Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation

From: Non Ame (noname_at_nospam.net)
Date: 03/21/05 

Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2005 02:51:44 +0000 (UTC)

dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) writes:

> Ken S. Tucker:
> >Bilge wrote:
> >[snip agreebly]
> >
> >> The number `hbar' is again, the result of choosing units rather
> >than
> >> what `hbar' represents. What it represents is 1 unit of angular
> >momentum.
> >
> >Bilge, I argue, Plancks "h" is a unit of action,
> >it is a scalar with 1 single positive magnitude,
> >6.624x10^-27 erg x seconds.
> >
> >A unit of angular momentum can have +/- values,
> >since that is, by convention, reversible by
> >rotation, and we use a vector normal to the
> >plane of rotation to describe angular momentum.
>
> No, it can't. The positive and negative values refer to the
>direction defined by one component of the angular momentum. The
>other two components are indeterminate. In fact, for that reason,
>the angular momentum itself is not a quantum mechanical observable.
>The observables are L^2 and L_z (or L_x or L_y, but only one of
>those three and the choice of what to define as L_x, L_y or L_z
>is completely arbitrary, so long as its self-consistent).

You are forgetting that Ken S. Tucker has this wonderful new formulation
of Quantum Theory (or QT) which he claims is derivable from General
Relativity. Ken apparently wants to keep the details of his formulation
secret, presumably for future publication, because no amount of entreaties
will persuade him to reveal the postulates and axiomatic basis for his
brand new theory. No entreaties will convince him to reveal how to derive
his new Quantum Theory from General Relativity, either.

One thing that does seem certain is that in Ken's new Quantum World, all
particles move with well-defined trajectories, but are unable to change
their energy levels, except in sudden instantaneous jumps between the
levels (he presumably has a hard and fast rule about how much the energy
can change an when).

One thing that I have long suspected is that Ken expects quantum
observables to commute, and I recently got some evidence in favour of that
hypothesis after I recently explicitly wrote one expression in Quantum
Electrodynamics as

        E_x(r,t) B_y(r',t) - B_y(r',t) E_x(r,t),

and his response included the indication that he believed the above
expression to be equal to zero.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation
    ... >>plane of rotation to describe angular momentum. ... >direction defined by one component of the angular momentum. ... >the angular momentum itself is not a quantum mechanical observable. ... of Quantum Theory which he claims is derivable from General ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • A blast from the past: the thread Spin and SO(3)
    ... Spin and SO ... Has anyone formulated quantum mechanical spin and angular momentum in SOinstead ... SUis the quantum rotation group because multiplication ... operators on state space. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Query about intrinsic verus orbital angular momentum
    ... how do we "know" that intrinsic spin does not in fact ... point of view of quantum field theory. ... with rotation) can have only integer quantum numbers. ... spin angular momentum must therefore be interpreted in some ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: An Invitation to Quantum Mathematics
    ... There are two different kinds of angular momentum operators that can be ... and the quantum numbers may be either integers or half integers. ... mathematics do have substantial quantum analogues. ... classical/quantum correspondence which I appreciate. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: An Invitation to Quantum Mathematics
    ... The two angular momentum operators L and M which combined give the ... mathematics do have substantial quantum analogues. ... classical/quantum correspondence which I appreciate. ...
    (sci.math)