multiple interconnected nodes that constitute the GRID that carries energy to our homes and industries. In fact already in my first encounter with the concept of Basic Unit System, I assimilated it to the same Taoist concept of Yin and Yang, since it is a unity of two opposite or rather completely different entities, but at the same time complementary. such time and space in this case. It was this that led me to think that this image can be real.
In fact the great drawback of Einstein, in my opinion, was precisely to have reduced time a to space dimension, so physics started then a road to metaphysics and sc-fi, because time became a dual entity as space that can flow in both directions. Time is a flow in the clockwise direction from past to present to future, as Henry Bergson put too in his book Creative Evolution.
In the attached PDF, there is a demonstration of the equations of special relativity, with an approach no longer of entities in retilinear and uniform motion with those presented by Einstein, but of Systemic Basic Units in rotation in the complex or form plane, and also in differential form.
Best Regards
Edgar Paternina
Dear Edgar Paternina
In your study, you used "Euler's Relation and therefore on complex numbers". I believe that mathematics is definitely more than an effective "tool" for physics, especially for the most fundamental concepts. Perhaps we need to consider the physical world and the mathematical world upside down: Mathematics is the real master.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan,
Yes Mathematics is the real master, but it is Euler's Relation that has the unique character to remain the same with those mathematical operations that define change, I mean, Integration and derivation. These two mathematical conditions give to Euler's Relation its unquestionable isomorphic character. But in addition, the fact that this relation has as its backdrop a plane, the complex plane, or the plane of form, makes it possible to symbolize mathematically the need, which was already posed to both Heraclitus and Lao Tse in the very beginnings of philosophizing: to bring to a common ground, the antinomies that would otherwise be insurmountable, that is, those related to the being itself properly speaking and its relation to thought, mind or consciousness. It is no longer a question of seeking an ultimate, substantial foundation of reality; what is involved is to obtain a unified symbolic representation, whose symbolism, never being determined beforehand, retains the flexibility of an ideal semiotic tool, insofar as in its application, in each case, it must not only start from its own unified theoretical presuppositions, but must also start from experience, or from the concrete case under consideration, immersed in its own context, thus making the necessary recognition that Locke claimed for experience.
Best Regards
Edgar Paternina
Certainly the Uncertainty Principle is not a force, but it comes from the fact that time cannot be reduced to a space dimension, I mean, the state of what I have named a Basic Unit System concept cannot be determined, so in that case there is uncertainty... is not the energy of a "quantum fluctuation" produced by the electron?, as it is the first source energy in the universe.
In fact when the state of the BUS can be determined what we obtain is what has been found by the investigators of Ottawa University. See the Attachment.
Dear Edgar Paternina
Thank you very much for your comments and the information provided. I visited their website a week ago after I received your message. But due to too many chores and brain memory problems I didn't reply you in time, please forgive me.
Their works look so perfect that it's hard to believe how they can be achieved. The physics definition of "quantum entanglement" involves instantaneous transmission and causality violation, which is not something I can honestly accept. But if "quantum entanglement" is defined as a special interaction, I can imagine the existence of such a perfect image. I will keep track of their research.
As for “the energy of a "quantum fluctuation" produced by the electron is the first source energy in the universe.” This is not the result of an argument, nor of a fully verified experiment, but a choice in physics. Accepting these kinds of foundational concepts of physics and stopping to pursue them may be the very reason why fundamental physics is so difficult to progress.
Best Regards, Chian Fan
Dear Chian Fan,
Thanks so much for your reply. Certainly they have found something that ancient taoism had found a very long time ago, unity in duality, something very difficult to accept for a science, that is not aquainted to see that reality is not simple but complex, and which means that there is something more that we cannot explain with a reductionist science, that science that only see the “exterior” of things.
You wrote
“The physics definition of "quantum entanglement" involves instantaneous transmission and causality violation, which is not something I can honestly accept. “
The symbol of Yin and Ying implies a unity in duality as I said before, and in that case there is no instantaneous transmision as that unity is encapsulated in that sphere of reality of the complex plane, with which is possible to conceived that type of unity, that in my work I have called a Basic Unit System, with which is possible to deduce all the fundamental equations of physics including precisely, that equation that permitted to talk about the quantum entanglement, I mean, the Schrödinger’s wave equation.
My best regards
Edgar
Dear Chian Fan
In your comment on top you asked: “Is the Uncertainty Principle a force? If not, what is the cause of quantum fluctuations?”
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle states that we cannot determine the exact position of the particle together with the exact time (and visa versa). Now let’s suppose that the linear velocity of a quantum of energy is instantaneous. Thus we cannot measure any difference in duration if we emit 1 quantum over a distance of 1 meter or over a distance of 1 light year.
The consequence of an instantaneous velocity of the quantum of energy is that time doesn’t exist. So what does it mean for Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle?
If time/duration is determined by the non-instantaneous velocity of the quantum of energy, the duration is related to the length of the change in position. And that is correct because the minimal uncertainty is Planck’s constant and every quantum of energy (E = h v) has the constant speed of light.
So if we have a ruler and a clock, both instruments measure the same property at the smallest scale size of reality because energy is a fixed amount of change over a fixed amount of length.
The image above shows the increase of energy at an imaginary position within the structure of the universal electric field and its corresponding magnetic field. The energy increases from zero to 100% and 100% represents 1 quantum of energy. During the increase of the energy the related vector of the magnetic field (arrow) increases too, but not the direction of the energy of the quantum (that is why it is a fixed amount of energy for the observer/measurement instrument). The duration of the increase from zero to 100% is determined by the proportions of the structure of the electromagnetic field.
To get a “signal” that a change is going on there must be a change of some kind of an input at a certain position. The consequence is the fixed amount of energy of the quantum and the fixed amount of length are 2 aspects of the same “phenomenon”. That is why ℓc represents the 3D metric of the electromagnetic field (see period of time at the bottom of the image).
So the 3D metric – the units of the structure of the electromagnetic field – generates all the changes. That is the origin of the quantum fluctuations everywhere in the universe and all these changes are conserved (energy and momentum).
With kind regards, Sydney
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Entomology
- Resistance