Strange Posted March 9, 2019 Posted March 9, 2019 14 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: as I found Phase velocity in the special relativity, it looks like that I am right. Where, exactly, does special relativity say anything about phase velocity? You need to provide some support for your assertions. As far as I can see you have just made them up.
yuanxue60616 Posted March 10, 2019 Author Posted March 10, 2019 Einstein only gave the analysis of simultaneity, did not say phase velocity. no one even notice we need a speed for simultaneity between two points in space.
swansont Posted March 10, 2019 Posted March 10, 2019 15 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: Einstein only gave the analysis of simultaneity, did not say phase velocity. You said phase velocity. Noting that Einstein did not does nothing to support your claim, and you need to support your claim. 15 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: no one even notice we need a speed for simultaneity between two points in space. Einstein clock synchronization method recognizes that speed as c.
yuanxue60616 Posted March 10, 2019 Author Posted March 10, 2019 Einstein use speed c to prove clock synchronization not exists for two points. not use speed c to calculate the synchronization between two points.
swansont Posted March 10, 2019 Posted March 10, 2019 On 3/8/2019 at 11:46 AM, yuanxue60616 said: I talk about phase speed, not group speed. group speed is v. I missed this before. It would have helped if you had used the proper terminology from the start. Now, let’s discuss what you mean by u not being real. That implies it is complex or imaginary, if we are using proper definitions, and I’ve mentioned this before. But I think we’ve established that you are not, so what do you mean by it?
yuanxue60616 Posted March 10, 2019 Author Posted March 10, 2019 Pure quantum states are objective but not real. I talk about something are objective but not real, like phase speed.
swansont Posted March 10, 2019 Posted March 10, 2019 You were discussing variables in an equation. Real and non-real values.
yuanxue60616 Posted March 10, 2019 Author Posted March 10, 2019 correct, real, non-real value and their extreme value in an equation. now I think there is a one in QM. maybe you could help.
swansont Posted March 10, 2019 Posted March 10, 2019 1 minute ago, yuanxue60616 said: correct, real, non-real value and their extreme value in an equation. now I think there is a one in QM. maybe you could help. But c^2 is real. How can uv be real if v is real and u is not?
yuanxue60616 Posted March 10, 2019 Author Posted March 10, 2019 pure quantum states are not real, but they have values. they are objective. phase speed is same, not real, but has value. could not measure it in its own inertial system. but could get it from two different inertial system.
Strange Posted March 10, 2019 Posted March 10, 2019 18 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: Einstein only gave the analysis of simultaneity, did not say phase velocity. So hen why did you say: "I found Phase velocity in the special relativity" ? There is no reference to phase velocity in special relativity. You are making things up. And being inconsistent. 17 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: Pure quantum states are objective but not real. What do you mean by "real"? 55 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: phase speed is same, not real, but has value. could not measure it in its own inertial system. but could get it from two different inertial system. Please provide a reference to support this claim.
yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 8 hours ago, Strange said: So hen why did you say: "I found Phase velocity in the special relativity" ? There is no reference to phase velocity in special relativity. You are making things up. And being inconsistent. What do you mean by "real"? Please provide a reference to support this claim. no one told you there is the third speed in special relativity. when you found the third speed is equal to phase speed. it is not coincidence.
ydoaPs Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 On 3/6/2019 at 7:05 PM, yuanxue60616 said: there is no wave, just act like wave. I have one article to prove superposition is equal to the law of middle or included the middle. another one is tell how a thing satisfy the law of middle exist. Superposition principle and irrationality.docx Non-real relational values and simultaneity.docx The topos describing QM, like most toposes, is not Boolean; LEM does not hold in QM. It has an intuitionistic logic
yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 If nature itself completely follows the rationality, then it is impossible to breed a life with irrational thinking like human being. Based on this judgment, then nature must have a part beyond rationality. If consciousness is truly unique to life, then life must have something beyond nature.
Strange Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 5 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: no one told you there is the third speed in special relativity. Because there isn't. 5 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: when you found the third speed is equal to phase speed. What is the connection between phase velocity and relativity? You keep claiming there is one but have not explained what is. Please provide some evidence for this claim. 3 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: If nature itself completely follows the rationality, then it is impossible to breed a life with irrational thinking like human being. This is another unsupported assertion. It is also off topic. Stop posting nonsense. Unless you can provide some evidence for your claim that phase velocity is connected to relativity, I will request this thread is closed.
swansont Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 16 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: pure quantum states are not real, but they have values. they are objective. phase speed is same, not real, but has value. could not measure it in its own inertial system. but could get it from two different inertial system. I have asked several times for you to clarify how you are using "real". The default is mathematical: real vs imaginary (or complex) That you have not corrected this implies that it is what you intend, which makes your statements incorrect. Quantum states can be real-valued, or they can be complex. Phase speed is real-valued.
yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Strange said: Because there isn't. What is the connection between phase velocity and relativity? You keep claiming there is one but have not explained what is. Please provide some evidence for this claim. This is another unsupported assertion. It is also off topic. Stop posting nonsense. Unless you can provide some evidence for your claim that phase velocity is connected to relativity, I will request this thread is closed. use the molecular part of the time coordinate transformation formula in the special relativity:t-xv/c^2, xv/c^2 quantifies the relativity of simultaneity. x is the spatial coordinate. It is easy to deduce that the non-real velocity is equal to c^2/v. it is same as matter wave phase speed. 6 hours ago, swansont said: I have asked several times for you to clarify how you are using "real". The default is mathematical: real vs imaginary (or complex) That you have not corrected this implies that it is what you intend, which makes your statements incorrect. Quantum states can be real-valued, or they can be complex. Phase speed is real-valued. easy for me is say what is non-real. 1)subjective is non-real, 2)objective and meet the law of middle is non-real. all others are real. Edited March 11, 2019 by yuanxue60616 missing some word
Strange Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 47 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: use the molecular part of the time coordinate What is the "molecular part"? 47 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: It is easy to deduce that the non-real velocity is equal to c^2/v. The velocity is v. What is "the non-real velocity"? 50 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: it is same as matter wave phase speed. You keep claiming this. How about some evidence for it? 51 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: 1)subjective is non-real, That has nothing to do with physics. But it is wrong, anyway. 51 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: 2)objective and meet the law of middle is non-real. I have no idea what that means. But if it isn't real, then I don't see that it has anything to do with physics, which only deals with things that are real (in the sense: they can be measured).
yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Strange said: What is the "molecular part"? The velocity is v. What is "the non-real velocity"? You keep claiming this. How about some evidence for it? That has nothing to do with physics. But it is wrong, anyway. I have no idea what that means. But if it isn't real, then I don't see that it has anything to do with physics, which only deals with things that are real (in the sense: they can be measured). do you know t-xv/c^2 in the special relativity, x is the spatial coordinate. so c^2/v is the speed to calculate the relativity of simultaneity. t-xv/c^2 = t- x/(c^2/v) I got these ideas from my philosophy. All I talked above is part of my philosophy book. Assume A and B are associated, like space and time. the general speed is defined by the change of space and time. so it could not tell the space and time are associated. there must be another speed, it is related with space and time, but not defined by the change of space and time. only this speed exists, could tell l the space and time are associated. Edited March 11, 2019 by yuanxue60616
Strange Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 2 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: Assume A and B are associated, like space and time. What are A and B? And how about answering these questions: What is the "molecular part"? The velocity is v. What is "the non-real velocity"? You keep claiming this. How about some evidence for it? 2 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: there must be another speed Why? What evidence do you have for this "other" speed? 2 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: only this speed exists, could tell l the space and time are associated. Relativity manages to relate space and time quite well without this "other speed". So why is it needed? As you are unable to answer questions and keep repeating the same baseless claims, I will request this thread is closed.
yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 (edited) how do you calculate the relativity of simultaneity? it is a time difference between two points. right? then you need a speed. it is not v, is not c. space, time, speed. you need use two of them to calculate the third one. Edited March 11, 2019 by yuanxue60616
Strange Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 15 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: then you need a speed. Why?
studiot Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Strange said: 3 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: there must be another speed Why? What evidence do you have for this "other" speed? Perhaps (!) there is a language difficulty here. In order to calculate the interval invariant, S, in spacetime it is necessary to scale the time axis by a constant of the appropriate units to convert time units to length units. Then the equation S2 = X2 + Y2 + Z2+(icT)2 makes dimensional sense. c is of course the appropriate constant and is a velocity, as the OP says. Edited March 11, 2019 by studiot
yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 because it is a length of time. space, time, speed. you need use two of them to calculate the third one.
Strange Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 Just now, studiot said: Then the equation S2 = X2 + Y2 + Z2+(icT)2 makes sense. c is of course the appropriate constant and is a velocity, as the OP says. Good point. But as both c and v were already in the OP's equation, I assumed "other speed" referred to something else. Just now, yuanxue60616 said: because it is a length of time. space, time, speed. you need use two of them to calculate the third one. All you need, as you have stated is v and c. There is no "other" speed.
Recommended Posts