Selasa, 14 Maret 2017

On quantization

>
> A most fundamental problem is that nobody cares in theoretical physics
> what a specific "concept" means. They have little training to think
> coherently and logically, they think it is perfectly OK to have so many
> different meanings to "quantization" and they mix them up. Basically they
> never ever learned what mathematics is and this is why many mathematicians
> in the mid 20th century just abandoned theoretical physics. They correctly
> foresaw the consequence of this kind of abuse of mathematics which we are
> witnessing every where now. Nobody believes in theoretical physics
> anymore. Depending upon where "quantization" concepts came from, they may
> carry different situations to be considered. They do not care. For them
> "quantization" is a quantization and they push this concept"S" around.
> .... When things go wrong, they just silence the critics by name calling
> and black mailing.
>
>
> 1. Einstein/Planck defined the quamtization of (energy of) em waves as
> e=hf. This did nit come from Maxwell's em wave equation. It was a
> calculational convention to "reconcile" the theoretical prediction of the
> black body radiati0on and the experimental result which contradicted each
> other.
>
> 2. Later it was discovered that the reason why there was a discrepancy
> between the prediction of the theory and the experiment was simply because
> Planck and his predecessors modeled black body not as monochromatic
> oscillators but as harmonic oscillators. This important result was
> completely ignored and suppressed by the main stream physicists. So, in
> essence the quantization of em waves as above was not needed at all. It
> was a bad side tracking which lead to a catastrophic end. EM waves are not
> needed to be particles called photons.
>
> 3. This side tracking ended up with relativistic quantization of em waves
> aka the relativistic theory of photons which is nothing but a pure
> mathematical nonsense. In this theory, as anything which moves with speed
> c must have zero rest mass, Einstein concluded that the relativistic
> energy of photon must be 0/0. He wrongly thought that as 0x=0 is
> indeterminate, x=0/0 must be any number. 0/0 and 0x=0 are entirely
> different things and anybody who has some basic mathematical background
> will see this. 0x=0 does not involve division by 0 and 0/0 does. This
> naturally means that 0/0 is not a number. If so we have a contradiction.
> (0/0)x2=1x2=2 and (0/0)x2=(0x2)/0=(0/0)=1. So, 2=1. This means that
> Einstein's E= hf =(0/0) is false. So, one can not combine Planck's E=hf
> and Einstein's E=0/0. After all, both of them are false as discussed
> above.
>
> 4. Completely independently of above, the double slit experiment motivated
> yet another kind of quantization pushed by de Broglie and Schrodinger. De
> Broglie relativized plain wave theory and using analogy to the alleged
> (and shown to be false as above) duality between em wave and photon,
> showed that there is a "legitimate" duality between plain wave and
> associated particle, aka the pilot wave theory. His "grand theory" is
> relying on the analogy to the duality between photon and em wave which is
> false as we have shown above. More over hit theory ended up with producing
> waves whose phase speed could exceeds violating the STR upon which his
> Pilot Wave Theory was built.
>
> 5. De Broglie and his fellow relativist's excuse for this contradiction
> was that as energy of the wave does not move with phase speed, this is
> "OK". This is yet another typical sick opportunism and self-deception so
> common among theoretical physicists. The speed limit restriction of STR
> came from pure kinematic issues. Indeed, due to the second law which
> creates acceleration which in turn creates contradiction under the moving
> reference frames assumption, STR rejected dynamics completely. Under this,
> the speed limit c was obtained. So, energy, which is a dynamics issue has
> nothing to do with the speed limit of STR. The situation is that these
> relativists do not understand what their own theory is about and they need
> outsiders like me to correct them. But of course these people are no real
> scientists and they do not listen.
>
> 6. As stated above, STR must reject dynamics as the second law violates
> the Principle of Relativity. Einstein and his followers never understood
> this simple fact and under desperation to impress public, they ventured
> into relativizing dynamics. Of course this makws no sense unless one
> abandons the Principle of Relativity. But without this Principle,
> relativity theory makes absolutely no sense. This is the most fundamental
> assumption of any relativity theory in which reference frames move.
>
> 7. The first falling apart of this wrong move by Einstein appeared as the
> derivation of e=mc^2. He defined the relativistic mass as
> m=m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). From this he obtained p=mv. Then the second law
> kicks in and yields f=dp/dt=dmv/dt. He did noit notice that as v must be
> constant, dp/dt =0. So, in Einstein's relativistic dynamics, we have f=0.
> This leads to e=0 rather than e=mc^2. When faced with this criticism,
> relativists presented some other derivations of e=mc^2 from STR. When told
> that this means that STR (dynamics) is inconsistent. Prof. Dr. Brian
> Josephson of Cambridge University told me that I was wasting his time. He
> was 1972 Nobel Physics Prize winner. Well Prof. Esaki Reona of Tsukuba
> University also won the Nobel Physics Prize. He won it for creating a new
> diode using tunneling effect.
>
> 8. Combining de Broglie's pilot wave theory which is relativistic and
> Hamilton's classical energy equation, Schrodinger obtained his wave
> mechanics which was to handle the wave-particle duality. There are at
> least two fatal problems in this project. First, combining relativistic
> theory and classical theory is impossible at the pain of contradiction.
> Moreover, Hamilton's equation is dynamics. It deals with energy. So, it is
> impossible to combine STR which is essentially restricted to kinematics to
> avoid contradiction and Hamilton's energy equation. So, for Schrodinger,
> quantization simply meant to represent classical particle dynamics using
> relativistic de Broglie waves. Moreover, his effort to make his wave
> mechanics invariant under the Lorentz Transformation failed which is not
> totally unexpected.
>
> 9. By "first quantizing" Shcrodinger's wave mechanics, which means
> representing measurements which appear in Schrodinger's wave equation as
> self-adjoint operators and reducing the measured values to eigenvalues of
> these self-adjoint operators, von Neumann presented yet a another
> quantization. This is the first time when the measurement is associcated
> with probabilistic distribution of measured values. This quantization
> involved the reduction of state which Schrodinger vigorously opposed.
> Through this the quantum mechanivcs is associated with the probabilistic
> ambiguity.
>
> 10. As said before, Gordon-Klein, very frustrated by the failure to
> relativize Schrodinger's wave mechanics as invariant under the LT, picked
> energy-momentum relation of STR (dynamics) and replaced energy and
> momentum variables by self-adjoint operators. From this point on,
> replacing classical physical quantities by self-adjoint operators became a
> fashion to do quantization. The wave mechanics of Schrodinger was
> forgotten. This made quantum mechanics completely unrelated to physical
> reality and for mathematicians this kind of move is nothing but abuse of
> mathematics.
>
> 11. In his attempt to derive photons from pure EM theory of Maxwell
> (without going through obscure Planck/Einstein Equation e=hf), Dirac
> "second quantized" em field itself by quantizing vector potential through
> Fourier expansion of the vector potential. This produced yet totally new
> kinds of photons as the "quantization" of em waves. The relation between
> Planck/Einstein's photon and Dirac's photon is not as clear as it should
> be.
>
> 12. Dirac went on to second quantize Schrodinger's wave functions by
> Fourier expansion and removed all fields concept from QM leading to
> Quantum Electro Dynamics where everything is expressed as the interaction
> among quantum particles.
>
> Looking back this entire development, what is striking is that all of
> theses new concepts of quantizations were introduced and there is no
> systematic study on how these qnatizations and quantum particles are
> related. This is of course putting the invalidity of the constructions
> yielding new quantum particles aside.
>
> Akira
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar