# X4

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
**********************
That's a little hard to find a reply for...

-Dan

Last edited:

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
"...As a concrete example, does X4 have an effect on F = ma? From what you have written we get F = MA leading to..."
Rabbit htam9876 is just talking speed while Dandan has jumped ahead to acceleration...
So, this semi-tramp has to halt and again praise that dragon: genius...
Okay. Speed then. Let's try this: $$\displaystyle x = x_0 + vt$$. This becomes $$\displaystyle X = X_0 + VT \implies \dfrac{x}{X4} = \dfrac{x_0}{X4} + \dfrac{v}{X4} \cdot t$$?

-Dan

#### neila9876

genius 2

Again, rabbit htam9876 has to halt and praise that dragon: a math genius...

#### Attachments

• 260.8 KB Views: 16
Last edited:

#### neila9876

physics to verify math/geometry

"...Hyperreal numbers have two major features not belonging to the real number system. First, they include ±∞ as actual numbers...
What I am looking for is some kind of derivation based on the nature of X4. You have tried to use X4 but have not managed to say where is comes from and specifically how it is used...
I am simply stating that you don't seem to be using the real number system in defining what X4 is. I'm trying to understand it in terms of the Mathematics you have provided. ∞ is not a real number in the "usual" system. If you can't understand that then you need to hit the books again before you try to talk about it. I have yet to see the topic of hyperreals in Physics but that doesn't mean it isn't there..."
...........................
This semi-tramp intended to proceed to "wave functions in 4D space". Now he has to halt and answer that dragon's questions.
Yes. No one actually knows " ±∞" and "∞" which should be real number in geometry/math. They are different concepts in open space geometry or closed space geometry. And they are actually both abstract.
Blow is an article post by rabbit htam9876 last year. In fact, it's far from talking this in this thread.
............................
X4 Theory of Photon (Ⅱ)

There is an experiment fact in particle physics. When a γ photon shot into the central Coulomb field, and if its energy is high enough, it will transform into a pair of e *and e﹢.
Why such a γ photon does not transform into 2 e*(X4 = +1) or 2 e﹢(X4 = -1) ? (e *and e﹢，which one in X4 = +1, which one in X4 = -1 in real cosmos, has to be discussed in exact details in an upcoming article, namely, what’s the microscopic standard to determine X4 state. We just use it in that way at this stage.)
Next, try to use X4 theory to explain it.
If such a γ photon is in the X4 state of positive, it seems more natural and simple that 2 e* appear, or just 1/2 of such a γ photon transform into e*(X4 = +1).
If such a γ photon is in the X4 state of negative, it seems more natural and simple that 2 e+ appear, or just 1/2 of such a γ photon transform into e+(X4 = - 1).
If such a γ photon is in the X4 state of ∞, it seems that the appearance of a pair of e* and e﹢is reasonable. Such a transformation just has two natural choices.
In the above case, two tips are available:
1.The released photon is in the X4 state of ∞.
2.Central Coulomb field can change the X4 state.
But the above case should not be confused with other cases of particle pair transformation. That’s another principle.
I intentionally flip the symbols of "not anti" and "anti" (+1 /-1) here, to demostrate that "anti" is just relativistic.

#### Attachments

• 315.2 KB Views: 0

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
You were doing so well! Then I looked at your introductory notes on putting X4 to work on a Quantum scale.

Einstein was one of the greatest Physicists we've ever had. He had a habit (which all good Physicists should have) of working hard to understand the theory his was trying to disprove. Much of his work is unseen because he would propose an idea and would work out the details in both his and QM before he tried to discredit it. In fact his theories and the experiments he proposed ended up proving that QM was correct in many respects.

You are creative and have put a decent amount of time in with X4. For that reason I'll put this as politely as I can: You have a lot to learn about QM before you continue with X4.

-Dan

#### neila9876

picture vs X4

"...Let's try this: x=x0+vt. This becomes ..."
........................
X4 Theory does not emphasize on specific calculations about movements inside frame/coordinate system.
Just scale the space vector or speed vector as a whole...
It's autumn now, the scene in villages becomes more beautiful. Carry an old style camera (that kind with a long nose) and go to the villages. Take pictures, please. And you will get to know how to understand X4 better.

#### Attachments

• 21.1 KB Views: 0

#### neila9876

Ideal vs realistic

“You have a lot to learn about QM before you continue with X4”
Oh, yes, of course. If I want to do more in X4, I should learn more in QM.
Oh, perhaps disappointed again, bunnies.
Two years ago, the local dark force (江门地方黑恶势力钟永康) told me: “You will jump out in three years.” Of course, I understand what he meant. Next year, my only daughter who is now in primary school will advance to middle school. This will be an inescapable juncture for me.
Actually, most of time is spent on worrying, about the perspective and safety of my family members. The absolute and all around suppression of the local dark force render me suffering anxiety neurosis, at least shorten my life ten plus years. I’m in bad health and bad mental situation. Sometimes, I even can’t read physics now.
If this semi-tramp has to surrender again to the local dark force and be confined as a half self payment watchman again, or even worst death, guys who are interested in X4 push ahead on the base created by me, please.
“…Einstein was one of the greatest Physicists we've ever had. He had a habit (which all good Physicists should have) of working hard to understand the theory his was trying to disprove. Much of his work is unseen because he would propose an idea and would work out the details in both his and QM before he tried to discredit it. In fact his theories and the experiments he proposed ended up proving that QM was correct in many respects…”
I’ m not trying to disprove nor discredit QM. I’m just trying to make it more understandable with an extra dimension. You can see that X4 method of representation is the same in form as traditional QM in 3D space.
Don’t forget, when you watch the world, everything is certain, nothing is uncertain, and actually anything is microscopic in the eye of nature.
“…We don’t know why to calculate it in that way, nor do we know its physical meaning. We only know that if we calculate it in that way, we can get interesting result.” These are words from a Quantum physicist. I forgot his name. I feel the same. That's one of the reasons that I initiate the extra dimension.

#### Attachments

• 21.8 KB Views: 0

#### neila9876

Wave Functions in 4D Space (Ⅰ)

Once upon a time, in the equation X = X4x and then the equation V = X4v, the reference in fact is 3D space (which is nicknamed “the mass space”).
In order to prevent losing the meaning of contrary or reference, in 4D space wave function, we date that space and momentum, one is 4D space physical quantity, then the other is 3D space physical quantity. This is called the 1/2 Rule of Rabbit htam9876 or the Special Engagement of Rabbit htam9876.
1.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
Then, the probability density｜A｜² is a constant. It means the probability of appearance of the particle in any point of 4D position space is the same. In turn, it means the probability of the X4 state the free particle be in is the same. The situation is the same in any position x in the 3D space.
Because it’s a free particle, no interaction is concerned, the above analysis reflects the property of the particle itself regardless it is moving or not (It has nothing to do with wavelength λ = h/p).
2.The momentum space wave function for a free particle in 4D space is:
Ψ(P, t) = A exp( i(P•x– Et )) “h-” and vector marks omitted for convenience of watching. Amplitude A is a constant.
P = X4p
Then, the probability density｜A｜² is a constant. It means the probability of appearance of the particle in any point of 4D momentum space is the same. In turn, it means the probability of the X4 state the free particle be in is the same. The situation is the same in any momentum p in the 3D space.
Because it’s a free particle, no interaction is concerned, the above analysis reflects the property of the particle itself regardless it is moving or not (It has nothing to do with wavelength λ = h/P).
3.Watch the equation again shown in the attached picture. Now we consider the LEFT side is a wave function for a free particle in 4D space. Then, according to the 1/2 Rule of Rabbit htam9876, the momentum element contained in it is actually 4D space momentum, namely, P = X4p. (here take 0 < X4 < ∞ for simplicity). So, it’s very natural to unfold the left side to a series of wave functions with different momentum values on the right side. It means the superposition of a series of X4 states.
Wave function in 4D space demonstrates the integral wavicle character of a particle.

Li Qiang Chen
Semptember 20th, 2019

#### Attachments

• 349.3 KB Views: 0

#### neila9876

math vs physics

"...You need Mathematics to understand the theory... Mathematics is one of the most important tools in Physics..."
Again, watch the the equation shown in the attached picture above.
Is there an engagement in authentic math to date that it means superposition of states? Why couldn't't we misconsider that it means a particle can be transformed to sum of a series of particles? And then, people will get "infinite amount of energy". It's so good.haha...

#### Attachments

• 7.9 KB Views: 0
Last edited:

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
"...You need Mathematics to understand the theory... Mathematics is one of the most important tools in Physics..."
Again, watch the the equation shown in the attached picture above.
Is there an engagement in authentic math to date that it means superposition of states? Why couldn't't we misconsider that it means a particle can be transformed to sum of a series of particles? And then, people will get "infinite amount of energy".
Most of Introductory level QM deals with Linear Algebra at its base concepts. Along with that concept comes "linear superposition," which means that we can simply add the wavefunctions as they move with respect to each other.

No, waves cannot be considered to be a sum of particle states.

This is exactly what I mean. You need more information to talk about QM. I could make a list if you like. I'd suggest starting with Linear Algebra.

What I've seen of X4 is that it illuminates nothing but obscures the structure that is there. (And in QM we don't need more complexities!)

I think that we've gone far enough in this thread. Thread closed.

-Dan

Status
Not open for further replies.