Difference between pages "Complex numbers" and "Quantum Mechanics"

From Absolute Theory
(Difference between pages)
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→‎The absolute theory and the complex numbers)
 
(→‎Latest developments)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== history ==
+
== History of quantum mechanics ==
−
i is the square root of -1.  For a long time, roots of negative numbers were considered undefined, until you went there and simply said that the root of -1 was i, the imaginary number.  Even modern pocket calculators sometimes show an error with negative roots.  With i you could continue to calculate and quickly develop the complex numbers.  The complex numbers have a real and an imaginary part.  A complex number c1 is equal to (r * i, s).  So you no longer have simple numbers, but a vector.  The complex numbers form a body with regard to addition and multiplication, but according to the previous view this is not ordered.  The order properties fail, it is believed, because i would be neither positive nor negative, so that a relation like <or> would not be applicable.
+
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?
  
−
== The absolute theory and the complex numbers ==
+
== Uncertainty principle ==
−
So far it's just an idea and almost pure speculation: The numbers that I defined for the [[Division by Zero]] always played a life of their own.  Recently I've been discovering that it is possible that they are not as different from complex numbers as I always thought.  The assumption is 0 * 0 = -1, i.e. i = 0. On the one hand, this results from the consideration that infinitely times 0 comes close to 1 and can also be referred to as epsilon, the number that is greater than 0  , but smaller than any real number so far.  According to the field axioms, 1 * 0 would be exactly the zero element and everything <1 * 0 would then go into the imaginary area, i.e. in particular 0 * 0 = -1.  It should be noted that by 1 I always mean the ones element, i.e. the smallest possible non-imaginary number in the number set.  This can be illustrated physically using the [[quantization]].  On the other hand, the assumption arises that i would be equal to 0 in the sense of my newly defined zero elements from physics.  After the [[anti-proportionality of locomotion and mass]] the energy for [[faster than light speed]] moves into the area of ​​the zero elements, but according to Einstein and Minkowski it moves into the imaginary area.  For a long time I thought that was a contradiction, but as always it was only an apparent one that leads to a greater truth.
+
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.
  
−
It would also result from this that the complex numbers would be an ordered field, because i = 0 = + 0 and n * i> = 0, with n * i> m * i for n> m.  This is how you could order the numbers.  Unfortunately, there are also new contradictions with this idea, for example 1 / i = -i, which would mean that 1/0 = -0.  And that brings me completely into the devil's kitchen, because then the difference between 0 and infinity, and also the difference between positive and negative values ​​in these two areas, could disappear.  Let's see what greater truth is behind it.
+
== 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.
  
−
== Further development of this idea via the complex numbers ==
+
== Latest developments ==
−
In the meantime, I don't think it's so improbable that 1/0 = -0 in the sense that 1 / i = -i.  With that one would of course have to give up the idea that infinity is the reciprocal of 0.  But that too can result from the logical formulation.  If we define all times as infinite, and something happens once, then it happened and not zero.  The phrase "once is never" would then not apply.  I already have a good formulation for 0 * 0 = -1, but in the form 1 * 0 * 1 * 0 = -1 <=> 0 (1) * 0 (1) = -1.  If you don't have something this one time, then you have something this one time, i.e. 1. Then there is the new problem that something would be 1 and not -1, but I think with a little time I'll get that too  solved.  For [[Multiply by zero]], I also omit the relevant reference.
+
Meanwhile, even the prevailing opinion according to more recent developments assumes that the [[Heisenberg’s 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.
  
−
== Complex numbers and derivatives ==
+
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 [https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/12/12/1315716110 Paper on calculating quantum mechanical blurring].
−
A nice connection that would result from this idea is the calculation of the abilities.  So f (x + i) / i = f (x + i) * -i in the real part is the first derivative of f (x), namely f '(x).  Here there is a problem with cubic equations that i ^ 4 would no longer be +1.  This is difficult to determine on the number line because I always equate 0 with +0.  As a result, the jump from -0 to 1 can be too far, and this also applies to the derivatives.  You would then always have to calculate the power of i according to your own power rules, because then it does not apply that i ^ 4 = i² * i² = -1 * -1 = +1. But here I have come to the last question of all body axioms. Namely, it makes sense to distinguish between + and -, male and female, positive and negative, and how, if so, do you do it correctly.
 

Revision as of 08:30, 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’s 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.

Retrieved from "https://absolutetheory.com/index.php?title=Complex_numbers&oldid=96"