Hijack (from Gravity effect on wave function (from Looking at the Spacetime Uncertainty Relation as an Approach to Unify Gravity)

[Vmedvil]

On 11/11/2017 at 12:48 PM, swansont said:

I don't think so. If you take an ensemble of atoms and put them in a superposition of the ground states and toss them up, gravity will bring them back down without inducing a collapse of the wave function. We make clocks that work this way. Gravitational collapse of the wave function would introduce a bias in such a clock's frequency. If it's happening, it's happening at a level where we can't measure it happening. Somewhere below a part in 10^16.

The conclusion from the description in the article is that gravity has no effect on the superposition, and the superposition has no effect on how gravity interacts with the atoms.

Oh, I agree it is happening on the Planck Scale, which is why I wanted to see what that "Toy Model" said on the Planck Scale.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

9 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

 

That's not what I got from the paper, what I got was that gravity acts on all energy states in the same way. That didn't mean gravity has no effect on superpositioned particles. 

You're not understanding what was being discussed. If you read it again, you will (maybe) understand, my toy model is a theory of the Planck Space in terms of non-commutative phase space. 

Oh, see I must have missed you saying that, then yes just L_p would work and not 1/L_p wish you had said that long ago.

[Dubbelosix]

What are you talking about? 1/L_p is simply the inverse of the Planck length.

[Vmedvil]

Just now, Dubbelosix said:

What are you talking about? 1/L_p is simply the inverse of the Planck length.

that takes it into all possible states in a meter, if it is already on Planck scale it doesn't need to be scaled up.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Dubbelosix]

I don't know what you are talking about.

[Vmedvil]

4 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I don't know what you are talking about.

How many changes in a planck length size in a size that is a meter.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Dubbelosix]

what did you mean by ''all possible states''....? 

 

The phase space I am working in involves higher orders that involves the Eigenstates of the system. 

[Vmedvil]

8 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

what did you mean by ''all possible states''....? 

 

The phase space I am working in involves higher orders that involves the Eigenstates of the system. 

Yes, then it does not need converted. 

You would find there are many more cycles of C , t_pC in a meter than L_p , there are 1/L_p  of those cycles.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Dubbelosix]

I don't know what you mean by cycles a such - though there are cycles in the Berry phase which has possible implications to this geometric approach of gravity. The Eigenstates are calculated in the Planck phase space as

 

 

[math]R_{[\mu, \nu]} \equiv [\nabla_x\nabla_0 - \nabla_0 \nabla_x] \geq \frac{(\ell^{2})^{-1}}{\sum_i \sqrt{n_i(n_i + 1)}}[/math]

Edited November 29, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[Vmedvil]

6 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I don't know what you mean by cycles a such - though there are cycles in the Berry phase which has possible implications to this geometric approach of gravity. The Eigenstates are calculated in the Planck phase space as

 

 

Rμν≡[∇x∇0−∇0∇x]≥(ℓ2)−1∑ini(ni+1)√

The value of n in that system for a meter.

[Dubbelosix]

Because something is measured in meters, does not mean the value of n in the system is for a meter. 

[Vmedvil]

2 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Because something is measured in meters, does not mean the value of n in the system is for a meter. 

1/L_p  = n, is what i am saying for a meter of space.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Dubbelosix]

A planck length is not a meter of space.

[Vmedvil]

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

A planck length is not a meter of space.

1/L_p  is, look how many cycles happen.

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Dubbelosix]

Please don't start posting diagrams which are unintelligible without some explanation or equations backing them. 

And I have seen your equations, you might think I am being harsh, but they equally are unintelligible - No one can properly follow what is being suggested, but even if I could read it, you are not careful with dimensional analysis which is very important.

[Vmedvil]

19 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Please don't start posting diagrams which are unintelligible without some explanation or equations backing them. 

Alright it is a very simple EQ t_p∑C₁ + C₂ +...... + C_n  n = size change or ΔC , which for a meter is 1/L_p

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil

[Vmedvil]

10 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

 

By default it would if gravity affects atoms all in the same way no matter what the energy level. This of course is to be expected to satisfy the weak equivalence principle. 

The work clearly states they were trying measure the acceleration of the superpositioned particles. Note, you cannot talk about gravity affecting the wave function and not the particles at the same time, since by principle the supepositioned states means the system is not local. It is like projecting the particle in different states through space by smearing the wave function. That implies you have a many-body problem. 

 

EXACTLY! Now, Many bodies Many C's 

∑t_p∑C = t_p1C₁ + t_p2C₂ +...... + t_pnC_n  , n² = size change or ΔC²

Edited November 29, 2017 by Vmedvil