Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation
From: Bilge (dubious_at_radioactivex.lebesque-al.net)
Date: 03/22/05
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- Previous message: Non Ame: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- In reply to: Non Ame: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:46:45 GMT
Non Ame:
>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.
Perhaps comprehension and logic aren't observables of his theory.
>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.
That would be an interesting universe - one with c = 0 so that there
are no timelike intervals.
- Next message: Bilge: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- Previous message: Non Ame: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- In reply to: Non Ame: "Re: h bar and Lorentz transformation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
