A moving arrow has no location
=A state of motion is not a state of rest
= the uncertantly principle betweex x and Px
Dear Juan Weisz
The paradoxes of Zeno of Elea were written to explain to other philosophers the correctness of the concept of Parmenides of Elea about the underlying reality of the universe. For example the paradox about Achilles and the tortoise is about the necessity of a metric in the universe. Unfortunately, most of Zeno's paradoxes are lost.
"It is said" that Parmenides concept about the existence of an underlying reality that creates observable reality origines from his analyse of the motion of an arrow. Other sources say that he had a dream and in that dream a beatiful person explained to him what generates physical reality.
Parmenides concept can be compared with an imaginary 3D LCD display that can generate everything we can see. He stated that the volume of our universe must be build up by identical units that have variable properties but cannot be divided into smaller units. The mutual interactions of these units create the illusion of physical reality as we know it. Parmenides was a famous mathematician too (his concept is like the 3D topology of a structure with invariant volume).
Plato's cave and Aristotle's unmoved mover are influenced by Parmenides' concept about physical reality.
In my opinion Paramenides' concept is comparable with the general concept of QFT. Although QFT doesn't have a rest frame (but there are a lot of different versions so maybe I am wrong).
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Juan Weisz
A phenomenon – e.g. a particle – exists because the particle itself is a local concentration of energy (E = m c2) that can be distinguished from all the energy around. However, a local concentration of energy cannot exists if the involved energy wasn’t obtained from all the energy around. That means that the creation of the particle decreases the total sum of all the energy around.
Energy is quantized thus it is impossible that the whole volume of the universe has contributed to the concentrated energy of the particle. But it is hard to imagine that everything in the universe changes in a true quantized way. Our universe seems to be a continuum so it is reasonable to propose that all the changes are the result of a flux of infinite small changes (related to variable properties). This is in line with 3D topology.
If the concept of Parmenides of Elea is correct, the volume of the universe is quantized. All the mutual changes between the units of the structure – quantized space – are conserved (the conservation of energy) and the direction of all the mutual changes is conserved too (conservation of momentum). In other words, Parmenides’ concept represents a closed system while QM is an open system (like Einstein's theory of General relativity).
The existence of a structure as a closed system implies that one unit of the structure cannot change its properties independent from all the other units in the universe. The consequence is that all the changes of the units of quantized space are synchronized. This is the mathematical foundation that underlies the existence of the quantum of energy and the speed of light. In line with Zeno’s paradox that was intended to show that without a true metric reality is quite crazy (Achilles who never can pass the tortoise).
But if 1 unit changes a variable property and all the other units in the universe change the same variable property synchronously it isn’t possible that in between one or more units change the direction of their change (conservation of momentum). The consequence is that the quantum of energy represents a fixed amount of change during a fixed amount of time (the constant of quantum time).
In between the transfer of a quantum of energy – a flux of infinite small amounts of change – there is no other independent local change possible. That means that the mutual relation between 2 phenomena cannot be measured during the transfer of the fixed amount of energy (remember, all the changes in the universe are synchronized). This is in line with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
Thus the existence of a trajectory of a particle and the existence of the uncertainty principle don’t exclude each other. Both don’t violate the universal conservation laws.
With kind regards, Sydney
Close, in qm we talk open or closed
systems. Closed is a potential well
With bound states
Open is a shallow well leaking out through
Tunelling.Most qm books do talk
About the absence of trajectory
In qm.
In math. Physics indefinite metric QM
Exists. Very hard to destinguish from
Regular qm
On my rg pages there is an article
Dear Juan Weisz
The Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) shows that the individual properties of matter – and related forces like gravity – vanish if nearly all the surplus of electromagnetic amplitudes/waves are extracted from a closed volume. What results is a local distinct configuration of amplitudes of the electromagnetic field (see image). If we supply electromagnetic amplitudes/waves to the volume with the BEC all the previous properties of the distinct atoms will reappear.
The experiment proves that all the dynamics in the universe originates from the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field (together electromagnetic field). But it also proves that the distinct properties of the phenomena are properties “on the fly”. In other words, an atom is an atom because the causality behind its existence is continuously active. And it seems that the causality is directly related to the average energy density in the universe.
Thus the question if a trajectory is “real” or imaginary depends on the used point of view (concept). Theoretically a trajectory is the pass on of variable properties by the structure of the electromagnetic field (the structure is a rest frame). But the phenomenon exists in a dynamical way so I can state that the phenomenon has a trajectory.
With kind regards, Sydney
Dear Juan Weisz and dear Sydney Ernest Grimm
Yes, the Paradoxes of Zeno is the first claim about the problem of motion and is very related to quantum mechanics, I proposed a solution to this paradox based on a new model of motion, and I verified (in the following paper) that this model led us to the current formalism of quantum mechanics.
Article A CONCEPT OF UNIVERSAL QUANTUM JUMP
With best regards.
Mazen
Trajectory refers to motion of material
Object or point
In CM.
Where position and velocity
Exists at each time.
However in QM if I specify momentum
exactly, I know nothing about position
Of object along that direction.
So its compatible with Zeno but not CM.
Fo0r example electrons in atoms
Are in orbitals rather than in trajectories.
A bec is not a quantum wave, its a collection of bosons at low temp
Of course you can also have a wave.
“Paradoxes of Zeno say the same as QM?”
- yeah, that is quite correct, Zeno really predicted QM. More see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics at least first dozen of pages.
Cheers
Dear Juan Weisz
The BEC has eliminated the individual atoms (nuclei and electrons). The consequence is that the nuclei related decreased scalars of the local Higgs field are not decreased any more (local flat scalar field). The gravitational field of each atom has vanished too because there is no rest mass left. Thus the BEC represents just local amplitudes of the electromagnetic field. Showing that phenomenological physics – the idea that particles and forces exist on their own – is an illusion. In other words, BEC questions the conceptual framework of classic physics.
In physics there are only 2 universal conservation laws: energy and momentum. The latter is a bit tricky because every quantum of energy has momentum too. Moreover, everywhere within the structure of the electromagnetic field – a clear metric – there is co-transfer of quanta. So I can state that all the quanta transfer in the universe at the moment “now” is conserved. But the consequence is that all the corresponding vectors at the moment “now” are also conserved. Thus the universal conservation laws describe the conservation of the dynamical properties of the universal electric and corresponding magnetic field. In line with the results of the BEC experiments.
The variable properties of the universal electric field and the corresponding magnetic field are the quantum of energy and the corresponding vector of the quantum of energy. The quantum of energy has a constant linear velocity, the speed of light (c). But the corresponding vector has no linear velocity because vectors are 1-dimensional mathematical objects. Vectors act instantaneous thus the position of the vectors is undetermined because vectors can only be “detected” with the help of other vectors. Or with the interruption of the rigid medium of the vectors.
A quantum of energy that is generated in one direction represents a fixed amount of time in relation to the size of the metric: the constant of quantum time (tq). But the corresponding vector has no fixed magnitude. Thus the vector is increasing its corresponding magnitude from zero to 1h during 1tq. That means that the duration of the constant of quantum time (≈ 1,19 x 10-24 second) is nearly infinite for the vector. Thus the vectors of the magnetic field have no fixed magnitudes and fixed positions like the quantum of energy.
The orbital of the electron of a Hydrogen atom has spin ½. The nucleus – the proton – has spin 1. The spin of the electron is determined by its geometrical rotation in relation to the structure of the electromagnetic field around. But there is a conceptual problem because we measure an electron as a small concentration of energy with a certain amount of mass (no rest mass). That is not in line with the causality behind the existence of the electron. Because the proton represents a local surplus of energy, while the electron represents the corresponding local deficit of energy (in relation to the average energy density of the universal electric field in vacuum space).
Perhaps the energy of the electron (its mass) originates partly from the energy from vacuum space around because it seems that the electron is a “swirl” of energy at the boundary of the rotating negative electric charge. Thus the electric charge and vacuum space around act like 2 opposite fluids that create a shared “eddy” at their joint boundary (fluid dynamics).
However, I haven’s spend much time on the concept because I was working on the physics behind the existence of black holes. The observations of the James Webb Space telescope show that our present models are incomplete.
With kind regards, Sydney
Sydney
Where do you get yor physics from?
Bosons can all share the same
Quamtum state,not eliminated.
A proton, part of the nucleous, has
also spin 1/2. Not a boson, a fermion.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Condensed Matter Physics
- Zero