Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Negative Quantum Space-Time

Space-Time

  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 pittsburghjoe

pittsburghjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 06:47 AM

I am claiming something revolutionary here, but likely, do not have the correct terminology ..I'm no expert, please don't kill me. Tell me if you think I'm on to something.

What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us?
Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something on our scale was partially fuzzy depending on how many measurements you made (at the same time) ..would you say it was a full fledged three dimensional object? No, you'd say isn't fully here, its Space-Time element is being partially held back. Wave collapse doesn't appear to be completely collapsing. If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.

If we accept this negative space-time, it answers several other quantum questions.



#2 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1139 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 07:27 AM

 

I am claiming something revolutionary here, but likely, do not have the correct terminology ..I'm no expert, please don't kill me. Tell me if you think I'm on to something.

What is the Uncertainty Principle telling us?
Is it saying the power of observation/measurement of a quantum object is not enough to make it a genuine 3D + 1 space-time object? If something on our scale was partially fuzzy depending on how many measurements you made (at the same time) ..would you say it was a full fledged three dimensional object? No, you'd say isn't fully here, its Space-Time element is being partially held back. Wave collapse doesn't appear to be completely collapsing. If a particle is fuzzy while moving, it suggest that particle is on a different timeline than you. If it doesn't have momentum and becomes clear, it's because time isn't required to take a still shot.

If we accept this negative space-time, it answers several other quantum questions.

 

 

Um, I dunno exactly what to make of this, Well basically the Uncertainty Principle is just saying you can't measure the Position and Momentum of the particle at the same time, the better you measure the position the worse your measurement for momentum gets and vice versa. This has to do with Wave-Particle duality in that there is no definite measurements of Wave-particles of those properties, there is nothing beyond that to it.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 23 May 2019 - 07:28 AM.


#3 pittsburghjoe

pittsburghjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 07:32 AM

Maybe you would like it better if I said, objects that can display quantum weirdness are not large enough to be part of space-time.


Edited by pittsburghjoe, 23 May 2019 - 07:32 AM.


#4 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1139 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 07:35 AM

Maybe you would like it better if I said, objects that can display quantum weirdness are not large enough to be part of space-time.

 

They are definitely apart of space-time as they exist in this universe and experience time, Quantum Particles still have time and space just as any other object not being different from the larger scale objects, the only difference is there is a probability of movement into a location as Quantum Particles are not exactly solid being in a Wave-Particle duality state.


Edited by VictorMedvil, 23 May 2019 - 07:36 AM.


#5 pittsburghjoe

pittsburghjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 07:44 AM

When a particle is in a state that can only be described as math ..it is not part of space-time.



#6 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • 1139 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 07:46 AM

When a particle is in a state that can only be described as math ..it is not part of space-time.

 

No, it can be physically measured just not with a exact position and momentum at the same-time, to explain look at this picture, that is wave-particle duality.

hqdefault.jpg


Edited by VictorMedvil, 23 May 2019 - 07:46 AM.


#7 pittsburghjoe

pittsburghjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 08:03 AM

You can't see space-time



#8 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 08:12 AM

Maybe you would like it better if I said, objects that can display quantum weirdness are not large enough to be part of space-time.

That can't be right because the states of such QM entities are described in terms of position and time coordinates. So they certainly inhabit spacetime.

 

The uncertainty relation results from de Broglie's insight that particles have a wavelike quality and the frequency of the wave is related to their momentum. If you have a single wave, of known frequency, you know the momentum exactly, but then such a wave extends throughout space so you have no idea where the entity will be detected.  If you know exactly where it is, that implies its wavefunction must be a superposition of an infinite number of waves, all of different frequency so that you only get constructive interference at one point. So then you have no idea what its momentum is. Anything in between is a balance between these competing factors. 



#9 pittsburghjoe

pittsburghjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:36 AM

They partially inhabit spacetime on observation.



#10 pittsburghjoe

pittsburghjoe

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 11:11 AM

If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things.



#11 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 2576 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 11:40 AM

If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things.

Well there's no arguing with that. 



#12 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

    Explaining

  • Members
  • 617 posts

Posted 23 May 2019 - 12:49 PM

If something was tiny and didn't inhabit spacetime ..I'd say it would probably do quantum weird things.

 

Well there's no arguing with that. 

 

Maybe he is thinking of virtual particles  :unsure:  :unsure:  they are not real particles and only exist momentarily in spacetime. 

 

https://profmattstra...what-are-they/ 





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Space-Time