People in the Netherlands pronounce 'graffiti' as 'gravity'.

ugh

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**58455**Joined:****Location:**Amsterdam-
**Contact:**

People in the Netherlands pronounce 'graffiti' as 'gravity'.

ugh

ugh

I wish I could understand all thisthe new wave equation is the same for relativistic and non relativistic,

\begin{equation}

\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \Psi(x,t)}{\partial t}-\nabla\Psi(x,t)=0

\end{equation}

(only the wave function itself changes indirectly due to non relativistic we can use first term of Taylor expansion on momentum when \(v<<c\), not needed, but yes if preferred okay, \(p_t\approx mc\) ).

The most important part of the new and better QM is however that we get rid of a Square root that have lead to endless lame speculations in modern physics. Going from relativistic energy momentum relation off

\(E=\sqrt{p^2c^2+(mc^2)^2}\)

to simply

\(E=p_kc+mc^2\)

that even give us

\(E=p_tc\)

(modern physics are lost with their ill specified momentum that actually is linked to de Broglie wavelength, while the true matter wave is the Compton)

The Square root needed in the standard relativistic energy mass formula to fudge the ill specified momentum to get the correct total energy is the root of all evil speculations in modern physics, negative energy, negative mass, negative probabilities, electrons traveling back in time etc.. !

Go from de Broglie artifact to Compton and all is solved, well must be combined with my max-velocity also to unite the photon with matter.

- katastrofa
**Posts:**7266**Joined:****Location:**Alpha Centauri

No worries, not anyone does

Jjjje! Regards 2019!No worries, not anyone does

Updated: Better QM is quite straight forward, at least all the way including the new relativistic energy momentum relation. (when it comes to using imaginary numbers I am a sceptic to if it is necessary)

Old QM is very foggy interpretation wise, even from their corner stone: the relativistic energy momentum relation that I think first was presented in 1928 by Dirac in his electron paper?. It is mathematically correct, but uneccesarily complex as it models energy from a derivative (standard momentum that are linked to de Broglie matter wave, not Compton wave)

**" I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."** Richard Feynman

Check out for example also invariant mass, under standard theory yes correct output as all mathematical correct

\begin{eqnarray}

E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4 \nonumber \\

m=\sqrt{\frac{\frac{E^2}{c^2}-p^2}{c^2}}

\end{eqnarray}

but all the squaring and the one too many square root is not intuitive, it is all to fudge a non optimal momentum (de Broglie rooted momentum) into energy of the right form.

It is so much easier with the new relativistic energy momentum relation

\begin{equation}

E=p_kc+mc^2

\end{equation}

From this we find that the invariant mass is given by

\begin{equation}

m=\frac{E-p_kc}{c^2}

\end{equation}

Which simply means the rest-mass is the total energy minus the kinetic energy divided by \(c^2\). That again is simply the rest mass is equal to the rest mass energy divided by \(c^2\).

If dissolved into their quantum parts one easily see the two are the same, but the standard way is the long non intuitive way.

New QM is bottom up, started with quantum and builds up. Standard QM is basically top down, blind folded digging into the bottom of the quantum cave.

.

Old QM is very foggy interpretation wise, even from their corner stone: the relativistic energy momentum relation that I think first was presented in 1928 by Dirac in his electron paper?. It is mathematically correct, but uneccesarily complex as it models energy from a derivative (standard momentum that are linked to de Broglie matter wave, not Compton wave)

Check out for example also invariant mass, under standard theory yes correct output as all mathematical correct

\begin{eqnarray}

E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4 \nonumber \\

m=\sqrt{\frac{\frac{E^2}{c^2}-p^2}{c^2}}

\end{eqnarray}

but all the squaring and the one too many square root is not intuitive, it is all to fudge a non optimal momentum (de Broglie rooted momentum) into energy of the right form.

It is so much easier with the new relativistic energy momentum relation

\begin{equation}

E=p_kc+mc^2

\end{equation}

From this we find that the invariant mass is given by

\begin{equation}

m=\frac{E-p_kc}{c^2}

\end{equation}

Which simply means the rest-mass is the total energy minus the kinetic energy divided by \(c^2\). That again is simply the rest mass is equal to the rest mass energy divided by \(c^2\).

If dissolved into their quantum parts one easily see the two are the same, but the standard way is the long non intuitive way.

New QM is bottom up, started with quantum and builds up. Standard QM is basically top down, blind folded digging into the bottom of the quantum cave.

.

Last edited by Collector on January 6th, 2019, 7:05 pm, edited 5 times in total.

- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**58455**Joined:****Location:**Amsterdam-
**Contact:**

Think of it as a frictionless waterhammer wave PDE

I wish I could understand all this

- katastrofa
**Posts:**7266**Joined:****Location:**Alpha Centauri

¡Próspero Año Nuevo! SaludosJjjje! Regards 2019!No worries, not anyone does

Próspero Nuevo Paradigma! Cuadriplicar\(^{\frac{1}{4}}\) Saludos = Saludos

Gracias Coleccionista !!! Un cordial saludo para todos. Cuando sea grande quiero ser como tu! cheersPróspero Nuevo Paradigma! Cuadriplicar\(^{\frac{1}{4}}\) Saludos = Saludos

Good! I am not the only one then.

It looked to me like scalars being equated to vectors. But perhaps each quantity is some ultra sophisticated mathematical object that you need to be in the inner circle to get.

It looked to me like scalars being equated to vectors. But perhaps each quantity is some ultra sophisticated mathematical object that you need to be in the inner circle to get.

I wish I could understand all thisthe new wave equation is the same for relativistic and non relativistic,

\begin{equation}

\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \Psi(x,t)}{\partial t}-\nabla\Psi(x,t)=0

\end{equation}

(only the wave function itself changes indirectly due to non relativistic we can use first term of Taylor expansion on momentum when \(v<<c\), not needed, but yes if preferred okay, \(p_t\approx mc\) ).

The most important part of the new and better QM is however that we get rid of a Square root that have lead to endless lame speculations in modern physics. Going from relativistic energy momentum relation off

\(E=\sqrt{p^2c^2+(mc^2)^2}\)

to simply

\(E=p_kc+mc^2\)

that even give us

\(E=p_tc\)

(modern physics are lost with their ill specified momentum that actually is linked to de Broglie wavelength, while the true matter wave is the Compton)

The Square root needed in the standard relativistic energy mass formula to fudge the ill specified momentum to get the correct total energy is the root of all evil speculations in modern physics, negative energy, negative mass, negative probabilities, electrons traveling back in time etc.. !

Go from de Broglie artifact to Compton and all is solved, well must be combined with my max-velocity also to unite the photon with matter.

the wave equation part of my paper could be dead wrong, may be just hand waving...need to look further into it, on the relativistic energy momentum relation and my view on de Broglie wavelength versus Compton I am convinced...

*“Where did we get that [Schrödinger's equation] from? It's not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger.”* *The Feynman Lectures on Physics*

Good! I am not the only one then.

It looked to me like scalars being equated to vectors. But perhaps each quantity is some ultra sophisticated mathematical object that you need to be in the inner circle to get.

I wish I could understand all thisthe new wave equation is the same for relativistic and non relativistic,

\begin{equation}

\frac{1}{c}\frac{\partial \Psi(x,t)}{\partial t}-\nabla\Psi(x,t)=0

\end{equation}

(only the wave function itself changes indirectly due to non relativistic we can use first term of Taylor expansion on momentum when \(v<<c\), not needed, but yes if preferred okay, \(p_t\approx mc\) ).

The most important part of the new and better QM is however that we get rid of a Square root that have lead to endless lame speculations in modern physics. Going from relativistic energy momentum relation off

\(E=\sqrt{p^2c^2+(mc^2)^2}\)

to simply

\(E=p_kc+mc^2\)

that even give us

\(E=p_tc\)

(modern physics are lost with their ill specified momentum that actually is linked to de Broglie wavelength, while the true matter wave is the Compton)

The Square root needed in the standard relativistic energy mass formula to fudge the ill specified momentum to get the correct total energy is the root of all evil speculations in modern physics, negative energy, negative mass, negative probabilities, electrons traveling back in time etc.. !

Go from de Broglie artifact to Compton and all is solved, well must be combined with my max-velocity also to unite the photon with matter.

thanks, but wonder because my bad notation or something else? I updated notation p to

Also see new section 9, now the double accounting "fudge" of modern physics is no longer needed. Modern physics keep introducing special rules when one have photons, like relativistic energy formula then breaks down so it must be massless and other formula is needed. This is not needed, the photons are in the new theory just the limit, the new theory binds photons closer to mass. In short it properly incorporates photon-photon collisions at all levels.

Updated: Better Quantum Mechanics

The Photon is a wonderful thing: it has two velocities, not one, the speed of light and zero (no velocity in between), it is the fastest and the slowest (but only slow for one Planck second at photon-photon collisions). Correspondingly it has zero mass (massless) and mass (non collisions versus collisions).

The zero velocity of photons at photon-photon collisions is almost impossible to detect directly as it last for one Planck time, incredible short. But all of modern physics is simplified, we now longer need to tweak the formulas and even use different formulas for photons and particles with mass. What we need to properly incorporate as done in my theory is the smallest length, namely the Planck length.

The world is binary at the depth of reality, we are living in a binary computer known as the Universe, that will run forever and that have run forever (forget the Big Bang fantasies..).

It was only a trivial observation but for you is psi a scalar function? (as in a regular wavefunction).

partial psi/partial t is then a scalar, but grad(psi) is a vector?

The advection equation uses div.

partial psi/partial t is then a scalar, but grad(psi) is a vector?

The advection equation uses div.

Good! I am not the only one then.

It looked to me like scalars being equated to vectors. But perhaps each quantity is some ultra sophisticated mathematical object that you need to be in the inner circle to get.

I wish I could understand all this

thanks, but wonder because my bad notation or something else? I updated notation p top, wherepis the three momentum (a vector in three dimensions) andvnow the three velocity ( a velocity vector in three dimensions), quite standard approach. (updated section 5) (andpthe three momentum under the new relativistic energy momentum relation._{t}

Also see new section 9, now the double accounting "fudge" of modern physics is no longer needed. Modern physics keep introducing special rules when one have photons, like relativistic energy formula then breaks down so it must be massless and other formula is needed. This is not needed, the photons are in the new theory just the limit, the new theory binds photons closer to mass. In short it properly incorporates photon-photon collisions at all levels.

Updated: Better Quantum Mechanics

The Photon is a wonderful thing: it has two velocities, not one, the speed of light and zero (no velocity in between), it is the fastest and the slowest (but only slow for one Planck second at photon-photon collisions). Correspondingly it has zero mass (massless) and mass (non collisions versus collisions).

The zero velocity of photons at photon-photon collisions is almost impossible to detect directly as it last for one Planck time, incredible short. But all of modern physics is simplified, we now longer need to tweak the formulas and even use different formulas for photons and particles with mass. What we need to properly incorporate as done in my theory is the smallest length, namely the Planck length.

The world is binary at the depth of reality, we are living in a binary computer known as the Universe, that will run forever and that have run forever (forget the Big Bang fantasies..).

Hmmm. Something is fishy here.

If a particle is travelling at*c*, then isn't the Compton wavelength the same as the de Broglie relation?

Feynman was lecturing freshman. There are various ways in which you can derive Schrodinger Equation.

Positrons being electron moving back in time is purely a handwaving example, and says more about our concept of time conservation than anything else. It is an idea more than anything else.

I don't quite see what is solved in the outlines above. The introduction of*pk* or *pt* I am not sure solves anything. I remain unconvinced that the relationship holds in the modified momentum equations. Can you show some form of experiment that shows that your relationship is correct?

If a particle is travelling at

Feynman was lecturing freshman. There are various ways in which you can derive Schrodinger Equation.

Positrons being electron moving back in time is purely a handwaving example, and says more about our concept of time conservation than anything else. It is an idea more than anything else.

I don't quite see what is solved in the outlines above. The introduction of

Hmmm. Something is fishy here.

If a particle is travelling atc, then isn't the Compton wavelength the same as the de Broglie relation?

Feynman was lecturing freshman. There are various ways in which you can derive Schrodinger Equation.

Positrons being electron moving back in time is purely a handwaving example, and says more about our concept of time conservation than anything else. It is an idea more than anything else.

I don't quite see what is solved in the outlines above. The introduction ofpkorptI am not sure solves anything. I remain unconvinced that the relationship holds in the modified momentum equations. Can you show some form of experiment that shows that your relationship is correct?

"If a particle is travelling at

Yes but the theory blows up and-or is inconsistent:

\(\lambda_B=\frac{h}{\frac{mc}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}=\frac{h}{\frac{mc}{\sqrt{1-\frac{c^2}{c^2}}}}=0\)

and yes also the Compton wavelength the same when v=c

\(\lambda_c=\frac{h}{\frac{mv}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}}}=\frac{h}{\frac{mc}{\sqrt{1-\frac{c^2}{c^2}}}}=0\)

But the two results above cannot hold as no particle with mass can move at speed c, because then the relativistic energy formula then blows up, becomes infinite when v=c (also the momentum). These two problems are linked: infinite relativistic mass (not allowed, and for good reasons) and zero de Broglie and Compton wavelength. Zero Compton wavelength and zero de Broglie is also inconsistent with a minimum length. De Broglie formula gives infinite (when v=0) and zero when v=c. They have tried to fudge it by all types of lame interpretations for infinite de Broglie wavelength and also by jumping over to another formula as soon as v=c.

The way modern physics tries to solve this (by introducing new inconsistencies) is when going to c they magically switch and say now we have another formula. For a photon they have

\(p=\frac{h}{\lambda}\)

and now the wavelength they say is

\(\lambda=\frac{h}{mc}\)

(which is consistent with experiments, yes, photons naturally do not have mass, but the "equivalent mass" is used here E/c^2, or some will simply say yes the momentum is the photon momentum as defined over to avoid all mass notation with respect to photons.

but off course they must avoid the Compton relativistic formula at all costs (and the de Broglie formula) (when dealing with light), when v=c

\(\lambda_c=\frac{h}{\frac{mc}{\sqrt{1-\frac{c^2}{c^2}} } }\)

As it would give zero wavelength always for photons. So modern physics need “all the time” to operate with two sets of formulas (double accounting is used when u have something to hide, in case of physics they do not even know they are hiding something ).

Modern physics inconsistencies and uses double accounting (suddenly switching formulas when going from very high energy particles to photons) is all gone with two small adjustments, using Compton based momentum and in addition my maximum velocity formula, and my maximum velocity formula is a simple consequence of making SR consistent with a minimum length.

The Compton relativistic wave formula works perfectly well also for light when we switch from v<c limit to limit \(v\leq c\sqrt{1-\frac{l_p^2}{\bar{\lambda}^2}}\). Now we also get a the same minimum wave length on both matter and light. This because the minimum Compton wavelength for light is at a photon-photon collision when light stands absolutely still. Lorentz symmetry naturally also breaks down at the Planck scale then, which solves such things as spooky action at distance, and hidden variables theories are back in play, Bells theorem is rooted in Heisenberg uncertainty principle always holds, but it also breaks at the Planck scale.

Assume they say the minimum wavelength of a photon is the Planck length, and thereby the maximum frequency is the Planck frequency, or any other minimum length and maximum frequency (but it is the Planck length and Planck frequency). This would be fully consistent with their math on photons isolated. But now suddenly they can have for example an electrons with de Broglie and Compton wavelength much shorter than this, actually no other limits than \lambda >0, just move close enough to c but not at c and we get de Broglie and Compton shorter than any minimum assumed (relativistic length contracted length).

That is the shortest Compton and de Broglie wavelength one can have in modern physics is simply >0 as we just have limit of v<c and not any limit on how close v can go to c. Both are rooted in physics not consistent with a minimum length. So we have type of quasi QM.

In my theory on the other hand we get a minimum de Broglie wavelength and Compton wavelength equal to the Planck length, and yes they both converge for particles moving very close to c and I have an exact speed limit given by my max velocity formula. The max velocity formula is a consequence of quantum, a minimum length. Second I can use the same formulas for mass and light, it is fully consistent.

Standard Physics with only their rule of v<c is Absurd

It gives a Trans Planckian crisis

Modern physics is inconsistent with a minimum length at so many levels, in SR and in QM, and in addition they have used a momentum derivative...

Last edited by Collector on January 10th, 2019, 12:23 am, edited 2 times in total.

GZIP: On