elfmotat

I said local energy conservation.

That's just so wrong that I don't even know where to begin.

You realize that electrons gaining mass over time would violate local energy conservation, right?

That's pretty cool. I won't be . I'm at school until Thanksgiving.

No velocity according to who?

That's all well and good, as long as you don't try to call it "science."

How does that make it any less undefined? Define "neutral representation."

Phase space of a single particle I'm guessing.

That's true, but it's probably not something the OP should devote a massive amount of time to if he just wants to get a good feel for QM. Though I'd say it's definitely worth spending the time on once he gets into relativistic QM and QFT. Haha, where in NJ? Monmouth county reporting.

Maybe, but it sounds like it would be a terribly inefficient (and probably dangerous) way of doing things.

Damn. Missed one.

There are lots of different constants: permittivity of free space, Planck's constant, the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the fine structure constant, etc. So it's not clear what you mean by "second constant." Define "energial." Define "physical." Define E(NC). Define V. ∞/0 = undefined. What does this have to do charge? "Energy" does not have charge. What does this have to do with expansion?

Really? I've heard it tastes strange.

WHAT?! What in the world are you talking about?

Do you know the position-space equations of motion for the mass? Do you know how to find them? What are your thoughts from here?

Free neutrons aren't stable though.

Okay, but what about the rest of the comments/questions you've received? You seem to be selectively ignoring the parts that don't bode well for your "idea." Nobody has the slightest clue why you keep insisting that velocity is somehow equal to some kind of electrostatic potential. Your "equations" look like they came about by taking several disparate quantities you found while browsing wikipedia for a few minutes, and trying to staple them together without any real understanding of what they mean. What does that have to do with his question?

Alternatively you could examine a particle with larger mass, which, assuming it is stable, will make quantum effects less apparent.

At every time t an object will have an associated velocity vector, v(t). We define the speed of the object at time t as |v(t)|. It's a definition, so it's not really something you can ask "why" about.

The magnitude of velocity is equal to speed by definition.

Why would he need differential geometry for intro QM? I mean, more math knowledge can only help, but that seems like a strange recommendation.

There is uncertainty in observable quantities like acceleration. Plus, acceleration is not really a useful concept in QM. I think a better question to ask would be, "what is the probability for an electron to start at A and be detected at B in time t?" The answer is an amplitude called the "propagator," which is defined as: [math]K(x,x',t)= \langle x'|e^{-iHt/\hbar} |x \rangle[/math]. The amplitude squared gives you the probability.

Yeah, my high school in New Jersey taught basically the same stuff to the upperclassmen.

It means "derivative of v with respect to time." So yes, acceleration.

Oh boy, sorry about the thread derail.