wavicle: an old topic

Mar 2019
723
35
cosmos
The unified principle of gravity and electric force

In the lecture of Hydrogen atom in "standard" QM text book, wave function descibes the probability distribution of electron in 3D space outside the nucleus. Anyone can imagine what the atom will look like...Below is a comment from a guy in another site. I translate it into English.
"...actually, what we see the atom is a tiny particle with limited size in limited space..."
I make no comment here.
..............
What I care is if the electron describes the distribution of Coulomb field (or say exactly the electric interaction) in wave character, will it make more physical meaning.
...
Gravity is "curvature" of 3D space, presentation of particle character while electric force is "curvature" of 4D space, presentation of wavicle character.
 
Last edited:
Jun 2016
1,151
520
England
Gravity is defined as a curvature of the 4D space-time.
If the electron field can also be described as curvature of a 4D space,
it would have to be a different set of 4 dimensions.

I like the idea of amalgamating all fields into a single methodology of geometrical description,
but that imposes new features on the structure of the universe
which will be difficult (but not necessarily impossible) to define and justify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Mar 2019
723
35
cosmos
dimensions

"Gravity is defined as a curvature of the 4D space-time"
Yes. Woody. It seems I know that even this semi-tramp has no a decent GR textbook at hand. But I have a "bad habit", I like to put time t aside for simplicity. When someone call me "Li Qiang Chen", I feel a bit complicated, but actually I am "Li Qiang Chen".
"If the electron field can also be described as curvature of a 4D space,
it would have to be a different set of 4 dimensions."
A bit complicated. I would rather say "different angle of 4 dimensions".
 
Mar 2019
723
35
cosmos
Concept of Full Scene Four Dimensions

I like to use vivid analogy to talk something.
1.Watch the rabbit in the attached picture from the angle perpendicular to the paper, people see a rabbit running in space – time four dimension.
The method of description in math is: x = x0 + vt
2.Watching from the angle parallel to the paper, people see the butt of the rabbit zooming in 4D space.
The method of description in math is: X = X4x
If we use (X, t) to describe it, the concept will be Full Scene Four Dimensions.
Refer to “Wave Functions in 4D space (Ⅰ)” again. Just talk one example here.
“…The position space wave function for a free particle in 4D space is:
Ψ(X, t) = A exp( i(p•X– Et )) “h-” and vector marks omitted for convenience of watching. Amplitude A is a constant.
X = X4x ”
In fact, it’s a Full Scene Four Dimensions wave function. We can expect that its ability of description is higher than the traditional space – time four dimension wave function.
Ψ(x, t) = A exp( i(p•x– Et )) “h-” and vector marks omitted for convenience of watching. Amplitude A is a constant.
And the Special Engagement of Rabbit htam9876 is the must – pass gateway.


Li Qiang Chen
Semptember 23th, 2019
Thread halt here.
 

Attachments

Mar 2019
723
35
cosmos
that kind of thing?

When this semi-tramp saw that dragon again appeared in his already closed thread "common misconcept ...(2)" and talked, I'm scared and doubts if it's that kind of thing...
 

Attachments

Last edited:
Mar 2019
723
35
cosmos
dagon vs Huygens

"...The answer to your question is that the velocity component in the x direction is equal to c. This is from Huygen's principle."
............
Again this semi-tramp has to say that dragon is a genius.
This time he did not resort to the best answer of "no one knows", while try to find a way to do something. He made a great progress.
...........
He seems talking a perfect wavicle.
...........
(Thread halt again.)
 

Attachments

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
2,936
611
On the dance floor, baby!
When this semi-tramp saw that dragon again appeared in his already closed thread "common misconcept ...(2)" and talked, he is scared and doubts if it's that kind of thing...
I'm not scared at all. I just found that I needed to say something extra.

"...The answer to your question is that the velocity component in the x direction is equal to c. This is from Huygen's principle."
............
Again this semi-tramp has to say that dragon is a genius.
This time he did not resort to the best answer of "no one knows", while try to find a way to do something. He made a great progress.
............
He seems talking a perfect wavicle.
...........
(Thread halt again.)
Why would I "resort" to give an answer of "no one knows." If I know that no one knows I would say that. I cannot make the argument in terms of particles, nor have I found a way to do this for a material particle, for which v < c. There's nothing at all wrong with this... I simply do not know, nor did I find any reference that addressed the issue. I have told you what I know in the past and I have to problems with doing that in the future, either. My ego is not on the line.

-Dan
 
Mar 2019
723
35
cosmos
ego

I really don't where's your ego.
...........
But this semi-tramp loves in guys who can do something substantial (one favour is in wavicle).
Huygens' principle is wave principle.
Component of speed in a direction is about matter particle.
?
Why a perfect junction must be wrong...
...........
I am trying to get back to a bit better mental situation and then go on with the research in 4D space wave function (2). It will not be post here.
(Thread halt again. Sorry.)
 

topsquark

Forum Staff
Apr 2008
2,936
611
On the dance floor, baby!
Huygens' principle is wave principle.
Component of speed in a direction is about matter particle.
All results in QM are applicable to either wave or particle results. So if the wave representation predicts a certain behavior then so does the particle representation. If I come up with a wave solution then we know it works in the particle solution as well, even if I can't come up with how it would work. A good example of this principle is the double slit experiemnt. It is fairly easy to understand using waves but no so much using particles.

Consider your example. Suppose we have the (Euclidean) vector \(\displaystyle \vec{v} = v_x \hat{i} + v_y \hat{j}\). The length of the vector v is \(\displaystyle v = \sqrt{v_x^2 + v_y^2}\) but we can't say that in general about SR, which can involve the time component... then we need to use the Minkowski version of the dot product: \(\displaystyle v^2 \equiv v_{\mu} v^{\mu} = g_{00} v_0^2 + g_{11}v_1^2 + g_{22} v_2^2 + g_{33} v_3^2\). (Where \(\displaystyle g_{\mu \nu}\) represents the metric.) To be specific here, \(\displaystyle v_{\mu} v^{\mu}\) is not equal to our simple (Euclidean) result. We can have an equilateral triangle where all three angles are right angles, which is what I believe is the case here.

There are some holes in my presentation but this is the best I can do for a particle representation.

-Dan
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Mar 2019
723
35
cosmos
that kind of thing?

"...All results in QM are applicable to either wave or particle results. So if the wave representation predicts a certain behavior then so does the particle representation. If I come up with a wave solution then we know it works in the particle solution as well, ..."
...............
This semi-tramp again has to say that dragon is a genius. Even again it seems to be that kind of thing...
haha...
 

Attachments