Mordred

The purpose of physics is to make testable predictions of cause and effects in nature. That requires the mathematics. Those mathematics helped shape the technology advances in the modern world. The purpose of probability functions is to encompass all possible outcomes and narrow down the most likely as the highest probability. Are we to assume what you have provided us so far is the extent of your article ? So far you haven't provided any significant detail of your article. Do you ever intend to show any actual examples of how your article is useful ? A more important question is your intent. Do you intend to improve your article or are you merely advertising ? Our site has rules on advertising personal articles. So unless you intend to improve your article then this thread has little purpose.

Those definitions also apply in statistical mechanics that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. So that's a poor excuse. In point of detail those terms existed long before QM was developed... That even includes the term superposition. Regardless terminology errors is terminology errors regardless of your excuses. Those definitions derived from math terms regardless of the physics theories which employ them

No that is incorrect. We use states to describe probability functions. This applies to the Schrodinger equation. This has little to do with the uncertainty principle. It is part of the wavefunction but only a miniscule part. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_state It is obvious already that you have not sufficiently studied QM if you claim otherwise. That is covered in detail in every single QM textbook. QFT doesn't even use position as an operator. It uses field and momentum however it still describes states. One example of superposition is a state of a photon (its wavefunction describing two polarity states). However you can also have two photon states describing the wavefunctions for each polarity. The latter example is not a superposition state. This statement is also wrong. The complex conjugate in QM involves the time dependent Schrodinger equation which include the time axis reversal symmetries. The complex conjugate directly applies to this. In other uses ie with vectors it directly involves complex space (set of complex numbers) as opposed to vectors in the set of (real numbers) Further details here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_conjugate_of_a_vector_space A complex function contains one or more imaginary numbers.

Let's start with the definition of a state in quantum mechanics. A state is a probability function aka its wavefunction. It contains the uncertainty principle as any Fourier transformation on that wavefunction will inherently have uncertainties in the position and momentum. All quantum states are quantized. However that wavefunction contains all probable evolutions of the state not just the uncertainties. that's for every wavefunction and has no bearing on the term superposition. Which is multiple wavefunctions within the same state. Swansont has already provided a clear example albeit applying the Dirac notation form used extensively in QM

Word salad. The language of physics is mathematics. Every physics definition has an underlying mathematical proof. If your not applying the correct definitions for its terminology you are not doing physics . Rather you are doing some home spun imagination

I seriously hope your not replying by copy pasting directly from your article. What you replied with did absolutely nothing to demonstrate what you are claiming. It doesn't give me anything worthwhile to examine for consistency with known physics. Your understanding of the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is definitely erroneous. It also demonstrates a very skewed understanding of the actual mathematics involving inherent uncertainties in any Fourier transformation used extensively in QM. Your understanding of the definition of superposition is also incorrect. Not a good start.

So far what the OP has presented sounds like a mangled word salad gone through a high RPM blender. There isn't even sufficient material to examine to see if that statement holds true or not. Judging from the errors mentioned so far. I won't hold any hopes for significant improvement. Sounds more like another "Let's rewrite physics without understanding the physics being rewritten"

Your generation sequence is incorrect 3rd generation decays to second generation 2nd generation decays to first generation.

Prove it, that burden of proof is up to you. We have already mentioned dozens of times the observational evidence wasn't fully accounted for by Newtons laws. While SR can and does account for the discrepancies. Your refusal to examine those discrepancies doesn't change that reality. So it's up to you to prove SR is unnecessary.

Fine then stick with Galilean relativity matters not to me. However you need to understand SR enough to understand how it deviates from classical mechanics.....To understand why Einstein states what you described. Its like trying to learn how to count without numbers to do otherwise. Or writing your name without an alphabet. If ever want to truly how and why SR differs from classical mechanics you need to study both not just one.

As I explained numerous times you require more than section 1 and 2 to understand SR. Section 1 and 2 is barely scratching the surface. here do yourself a favor read this article. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/relativity.pdf An authorized reprint of Einsteins Special relativity paper. It will step you through all the basics of SR and its mathematics without being math intensive

Have fun.

What do you think the geometry is for ? if not to describe the location of each event ? As well as the spacetime path that light will follow ? Why do you think I mentioned graphs and vectors. They are used with the geometry A vector has a start point an end point and a direction. You can plot them directly onto a geometric graph SR also employs geometry not just GR. Even Newton mathematics includes geometry though the Geometry is Euclidean. here is a little terminology for you. Potential energy is the ability to perform work of a system or state or object possesses due its location. kinetic energy is the ability to perform work due to its momentum. mass is the resistance to inertia change or acceleration. These terms are essential to understand any physics topic or theory. Including classical, SR, GR, QFT, QM, String theory etc etc. This definition is extremely important Spacetime is any metric (geometry) that describes space with time given dimensionality of length via the interval (ct)

If I measure an object that always has the same velocity regardless of my velocity or the velocity of the emitter how is that not constant velocity ? What part of that can't you understand We have literally measured the velocity of light in literal thousands of tests that are hugely varied in the test methods and each and every time we get precisely the same value. If that's not constant velocity then I eat my hat. All those precision tests have allowed Physics to narrow down any form of deviation from c to less than \[0.707*10^{-11} \] error margin. Those tests even included all frequencies of the EM spectrum and included other massless particles of the standard model. The person that can prove this wrong will instantly win a Nobel prize,

Oh I speak nonsense now, good luck with that. What do you believe the term Invariance means ?

We have been but anytime we bring up the required examples you stated your not interested or you don't accept it. The biggest pieces of evidence for c being constant isn't the mathematics but the observational evidence and precision tests. You expect us to use classical mechanics to describe something that requires a deviation from classical mechanics using nothing more than classical physics. Which quite frankly I take your meaning to be strictly Newtonian mechanics. no time dilation, no geometry changes, c being additive with velocity. Those are the deviations from classical Newtonian mathematics. However you refuse to examine the evidence supporting those deviations.

The only way to mathematically keep c constant would require the geometry changes set up via the Lorentz transformations. You do not wish to include those. The mathematics involving Maxwell would be needed as a validation Specifically the polarity shift between the electric and magnetic field. However none of that truly matters. Why not its simple. Observational evidence trumps any mathematics of any theory. Observational evidence takes precedence. You chose not to examine the Observational evidence. So I cannot help you if you have shut your mind down to other researches and tests of the invariance of c or other massless particles. The reason you cannot accept the statement classical mechanics is in error is your refusal to accept the evidence of time dilation, constancy of c and length contraction which go hand in hand with each other. You cannot keep c constant without the length contraction and time dilation which requires a 4 dimensional universe as opposed to the 3 dimensional Euclidean geometry. (dimension describes independent variables or effective degrees of freedom in math speak which is also employed by physics).

Its not my job to prove anything to you. that isn't why I visit this forum. I visit this forum to help people that want to learn physics not force them to believe in something they choose not to accept. I offered numerous literature showing c as constant you chose to ignore those.

Slow Roll single scalar field perturbation \[[\delta\frac{\tilde{p}}{\rho}]^2=\frac{k^3}{2\pi^3}\int d^3 xe^{i\vec{k}\cdot \vec{x}}\langle \frac{\partial \rho}{\rho}\vec{x},t \frac{\partial \rho}{\rho}\vec{O},t\rangle\] \[[\delta\tilde{t}(\vec{k})]^2=\frac{k^3}{(2\pi)^3}\int d^3xe^{i\vec{k}\cdot\vec{x}}\langle \partial t\vec{x}\partial{t}\vec{O}\rangle\]

In your opinion, however you also choose to ignore relevant sections and materials for c being constant.

No the mainstream sections is specifically for mainstream sciences as taught in textbooks and professional peer reviewed literature. It is not the place to examine personal theories. That belongs in our Speculation forum.

I see well its up to you if your going to accept c as being constant. That entails also time dilation and length contraction. As I mentioned before its not really our goal to force posters to believe in something.

Really he doesn't mention Lorentz funny he specifically notes the Lorentz transformations and even has a footnote directly referring to it on the bottom of page 8. he even goes through the related mathematics directly applying the Lorentz transformations in that paper. "The equations of the Lorentz transformation may be more simply deduced directly from the condition that in virtue of those equations the relation x2 + y2 + z2 = c2t2 shall have as its consequence the second relation "

Unfortunately your incorrect regarding the researches by Lorentz and Maxwell. The easiest way to show that is to compare the transforms That Lorentz developed that Einstein used in section 3. Galilean transformations. the important 2 is time and travel along the x axis. \[\acute{x}=x-vt, \acute{T}=T\] no time time dilation Lorentz transformations \[ \acute{x}=x\gamma(x-vt),\acute{t}=t-\gamma \frac{vx}{c^2}, \] time dilation and length contraction

It also applies to the statement the laws of physics are the same regardless of observer. The stationary system is a replacement from an absolute rest frame. Which Einstein also states isn't necessary. A simple example take observer A being stationary. Now observer B moves towards Observer A. You already know how to mathematically describe that. Now switch observers Observer B is now stationary while Observer A moves towards observer B. The equation will be identical. ( symmetric). If a relation is symmetric it is also commutative.