Difference between pages "Time flow" and "Quantum Mechanics"

From Absolute Theory
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Einstein time dilation)
 
(Uncertainty relation)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
== Introduction ==
+
== History of quantum mechanics ==
The topic of time flow, a big topic in Einstein's theory of relativity, is actually too simple to be able to believe the findings at first sight.
+
Max Planck taught the [[quantification]] of the world from black body radiation.  This means that physical quantities do not appear as a continuous spectrum, i.e. one in which all real numbers are represented, but as multiples of a basic unit, i.e. only as natural numbers, so to speak.  So far, so good, in classical quantum mechanics.  Then came further progress.  However, there are many misinterpretations of further progress here.  Einstein summarized this in his quote: God does not roll the dice.  For experimental physics in large particle accelerators with insanely high energies and tiny distances, probability theory may serve well, but is it the crux of the matter?
  
== Route flow ==
+
== Uncertainty principle ==
What do you call it, in a little complicated way, when the route flows past youYes, you are moving, so you have a speed v = s / t.
+
I particularly attack the misinterpretation of the uncertainty principle.  In essence, as presented by Heisenberg, it is good, as it says that delta (p) * delta (s)> = h.  h is Plack's quantum of actionThe interpretation, however, that it follows that if I bombard a particle with a photon to determine the momentum, I directly change its position and then no longer know the position, is unacceptable.
  
== flow of time ==
+
== Thought experiment ==
So how should you define it when time is flowing by.  Insert time instead of distance into the equation and calculate it.  Time flow = t / t = +1.  So you see with the restriction according to today's mathematics, where I'm not always sure and come up against limits, that the actual flow of time is always +1, that is, it is always developing.
+
We envision a large, one-dimensional tunnel with only one photon, say, in the middle.  Now I want to bombard this photon with another to determine the momentum.  I choose photons because for me they correspond to energy quanta, and in my sense the smallest energy quantum there is.  Let's say the photon shoots into the tunnel, is reflected by the other photon, changes the position of the shot photon and comes back into my measuring deviceNow, abstractly, I know the momentum of the photon that I observed.  But I also know the exact location because I shot it with an elemental impulse and so it could only change its position by +1 in the tunnel.  So I only have to count up +1 on my measurement result from the location in order to make a sharp and exact statement here as well.
  
== Conclusions ==
+
== Latest developments ==
You can see again that time has not been properly defined so far, you have to get involved with a three-dimensional time as well as with a three-dimensional space, a thesis that I derive from the [[equivalence of space and time]].  Of course, Einstein's theses are correct, that a certain part-time flow is sometimes slower and sometimes faster, proven by the experiment with the two clocks that circle the world in the opposite direction and then go at different speeds.  But it does not hit the flow of time itself.  I also believe that someday man will manage to build a time machine like in Back to the Future, but for Michael J. Fox, even if he flies back in time, life moves on.  I also doubt that the universe will ever collapse on its ownI think it extends into all eternity, since time always goes forward and a piece of space is added per time, derived from the above [[equivalence of space and time]].
+
Meanwhile, even the prevailing opinion according to more recent developments assumes that the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]] does not apply and must be changed.  I would have to read up on the mathematics behind it for my readers, but the statement is clear that it no longer applies in its form.  I also assume that Planck's quantum of action h is too large and so only applies in the atomic rangeThis results from the fact that the Planck mass as [[elemental mass]] would be too large, because then according to the [[Weltformel]] there would be too much mass at every location in space-time.  It is nice that contemporary physics finally recognizes this and also sees that quantum cryptography was first removed from underfoot.
  
== Einstein time dilation ==
+
And one more on top, which also confirms my thought experiment and Planck's doubts about the uncertainty relation: Forschungszentrum Jülich has published a paper in which they calculate the complete orbitals of electrons using photon emissionAnd that without blurring, because they use mathematical methods to calculate the blurring out [https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/12/1315716110 Paper on calculating quantum mechanical blurring].
Einstein's time dilation is shown in the formula T (0) = T * root (1 - v² / c²).  So the slowdown in the flow of time is the time course of the system at rest multiplied by the relativistic root.  Here you see an interesting mathematical problem, as is so often the case with Einstein.  For [[faster than light]] the flow of time goes over into the imaginary, not into the negative, so time travel would not be possible here.  Based on physics I claim that the flow of time is not 0 even at [[speed of light]].  A photon will still have a minimum frequency, which would actually be excluded according to the formulaHowever, frequency means that it moves back and forth and can therefore measure time.  The idea of ​​absolute theory is that at the speed of light the flow of time is elementary and that it only goes into the imaginary realm afterwards.  Only at infinite speed would time stand still.  But that also means - see article [[Infinity]] - with infinity greater than infinity (1) = 1 * infinite in the movement one could travel into the past as with Back to the future.  Of course, when an object moves forward at infinite speed, it is in all places at the same time at the same time.  If it moves faster, it is already there in the distant place before it even started.  Interesting things can also be deduced from Einstein's equation to the effect that the root 0 is not zero because, as I said, the flow of time is minimal and elementary.
 
 
 
== Critics ==
 
@astrodicticum, one of the leading science bloggers in German-speaking countries, has particularly criticized this article.  He said, as long as I write articles like this, nobody takes me seriously.  I have to defend myself against that.  As I said, I also had a hard time with the simple t / t, but from the point of view of a mathematician this is not a problem. Then you notice more that @astrodicticum came to physics late and has no talent background, otherwise he would  do not react so sharply. And the question of the constant expansion of the universe is a very big problem in physics, which I see as solved by this simple train of thought.
 

Revision as of 08:29, 19 September 2020

History of quantum mechanics

Max Planck taught the quantification of the world from black body radiation. This means that physical quantities do not appear as a continuous spectrum, i.e. one in which all real numbers are represented, but as multiples of a basic unit, i.e. only as natural numbers, so to speak. So far, so good, in classical quantum mechanics. Then came further progress. However, there are many misinterpretations of further progress here. Einstein summarized this in his quote: God does not roll the dice. For experimental physics in large particle accelerators with insanely high energies and tiny distances, probability theory may serve well, but is it the crux of the matter?

Uncertainty principle

I particularly attack the misinterpretation of the uncertainty principle. In essence, as presented by Heisenberg, it is good, as it says that delta (p) * delta (s)> = h. h is Plack's quantum of action. The interpretation, however, that it follows that if I bombard a particle with a photon to determine the momentum, I directly change its position and then no longer know the position, is unacceptable.

Thought experiment

We envision a large, one-dimensional tunnel with only one photon, say, in the middle. Now I want to bombard this photon with another to determine the momentum. I choose photons because for me they correspond to energy quanta, and in my sense the smallest energy quantum there is. Let's say the photon shoots into the tunnel, is reflected by the other photon, changes the position of the shot photon and comes back into my measuring device. Now, abstractly, I know the momentum of the photon that I observed. But I also know the exact location because I shot it with an elemental impulse and so it could only change its position by +1 in the tunnel. So I only have to count up +1 on my measurement result from the location in order to make a sharp and exact statement here as well.

Latest developments

Meanwhile, even the prevailing opinion according to more recent developments assumes that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply and must be changed. I would have to read up on the mathematics behind it for my readers, but the statement is clear that it no longer applies in its form. I also assume that Planck's quantum of action h is too large and so only applies in the atomic range. This results from the fact that the Planck mass as elemental mass would be too large, because then according to the Weltformel there would be too much mass at every location in space-time. It is nice that contemporary physics finally recognizes this and also sees that quantum cryptography was first removed from underfoot.

And one more on top, which also confirms my thought experiment and Planck's doubts about the uncertainty relation: Forschungszentrum Jülich has published a paper in which they calculate the complete orbitals of electrons using photon emission. And that without blurring, because they use mathematical methods to calculate the blurring out Paper on calculating quantum mechanical blurring.