Quantum of action: Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg.

Discussion in 'General Science' started by socratus, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Quantum of action: Planck, Einstein, Heisenberg.
    a)
    Planck united together two formulas ( Rayleigh–Jeansfor
    for long and Wien's for short wavelengths) and then divided them.
    He was himself very surprised when the result was found correct.
    And after that came . . . .
    : " . . . some weeks of the hardest work of my life . . ."
    The result was – quantum of action (as energy multiply time: h=Et)
    The coefficient (h) was not in Rayleigh–Jeansfor or Wien's formulas.
    Planck took unit (h) as in some books is written:
    "intuitively, instinctively, phenomenologically"
    b)
    In 1905 Einstein introduced unit (h) in different way.
    Einstein wrote it as: h=kb
    (Boltzmann coefficient multiply Wien's displacement constant)
    And in 1906 Einstein wrote that Planck's and his results are equal.
    But Einstein's formula explains quantum nature more clearly.
    c)
    In 1925 Heisenberg went a step further.
    He discovered "the uncertainty principle" (HUP): Et>h*
    ==…
     
  2. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    Actually he didn't discover it. He realised that it applied to the mathematics of Quantum Theory, as it then was.
    Note that the quantum theory of Heisenberg's day developed into the theory we now know as quantum mechancis, after some changes, including the introduction of zero point energy.

    The uncertainty principle is inherent in this and other mathematics that was known at least a century earlier. It is not really known who first ennunciated it.
     
  3. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    @ studiot
    =.
    Maybe it was in 1909 or 1910.
    Einstein had some ideas about gravity but to explain them
    he needed different mathematics, different geometry. Then he went
    to his friend Marcel Grossmann and asked to help him. Grossmann
    searched and found Riemann geometry. Using it Einstein created GRT.
    A somewhat similar situation had occurred with Heisenberg.
    He had some ideas about electron's behavior but to explain them
    he needed different mathematics.
    And Heisenberg did that Einstein wasn't able to do – he discovered
    a new mathematical techniques . . . . that brought him to UP.
    But it was very pity when Born found that:
    "Heisenberg's symbolic multiplications was nothing but the matrix
    calculation well known to me since my student days"

    But, of course, to rediscover this mathematics was able to do
    only man of genius.
    ==..
     
  4. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
  5. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    In the origin Heisenberg associated his UP with particle: xp>h
    =
     
  6. studiot

    AAC Fanatic!

    Nov 9, 2007
    5,005
    513
    What about this did you not understand?
     
  7. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    History of the "quantum of action" (1900-1927).
    a)
    In 1900 Planck united together two formulas ( Rayleigh–Jeansfor
    for long and Wien's for short wavelengths) and then divided them.
    He was himself very surprised when the result was found correct.
    And after that came . . . .
    : " . . . some weeks of the hardest work of my life . . ."
    The result was – quantum of action (as energy multiply time: h=Et)
    The coefficient (h) was neither in the Rayleigh–Jeansfor nor in the
    Wien's formulas. Planck took unit (h) as in some books are written:
    "intuitively, instinctively, phenomenologically"
    b)
    In 1905 Einstein introduced unit (h) in different way.
    Einstein wrote it as: h=kb
    (Boltzmann coefficient multiply Wien's displacement constant)
    And in 1906 Einstein wrote that Planck's and his results are equal.
    But Einstein's formula explains quantum nature more clearly.
    c)
    In 1913 Bohr introduced "quant of action" in the hydrogen-atom.
    d)
    In1923 De Broglie wrote that "quant of action" can be "pilot-wave".
    e)
    In 1924 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck wrote that "quant of action"
    can work in another way as: h/2pi (h-bar)
    f)
    In 1925 Heisenberg went a step further.
    He discovered "the uncertainty principle" (HUP): Et>h*
    g)
    In the same 1925 year Schrodinger explained that
    de Broglie's "pilot-wave" can work as "psi-wave function".
    h)
    In 1926 Schrodinger found relation between his "psi-wave
    function" and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
    i)
    In 1926 Born showed that could be probability of finding
    the "quant of action" in local place of the "psi-wave function".
    j)
    In1927 Dirac "put into place the last of quantum theory's
    building blocks". He "playing with beautiful equations"
    explained that the "quantum of action" must have one
    negative anti-brother in "an unobserved infinite sea".
    ==…
    The QM interpretation doesn't fit the logical presentation.
    Feynman wrote:
    " The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature
    as absurd from the point of view of common sense.
    And it agrees fully with experiment.
    So Ihope you accept Nature as She is — absurd."
    / Book: QED : The Strange Theory of Light and Matter
    page. 10. by R. Feynman /
    =…
    Best wishes.
    Israel Sadovnik Socratus
    ===…

    Sorry, I missed one great name: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli.
    f)
    In 1924 Pauli discovered that "the quantum of action" must obey
    "the exclusion principle".
    ==…
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2015
  8. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
    Ok, socratus.....after that list...........what do you think a particle is?
     
  9. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    Without geometrical form the quantum particle is a spiritual ghost.
    ===
     
  10. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
    Thank you. That is exactly what it is.
     
  11. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    And if Quantum Mechanics uses particles without geometrical form
    then we have " modern Aristotelian quantum metaphysics".
    The "Physics" can be scientific subject only using objects
    with some real geometrical forms.
     
  12. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
    What you say is true and it is such a shame. This is why true science has stagnated for such a long time.

    Science has been looking for 100 years for the commonality of our universe and it was right in front of us all this time.

    In the early 1990s, plasma scientists notice that electronic fields were not responding to what Maxwell's equations predicted. There was an un-accounted spiral trajectory. This was at way below relativistic speeds.

    After some study, corrected equations were applied and explained the plasma phenomena.
    These corrected equations also suggested a structure to the plasma particles. Some simulations were run and it was found this structure could physically account for all the properties of an stable electron and a stable proton. This also physically explained inertia, apparent mass and radiation. When the equations were expanded to account for interactions between particles was done, the weak force and the strong nuclear force was explained.

    It was also found that dipole action causes a fourth order electrical term that attracts and has the same strength as gravity. But unlike gravity, this attractive force had a twist or torque to it. This was puzzling at first......until someone plugged in spiraling orbits instead of elliptical orbits for the planets. Bam! Everything clicked in place. It showed the physical cause for Bode's Law. It showed the real way galaxies rotate, no dark matter needed. It also showed that gravity is decaying. And that it was much stronger in the past. This has many implications.

    All this from one formula about one thing. Inherent unity.

    The good news is that you don't need to be a PhD to understand it. If one can understand electronic principles, mechanical angular momentum and electronic momentum........then almost all phenomena can be explained with corrected classical physics.

    The people that understand this will be the first to build matter. With custom materials we can increase quality of properties and transfer efficiencies.

    The only question will be is where do we go.
     
  13. socratus

    Thread Starter Member

    Mar 26, 2012
    267
    3
    My conclusion:
    Feynman wrote:
    " The theory of quantum electrodynamics describes Nature
    as absurd from the point of view of common sense. "
    Why our understanding QED and Nature are absurd?
    Because:
    a) We don't know the reference frame for QED.
    b) We don't know the geometrical form of "quantum of action".
    c) We don't know what impulses h and h* (bar) mean.
    d) We don't know why "quantum of action" has many formulas:
    h=kb, E=hf and E=h*f, + E=Mc^2 .
    ===. . .
     
  14. BR-549

    Well-Known Member

    Sep 22, 2013
    1,981
    388
    I can't believe what I'm reading. The most revered, the most experimented, the most studied, the most spent on, the most confirmed theory ever.

    And you can't answer a thru d?

    a...QED and QM require many......nature has only one.

    b...because QED and QM denies form and structure and cause. The equations will always fail with structure. These theories depend on probability for cause. But in nature....probability is ignored. Nature only pays attention to cause.

    c...Because this is caused by the structure which you deny. There is a physical cause for this constant.

    d...that's because you don't understand how the structure changes with power.

    When the structure gains power, it gets smaller. This is not because of length contraction...there is no such thing.
    The reason the structure shrinks is because of angular momentum. It's that simple.

    The only thing absurd is scientific theory.
     
Loading...