Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.

The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?

The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math? - Physics Forum

The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math? - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.

LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-19-2008, 05:12 AM
Posts: n/a
Default The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?

BURT wrote:

Yes, even more than that.

The mistake starts with Einstein. Although he was on the right track,
read the pages from Gravitation,
[Only registered users see links. ]

by giving inertia its important role in General Relativity, he somehow
abandoned it. For Einstein it was about gravitation and time, while it
would have been much more clearer if it would have been about inertia
and motion.

If Einstein was asked what time was he answered : "time is what you read
on a clock", and if then people asked what a clock was he answered : "a
clock is a device you read the time on".

As I said before it is about inertia and a clock is an inertiameter. Or
an inertial field strength meter, if you prefer.

In a "clock" you accelerate something and deduce the time it is taking
to measure "time". Imagine what happens if you lower or increase the
inertial field the "clock" is in : if you lower it, it becomes more easy
to accelerate mass, and your "clock" runs faster, if you strenghten the
inertial field, as really close to a black hole, your "clock" almost
comes to a standstill.
Finally you realize that a clock is an inertiameter .

So far so good, we have inertia and it can even go to infinity, near a
black hole. So I tought, what would happen if you let it go to zero ?

What happens to an object NOT subjected to inertia ?

Newtons law, that an object stay in rest as long as no force acts upon
it, no longer applies. The object wriggles, it does not have to stay put
anymore. Now, a very smart fellow known as Heisenberg noticed this, that
under certain conditions of mass, displacement and velocity, objects do
not stay put, they wriggle. Or wave, if you prefer.

Now suppose we make a ball roll back and forth, on a stretch of about a
yard or one meter. You have to aim it with another ball in order to make
it deflect from its course.
As long as the ball moves slowly, you can see where it is, aim and hit
it with a reasonable accuracy. If the ball moves faster, you will have
to rely on photodetectors and technology to make a hit, but if the ball
starts moving at infinite speeds, you end up with pure luck. Hence the
probability waves of quantum mechanics.

Understand inertia, and you understand time, space, General Relativity,
uncertainty, Quantum Mechanics and the link between them.

(Would you buy, or sponsor my book, or do you know a good publisher or
academic promotor ? :-) )

Uwe Hayek.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2008, 05:59 AM
Posts: n/a
Default The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?

On Jul 19, 12:12*am, Hayek <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Of course it is physical. WTF else could it be ? Imagined ?
Information ? Some Copenhagen interpretation LSD trip ?

It is physical. Yes it is.

Is it math ?

In my opinion, the only way to model it is by using a tool which "may
or may not be mathematics". So, maybe it's math, maybe it's not.

The reason I say this is because mathematics is structured upon things
which exist. To model things in physics you need existential
indeterminacy, and this is not really mathematics.

Arguably it IS math, and arguably it IS NOT math. It is indeterminate
whether it is or not. But this tool.....provides the cleanest way to
model everything. It is a valid TOE.

Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2008, 09:48 AM
Posts: n/a
Default The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?

On Jul 19, 1:12 am, Hayek <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

[Only registered users see links. ]

Einstein didn't *abandon* the principle of inertia.
He wisely put on the back burner to adhere to what
could be shown by the experiments of his day.

The heurism of energy density in a volume of
space-time was far more reliable than trying
to guess about an inertial ether which had
never been detected.

[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]

Today, hydrogen, helium and other gasses ARE
detected in the space where he used affine connections.

"The origin of gravity" [and inertia by "equivalence"]
[Only registered users see links. ]

So... What is an X?
It is an orthogonal displacemet wrt Y.

The reference is not to any paricular clock but
rather an imaginary clock that will respect spatial
displacements according to a mathematical formalism.

"Space time"
[Only registered users see links. ]

A rifle and bullet and grid paper might do as well

A physical clock can be shown to be a gravity meter.

It detects anisotropy in the inertial field
but does not detect the inertial field.

Perhaps including the whole of Harvard tower
would make it an inertia-meter. But not just
the upper or lower Mossbauer oscillator.

I believe you took the wrong circle, in the circular
definition of inertia because an inertia-meter would
violate the principle of relativity.

<<...it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental sense
between different inertial frames. By definition, Newton's
laws of motion take the same form in all inertial frames.
Einstein generalized this result in his special theory of
relativity by asserting that all laws of physics take
the same form in all inertial frames. >>
[Only registered users see links. ]

Then you are not in this universe.

The masses of the universe pull you
(by induction force, not radiative force)
in all directions. (isotropy)

A local mass spoils the isotropy.

"Gravity there makes inertia here"
--E. Mach
"Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit, Kill the Wabbit"
--E. Fudd

"The Origin of Gravity"
[Only registered users see links. ]

No offence... but no.

Learn some more electrodynamics before you
trying to write books about it.

[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]
[Only registered users see links. ]


Reply With Quote
Old 07-19-2008, 01:18 PM
Posts: n/a
Default The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?

Sue... wrote:

I did not say that.

I think that was his greatest mistake, which made him miss the
connection with QM later.

Gravity is but the gradient of the inertial field.


Albeit less paractical. What is your point ?

But then it would not be a good clock wouldn't ? And not a good
inertiameter, but it would measure the inertial gradient. Which is how
gravity should ber defined.

Exactly, you are getting there. Occams razor.

Every (good) clock detects the inertial field, the problem is : all the
local (known) physics do too ! That why the inertial field is so
important : it influences all of macro physics, and none of Quantum
mechanics. That is why the two are so hard to reconcile.

No comment.

Not really. What if someone could locally detect rectilinear motion wrt
to the preferential frame, the average mass distribution of the universe
surrounding the test lab ? It would just be the start of a new level of
understanding of physics. I think there also lies the solution in
developing a new form of propulsion. But no-one is looking. Best
guarantee for not finding. Altough there is ample indication that such a
frame exists, if one just stops recanting the relativistic mantra.

I beg to differ. As inertia increases to infinity if you approach the
speed of light, why should'n it decrease if you respect some other
configuration of mass, speed and distance ? Like in the Heisenberg equation.

Again, not looking, or not trying is a garantuee for not finding and not

Here you go again, putting gravitation first. Gravitation happens when
there is a gradient in the inertial field. Objects want to go to the
place with least inertia. Prehaps because they are smaller there.

It was "Mass thewe govewn inewtia hewe"
[Only registered users see links. ]

I did not address you. You will only buy or read the book if others
would agree. You're just another democratic neo-exact-academic. The
formula is the theory, no need to explain ? Am I right on this one, or
am I right ?

Uwe Hayek.

Als ik nu op dit moment geld transfereer [in Belgi] naar een
andere rekening staat dat een uur later daar gecrediteerd.
-- Boutros Gali, realiteitsdeskundige.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2008, 01:20 AM
Posts: n/a
Default The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?

On Jul 19, 1:59*am, Huang <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

xxein: Only valid if there is a TOE.
Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2008, 03:10 PM
zookumar yelubandi
Posts: n/a
Default The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?

xxein wrote:

If everything can be reduced to the same building blocks, then
the TOE is the theory that describes the building blocks.


ps: Central banker robber barons and their minions are planning to
vanquish 80-90% of the global population (which they have defined as
useless eaters) and divide the emptied lands amongst themselves. These
would-be pharaohs of the new world order will only fail if the 80-90%
extrude their heads from the proverbial sand; muster the backbone to
confront their fears; turn the ink against the poisoned pens, the sword
against the brigadiers of Psychos and Pathos, the tide against the
tumored sea; and take back the reins of humanity (or take for the first
time even).

visit: [Only registered users see links. ]

Googletype "ethericity, Lindemann" and change the world. Capture
lightning in a bottle and say "seeya" to fossil fuels, nuclear fuels,
wind fuels, water fuels, and leave solar energy alone so it can do its
work on Chlorophyll P680 and put some green back on this good earth.

Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2008, 03:33 PM
Posts: n/a
Default The physicality of a quantum wave. Is it math?

On Jul 19, 8:20*pm, xxein <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Well, it does indeed seem quite odd. And in fact it is a completely
quantum leap of logic. To say that :

You want to model randomness as is f it were a fluid, and so you have
this fluid dynamics.

But in order to make it work, you need "existential inderetminacy".

So, imagine mathematics as if it were a very thick book. And all of
the accepted math is based on things which exist, and there are many
such chapters filled with all kinds of logical structures. Somewhere
on this book (maybe on the back cover) you have this thing called
nonexistence. Now, the approach described above is basically
suggesting that there is an entire chapter of that book (or even many
chapters) which may or may not exist. It may or may not be part of the
book. Just imagine a book which "may or may not" contain an entire
chapter. That would be a pretty wierd book. And because nobody can
concieve of such a book, that book remains unwritten. Math is
specifically written in such a way to avoid creating such a chapter
based on indeterminacy because we want a book which exists. We cannot
comprehend of an entire chapter which "may or may not belong" in the

Well, that is exactly what I would argue is needed to unify physics.
And random variables were carefully designed to avoid this very issue,
but it MUST be addressed if you want to unify physics. There is NO WAY

Just because it is mind boggling, does not mean that it is garbage.
And no professional scientist in his right mind would side with me
because the idea is so radical that it would probably jeapordize

But I think that what I am saying is not so far fetched as ST in
ways.....so to me, it is not such a stretch of the imagination. In
fact, I have a very detailed analysis which seems impossible to argue
Reply With Quote

math , physicality , quantum , wave

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Moving Dimensions Theory Book Due Out in Fall 05--Very Rough Draft: 4th Dimensions Expanding Relative to 3 Spatial Dimensions jollyrogership@yahoo.com Physics Forum 64 03-31-2012 10:24 AM
Simply put, MOVING DIMENSIONS THEORY is THE NEW MODEL: http://physicsmathforums.com drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 0 08-29-2006 06:32 AM
Moving Dimensions Theory!! Rock On!! drelliot@gmail.com Physics Forum 1 07-06-2006 05:19 PM
Physicists Losing Their Grip?? Consc Physics Forum 218 01-06-2005 01:20 PM

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.21736 seconds with 16 queries