Quantum Mechanical Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Vern, Apr 29, 2007.

  1. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Is there a basic in-gut connection between QM theory and relativity phenomena? I always assumed that there was not. But now, thinking about it, I think I see such a connection.

    In QM, the binding forces that hold mass together are mediated by the exchange of particles. Those particles identified as the force conveying ones travel at the invariable speed of light. Forget the theory of relativity for a second and think about this in a classic space-time environment.

    Since the binding particles must always move at the invariable speed of light, any massive body would have to distort to accommodate motion. Mass would flatten somewhat in the direction of motion because the invariant speed of the binding particles would force it. At the speed of light, there could be no exchange of binding particles.

    Follow that thought and you will see that all the other relativity phenomena is predicted within that QM construct and classic space-time. Work up the math, and you derive the Lorentz transformations.

    So why do we say that QM has no in-gut connection to relativity phenomena. I think we might need to abandon that and say instead that QM has no in-gut connection to the Theory of Relativity. It does predict relativity phenomena in classic space-time.

    This was mentioned in an Einstein paper published in the early 1900's.
    http://www.photontheory.com/Einstein/Einstein06.html#Ziegler
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. physik Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    Good, I read it !
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    Hi Vern,
    I'm not sure of the objectivity or relevance of "basic in-gut connection", at least not at our level.

    Regarding the integration of special relativity and QM, I think that's covered by Quantum electrodynamics, of which I know nothing more than that it earned Feynmann (and others?) a Nobel prize.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Hi Pete; by basic in-gut connection I mean a relevance that says "If this is so, then that must be so. Like if QM is reality, then relativity phenomena is reality. The connection I realized recently is that QM (QED) does predict relativity phenomena in classic space-time. Then with that mind-set looking back at history, I see that people realized that over a hundred years ago.

    The kicker is that this demands classic space-time.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2007
  8. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I disagree with this. Virtual particles, force cariers, don't necessarily move at the speed of light.

    Also, the effects of mass, at least the GR interpretation of mass, are poorly understood at the quanum level. This is confusing to me, because in order to make mass consistent with the symmetries that we observe in nature, one has to use a higgs boson. This is the only way to add Lorentz Invariant mass terms which exhibit the correct symmetries to a theory. I know because I have checked

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now, if the picture of space-time survives in a quantum theory, the only place where it becomes important is in places like black holes, and in the very early universe. That is, places where quantum gravity is needed anyway. So, in this sense, the distortions in space-time caused by the massieve body (say, an atom or something), are completely negligible.
     
  9. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Last edited: May 1, 2007
  10. bsemak Just this guy, you know Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    240
    Vern, Try and calculate the gravitational force between an electron and a proton, and compare that to the coloumb force between them. You will find that gravity is negligible in comparison.
     
  11. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Yes; I've done that and I realize that is true. But when I see people trying to understand "What is Mass" as BentheMan uses the Higgs Boson for, I don't see the problem. To me it is very simple.

    We know that mass = hv/cc

    The only variable there is v which can be restated to be electromagnetic change. So what else can mass be? It is simply electromagnetic change.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. temur man of no words Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,330
    Vern, in the OP you already assumed that the exchange particles move at speed of light. That is an element of Relativity, so there is no surprise you have some conclusions the same as that of Theory of Relativity.
     
  13. Gently Passing Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    232
    Last I heard much of the high-energy research world, perhaps most famously CERN, is investigating this very matter.

    We know that classical Physics describes our everyday world with excellent precision, and unless I am concerned with a relativistic effect of a few nanoseconds of time dilation on a satellite in Earth orbit, Relativity is of little concern - unless I'm a Physicist or otherwise enthusiastic about the incredibly subtle phenomenon.

    QM comes to play much more readily...sit in my car, turn the key and start the engine. Ah, more bullshit about politicians and war dead on the radio, how about a CD?

    Well I don't even have to place the CD in the player to witness QM at work, the sun reflects every color of the rainbow off the bottom, unpainted surface!

    And when it plays, some mysterious technology converts all those funny little rainbow lines into music. That's a laser.

    Well, average Joe doesn't care. Could as easily be a tape player, a phenomenon which can easily be explained through basic Chemistry and electromagnetism.

    But what world is it that we exist in? The Relativistic? The Quantum? No, we live in between, in the "Classical" universe, described with incredible precision 500 years ago by cats like Galileo and Newton.

    But at the leading edge of large and small, supermassive objects and particles of questionable existence we experience Relativity and QM.

    There is a grey area in between, and last I heard Physics research was being done to try and find it - electrons traveling a .6c interacting with an atomic nucleus.

    I'm sure we'll patch it up eventually, but I doubt anyone here has all the answers. If you did you'd be a fool to spit them out in this form rather than publishing you Nobel-worthy discoveries.
     
  14. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    The reason I thought relativity phenomena important is that if QM has all the answers, it should also provide the means to develop relativity phenomena. Invarient speed of binding forces is a way to do that. But if we allow virtual particles that don't necessarily follow any rules we still can't get there.

    It was just a thought

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    I agree with that Vern. IMHO mass isn't fundamental. It's just energy that isn't going anywhere. We talk about inertial mass, forgetting that relativity tells us motion is relative. A photon has no inertial mass but it is moving and it does have energy/momentum. If it bumps into you as per Compton Scattering you'd feel that bump and say it was momentum. Now, if it you moving rather than the photon, you would claim that bump was inertia rather than momentum. The photon would feel like it had mass. OK you can't quite do this because you always measure c at 300,000km/s. But you can stop a photon. It's under our nose, in pair production:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    A gamma photon of at least 2 * 511KeV is converted into an electron and a positron of 511KeV apiece. We "create" mass out of energy/momentum. Yes, there's a little wastage, but most of it is stopped down from c and re-presented as inertia. Mass. We converted travelling kinetic energy aka "relativistic mass" into non-travelling energy aka "rest mass". If we simplify matters by discarding the positron and considering the electron to be at rest we can say:

    E = hc/λ -> mc² and m = h/λc.

    Familiar? If you then treat the electron as a photon wrapped into a tight little moebius loop half a wavelength wide, you get a spin 1/2 picture of charge and wave/particle duality. You've got a little "knot" of energy, a photon chasing its tail going nowhere. You can't treat it as much else because you can shove your electron and positron back together again and "annihilation" sends out two photons of 511KeV apiece. In essence you never "created" mass because you never destroyed the energy. You can't.

    Note that the photon is the mediator of the electromagnetic field, which is a vector field. The Higgs Field is however a scalar field, so all this leaves the Higgs Boson feeling very shaky. There's also the matter of gravitational mass being equivalent to relativistic mass rather than inertial mass, which makes me wonder about gravitons too.
     
  16. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Farsight
    I like your concept of mass; I've taken it a little farther in a little different direction. A few new concepts have to be introduced to make it all work.

    One is that photons must exhibit positive feedback when their path through space is bent. This is what traps them in the resonant pattern and is why it only happens at the frequency of the electron's photon. Experiments show that photons passing massive bodies bend twice as much as gravity alone can account for. We can say that relativity done it or we can say positive feedback done it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Another concept is that the amplitude of electromagnetic fields in space always go to saturation. The saturation occurrs at points that we observe as photons. This is the answer to the question, "Howcome the Quantum" that John Wheeler used to ask.

    Planck's constant derives from this saturation amplitude of photons.

    But I'm afraid I'm diverging;

    Anyway, keep in touch; you can always find me at http://photontheory.com
     
  17. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Vern. I'll check out photontheory.com.

    That thing about photons bending twice as much as gravity alone can account for... I've got it down as mass is attracted half as much. Here's why:

    GRAVITY EXPLAINED

    This is one of a set of essays I'm writing under the heading

    RELATIVITY+

    ..wherein "saturation" only occurs in a black hole, which is a frozen star or "solid space" with no central singularity. Note that it attracted abuse and got kicked into pseudoscience, something I am very unhappy about. A contact is trying to work out the RN maths of the photon/electron.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2007
  18. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Farsight; yes I searched out and read all your posts. Interesting. I have developed some different concepts but yours may work better; I'll have to study them some more.

    Here's the basics of my concept written up by a professor at UALR.
    Edit: Oops make that San Diego State University.
     
  19. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Very very interesting Vern. You've approached it from a different angle and give a very different presentation. But it's the same elephant. It's not the first time I've found myself saying that. It's in the room, right there, and some of us are feeling it and working it out whilst others just can't see it.

    OK my quick pass through your UFT Photon Theory website left me thinking don't agree with that bit here and there, like your steady state universe, but those are just details, and I might be wrong anyhow. The overall upshot was yep, uh huh, yes, agree, ooh nice, yep. Note that IMHO Neutrinos cannot be particles but must be some kind of photon is hugely significant. They must be "sub quantal", half-light, dark energy. We've got a lot to talk about Vern. I'll be over on that forum. Thanks.

    PS: I don't know if you've picked up that I'm currently writing CHARGE EXPLAINED, to be followed by SPACE EXPLAINED, but did you spot it's a tale of something and nothing, and can you anticipate my thinking? Here's a clue: It was explained by saying that the electromagnetic field itself was the medium.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2007
  20. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    Farsight; I get the same feel of your postings. I'm going through the second reading now.

    Neutrino's are a real puzzle. You can't make a neutrino particle in the universe as I describe it. It might be a photon polarized with a tight spin (circle).

    You have particle size related to a half wave length. I've bounced back and forth. To me it seems the photon needs to complete one full pattern in one wave length to keep everything in phase. If the path is bent around the electric plane, one polarity of the electric field is on the outside all the way around, giving the particle its charge. I didn't realize this until I wrote a software model of a neutron.

    Keep on thinking.
     
  21. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Vern.

    Yep, very interesting are neutrinos. As to what they "are", I think the answer is in the geometry. We're saying that a.. photon barrelling along at c is.. a photon. If it's configured in a circle chasing its tail its an electron. If it's somehow twisting and travelling at less than c we'd maybe interpret c-v as mass. But "ordinary" photons can exhibit circular polarization, so we need to look further. And the real big question is why do neutrinos sleet through matter? I'd like to look at it properly, but I'm a bit busy at the moment.

    Re particle size: it does complete one full pattern in one full wavelength. But it's a moebius doughnut. It goes round the moebius strip twice to complete the pattern and get back to where it started. Spin 1/2 and all the -ve stays on the outside. Feels pretty good when you weigh it against pair production and annihilation. See the paper in the acknowledgements at the bottom of MASS EXPLAINED:

    http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop/electron.pdf
     
  22. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    You could very well be right about the particle size. I considered the circle because it was the most simple, but always had a nagging thought about how to get spin 1/2 and the feedback being only in the electric plane. It makes sense that the positive feedback should be in both the electric and the magnetic plane, causing a double bend that may take two turns around to complete the pattern, thus spin 1/2.

    I put that idea on the back burner because it seemed that it would create a magnetic monopole and we don't find that.

    Keep on chuggin !!

    Vern
     
  23. Vern Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    695
    I couldn't read your link. I don't have a PDF reader for my Linux box and the kids keep the Windows box tied up with games

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page