yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 I know what you mean, we only use c and v in special relativity. in step 2 I said. 2)real relational value, the non-real relational value and their extreme value satisfy a certain mathematical relationship. so non-real relational value could express by real relational value and extreme value. you know matter wave phase speed u = c^2/v, right? You could see the speed u = c^2/v in special relativity too. so there is direct relationship between special relativity and matter wave. is phase speed real? how to you measure it?
studiot Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: I know what you mean, we only use c and v in special relativity. in step 2 I said. 2)real relational value, the non-real relational value and their extreme value satisfy a certain mathematical relationship. so non-real relational value could express by real relational value and extreme value. you know matter wave phase speed u = c^2/v, right? You could see the speed u = c^2/v in special relativity too. so there is direct relationship between special relativity and matter wave. I don't know what that was a response to. But it does not relate to what I offered.
Strange Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 39 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: you know matter wave phase speed u = c^2/v, right? No. I don't know this. Please provide a reference. You have claimed this but failed to provide any support for it. 39 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: You could see the speed u = c^2/v in special relativity too. Where does this speed appear in special relativity? So, it seems that you have invented two things and then said they are equal to one another. Do you have any evidence to support your claims?
yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
Strange Posted March 11, 2019 Posted March 11, 2019 41 minutes ago, yuanxue60616 said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave Well done. Why did that take you so long?
yuanxue60616 Posted March 11, 2019 Author Posted March 11, 2019 I think it is basic knowledge of physics if anyone want to talk about QM.
swansont Posted March 12, 2019 Posted March 12, 2019 18 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. The molecular part? 18 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: 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. OK, now you have to explain what you mean by subjective, because the dictionary definition (based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions) can't possibly be correct. This is physics. There are no personal feelings in any physics phenomena. Do you mean relative, as in it depends on which observer makes the measurement? You keep citing the "law of middle" as if this were an actual law. But it's what you are trying to demonstrate here. It's circular reasoning to use it as if it were true, unless you are using it to make predictions for testing purposes. 11 hours ago, yuanxue60616 said: I think it is basic knowledge of physics if anyone want to talk about QM. So are definitions of words, but you have not been using definitions that everyone else is using. It's is making this discussion very difficult, trying to decipher your non-standard use of terminology. 1
ydoaPs Posted March 12, 2019 Posted March 12, 2019 On 3/11/2019 at 12:08 AM, yuanxue60616 said: 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. I think part of the problem here is that you've got the relation between logic and ontology backwards. It's rationality that follows nature, not the other way around. For the true description of nature to have logic at all, it has to form something called a "topos". The thing about roses, though, is most of them are intuitionistic. That is, LEM is a fairly unusual property of logics. So, the fact that the topos formed by QM is intuitionistic instead of Boolean shouldn't be that surprising. But this isn't "violating" logic in any way. It's just that the logic that falls out of QM is different than the logic that falls out of classical mechanics
yuanxue60616 Posted March 12, 2019 Author Posted March 12, 2019 (edited) QM is different than the logic that falls out of classical mechanics, yes, like superposition. so nature has something not follow the formal logic. as I said the law of excluded the middle. special relativity and QM are all correct and not violate the logic. so these things must be in current theory. if they really exist in nature but not in special relativity and QM, then current theories should be wrong. nothing wrong with current theories I try, then found the third speed in special relativity is same value as matter wave phase speed. sorry, my English is not good enough, cause a lot of misunderstanding. 1 hour ago, ydoaPs said: I think part of the problem here is that you've got the relation between logic and ontology backwards. It's rationality that follows nature, not the other way around. For the true description of nature to have logic at all, it has to form something called a "topos". The thing about roses, though, is most of them are intuitionistic. That is, LEM is a fairly unusual property of logics. So, the fact that the topos formed by QM is intuitionistic instead of Boolean shouldn't be that surprising. But this isn't "violating" logic in any way. It's just that the logic that falls out of QM is different than the logic that falls out of classical mechanics one more thing, nature obey the law of non-contradiction. human could use contradiction, it is the reason why human has consciousness. in my article Conversion 1: When the law of contradiction exists, applying the law of non-contradiction (cannot be both true), Any of A and -A is denied, it will result in the law of middle. Because A = -A. Denying A will also deny -A, denying -A will also deny A. Conversion 2: When the law of middle exists, applying the law of excluded middle (cannot be both false), Any of A or -A is affirmed, it will result in the law of contradiction. Because the law of middle logically requires that "A is affirmed" will result in "-A is affirmed", "-A is affirmed" will result in "A is affirmed". contradiction and include middle could convert to each other. Edited March 12, 2019 by yuanxue60616
Recommended Posts