>

> A most fundamental problem is that nobody cares in theoretical physics

> what a specific "concept" means. They have little training to think

> coherently and logically, they think it is perfectly OK to have so many

> different meanings to "quantization" and they mix them up. Basically they

> never ever learned what mathematics is and this is why many mathematicians

> in the mid 20th century just abandoned theoretical physics. They correctly

> foresaw the consequence of this kind of abuse of mathematics which we are

> witnessing every where now. Nobody believes in theoretical physics

> anymore. Depending upon where "quantization" concepts came from, they may

> carry different situations to be considered. They do not care. For them

> "quantization" is a quantization and they push this concept"S" around.

> .... When things go wrong, they just silence the critics by name calling

> and black mailing.

>

>

> 1. Einstein/Planck defined the quamtization of (energy of) em waves as

> e=hf. This did nit come from Maxwell's em wave equation. It was a

> calculational convention to "reconcile" the theoretical prediction of the

> black body radiati0on and the experimental result which contradicted each

> other.

>

> 2. Later it was discovered that the reason why there was a discrepancy

> between the prediction of the theory and the experiment was simply because

> Planck and his predecessors modeled black body not as monochromatic

> oscillators but as harmonic oscillators. This important result was

> completely ignored and suppressed by the main stream physicists. So, in

> essence the quantization of em waves as above was not needed at all. It

> was a bad side tracking which lead to a catastrophic end. EM waves are not

> needed to be particles called photons.

>

> 3. This side tracking ended up with relativistic quantization of em waves

> aka the relativistic theory of photons which is nothing but a pure

> mathematical nonsense. In this theory, as anything which moves with speed

> c must have zero rest mass, Einstein concluded that the relativistic

> energy of photon must be 0/0. He wrongly thought that as 0x=0 is

> indeterminate, x=0/0 must be any number. 0/0 and 0x=0 are entirely

> different things and anybody who has some basic mathematical background

> will see this. 0x=0 does not involve division by 0 and 0/0 does. This

> naturally means that 0/0 is not a number. If so we have a contradiction.

> (0/0)x2=1x2=2 and (0/0)x2=(0x2)/0=(0/0)=1. So, 2=1. This means that

> Einstein's E= hf =(0/0) is false. So, one can not combine Planck's E=hf

> and Einstein's E=0/0. After all, both of them are false as discussed

> above.

>

> 4. Completely independently of above, the double slit experiment motivated

> yet another kind of quantization pushed by de Broglie and Schrodinger. De

> Broglie relativized plain wave theory and using analogy to the alleged

> (and shown to be false as above) duality between em wave and photon,

> showed that there is a "legitimate" duality between plain wave and

> associated particle, aka the pilot wave theory. His "grand theory" is

> relying on the analogy to the duality between photon and em wave which is

> false as we have shown above. More over hit theory ended up with producing

> waves whose phase speed could exceeds violating the STR upon which his

> Pilot Wave Theory was built.

>

> 5. De Broglie and his fellow relativist's excuse for this contradiction

> was that as energy of the wave does not move with phase speed, this is

> "OK". This is yet another typical sick opportunism and self-deception so

> common among theoretical physicists. The speed limit restriction of STR

> came from pure kinematic issues. Indeed, due to the second law which

> creates acceleration which in turn creates contradiction under the moving

> reference frames assumption, STR rejected dynamics completely. Under this,

> the speed limit c was obtained. So, energy, which is a dynamics issue has

> nothing to do with the speed limit of STR. The situation is that these

> relativists do not understand what their own theory is about and they need

> outsiders like me to correct them. But of course these people are no real

> scientists and they do not listen.

>

> 6. As stated above, STR must reject dynamics as the second law violates

> the Principle of Relativity. Einstein and his followers never understood

> this simple fact and under desperation to impress public, they ventured

> into relativizing dynamics. Of course this makws no sense unless one

> abandons the Principle of Relativity. But without this Principle,

> relativity theory makes absolutely no sense. This is the most fundamental

> assumption of any relativity theory in which reference frames move.

>

> 7. The first falling apart of this wrong move by Einstein appeared as the

> derivation of e=mc^2. He defined the relativistic mass as

> m=m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). From this he obtained p=mv. Then the second law

> kicks in and yields f=dp/dt=dmv/dt. He did noit notice that as v must be

> constant, dp/dt =0. So, in Einstein's relativistic dynamics, we have f=0.

> This leads to e=0 rather than e=mc^2. When faced with this criticism,

> relativists presented some other derivations of e=mc^2 from STR. When told

> that this means that STR (dynamics) is inconsistent. Prof. Dr. Brian

> Josephson of Cambridge University told me that I was wasting his time. He

> was 1972 Nobel Physics Prize winner. Well Prof. Esaki Reona of Tsukuba

> University also won the Nobel Physics Prize. He won it for creating a new

> diode using tunneling effect.

>

> 8. Combining de Broglie's pilot wave theory which is relativistic and

> Hamilton's classical energy equation, Schrodinger obtained his wave

> mechanics which was to handle the wave-particle duality. There are at

> least two fatal problems in this project. First, combining relativistic

> theory and classical theory is impossible at the pain of contradiction.

> Moreover, Hamilton's equation is dynamics. It deals with energy. So, it is

> impossible to combine STR which is essentially restricted to kinematics to

> avoid contradiction and Hamilton's energy equation. So, for Schrodinger,

> quantization simply meant to represent classical particle dynamics using

> relativistic de Broglie waves. Moreover, his effort to make his wave

> mechanics invariant under the Lorentz Transformation failed which is not

> totally unexpected.

>

> 9. By "first quantizing" Shcrodinger's wave mechanics, which means

> representing measurements which appear in Schrodinger's wave equation as

> self-adjoint operators and reducing the measured values to eigenvalues of

> these self-adjoint operators, von Neumann presented yet a another

> quantization. This is the first time when the measurement is associcated

> with probabilistic distribution of measured values. This quantization

> involved the reduction of state which Schrodinger vigorously opposed.

> Through this the quantum mechanivcs is associated with the probabilistic

> ambiguity.

>

> 10. As said before, Gordon-Klein, very frustrated by the failure to

> relativize Schrodinger's wave mechanics as invariant under the LT, picked

> energy-momentum relation of STR (dynamics) and replaced energy and

> momentum variables by self-adjoint operators. From this point on,

> replacing classical physical quantities by self-adjoint operators became a

> fashion to do quantization. The wave mechanics of Schrodinger was

> forgotten. This made quantum mechanics completely unrelated to physical

> reality and for mathematicians this kind of move is nothing but abuse of

> mathematics.

>

> 11. In his attempt to derive photons from pure EM theory of Maxwell

> (without going through obscure Planck/Einstein Equation e=hf), Dirac

> "second quantized" em field itself by quantizing vector potential through

> Fourier expansion of the vector potential. This produced yet totally new

> kinds of photons as the "quantization" of em waves. The relation between

> Planck/Einstein's photon and Dirac's photon is not as clear as it should

> be.

>

> 12. Dirac went on to second quantize Schrodinger's wave functions by

> Fourier expansion and removed all fields concept from QM leading to

> Quantum Electro Dynamics where everything is expressed as the interaction

> among quantum particles.

>

> Looking back this entire development, what is striking is that all of

> theses new concepts of quantizations were introduced and there is no

> systematic study on how these qnatizations and quantum particles are

> related. This is of course putting the invalidity of the constructions

> yielding new quantum particles aside.

>

> Akira

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> A most fundamental problem is that nobody cares in theoretical physics

> what a specific "concept" means. They have little training to think

> coherently and logically, they think it is perfectly OK to have so many

> different meanings to "quantization" and they mix them up. Basically they

> never ever learned what mathematics is and this is why many mathematicians

> in the mid 20th century just abandoned theoretical physics. They correctly

> foresaw the consequence of this kind of abuse of mathematics which we are

> witnessing every where now. Nobody believes in theoretical physics

> anymore. Depending upon where "quantization" concepts came from, they may

> carry different situations to be considered. They do not care. For them

> "quantization" is a quantization and they push this concept"S" around.

> .... When things go wrong, they just silence the critics by name calling

> and black mailing.

>

>

> 1. Einstein/Planck defined the quamtization of (energy of) em waves as

> e=hf. This did nit come from Maxwell's em wave equation. It was a

> calculational convention to "reconcile" the theoretical prediction of the

> black body radiati0on and the experimental result which contradicted each

> other.

>

> 2. Later it was discovered that the reason why there was a discrepancy

> between the prediction of the theory and the experiment was simply because

> Planck and his predecessors modeled black body not as monochromatic

> oscillators but as harmonic oscillators. This important result was

> completely ignored and suppressed by the main stream physicists. So, in

> essence the quantization of em waves as above was not needed at all. It

> was a bad side tracking which lead to a catastrophic end. EM waves are not

> needed to be particles called photons.

>

> 3. This side tracking ended up with relativistic quantization of em waves

> aka the relativistic theory of photons which is nothing but a pure

> mathematical nonsense. In this theory, as anything which moves with speed

> c must have zero rest mass, Einstein concluded that the relativistic

> energy of photon must be 0/0. He wrongly thought that as 0x=0 is

> indeterminate, x=0/0 must be any number. 0/0 and 0x=0 are entirely

> different things and anybody who has some basic mathematical background

> will see this. 0x=0 does not involve division by 0 and 0/0 does. This

> naturally means that 0/0 is not a number. If so we have a contradiction.

> (0/0)x2=1x2=2 and (0/0)x2=(0x2)/0=(0/0)=1. So, 2=1. This means that

> Einstein's E= hf =(0/0) is false. So, one can not combine Planck's E=hf

> and Einstein's E=0/0. After all, both of them are false as discussed

> above.

>

> 4. Completely independently of above, the double slit experiment motivated

> yet another kind of quantization pushed by de Broglie and Schrodinger. De

> Broglie relativized plain wave theory and using analogy to the alleged

> (and shown to be false as above) duality between em wave and photon,

> showed that there is a "legitimate" duality between plain wave and

> associated particle, aka the pilot wave theory. His "grand theory" is

> relying on the analogy to the duality between photon and em wave which is

> false as we have shown above. More over hit theory ended up with producing

> waves whose phase speed could exceeds violating the STR upon which his

> Pilot Wave Theory was built.

>

> 5. De Broglie and his fellow relativist's excuse for this contradiction

> was that as energy of the wave does not move with phase speed, this is

> "OK". This is yet another typical sick opportunism and self-deception so

> common among theoretical physicists. The speed limit restriction of STR

> came from pure kinematic issues. Indeed, due to the second law which

> creates acceleration which in turn creates contradiction under the moving

> reference frames assumption, STR rejected dynamics completely. Under this,

> the speed limit c was obtained. So, energy, which is a dynamics issue has

> nothing to do with the speed limit of STR. The situation is that these

> relativists do not understand what their own theory is about and they need

> outsiders like me to correct them. But of course these people are no real

> scientists and they do not listen.

>

> 6. As stated above, STR must reject dynamics as the second law violates

> the Principle of Relativity. Einstein and his followers never understood

> this simple fact and under desperation to impress public, they ventured

> into relativizing dynamics. Of course this makws no sense unless one

> abandons the Principle of Relativity. But without this Principle,

> relativity theory makes absolutely no sense. This is the most fundamental

> assumption of any relativity theory in which reference frames move.

>

> 7. The first falling apart of this wrong move by Einstein appeared as the

> derivation of e=mc^2. He defined the relativistic mass as

> m=m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). From this he obtained p=mv. Then the second law

> kicks in and yields f=dp/dt=dmv/dt. He did noit notice that as v must be

> constant, dp/dt =0. So, in Einstein's relativistic dynamics, we have f=0.

> This leads to e=0 rather than e=mc^2. When faced with this criticism,

> relativists presented some other derivations of e=mc^2 from STR. When told

> that this means that STR (dynamics) is inconsistent. Prof. Dr. Brian

> Josephson of Cambridge University told me that I was wasting his time. He

> was 1972 Nobel Physics Prize winner. Well Prof. Esaki Reona of Tsukuba

> University also won the Nobel Physics Prize. He won it for creating a new

> diode using tunneling effect.

>

> 8. Combining de Broglie's pilot wave theory which is relativistic and

> Hamilton's classical energy equation, Schrodinger obtained his wave

> mechanics which was to handle the wave-particle duality. There are at

> least two fatal problems in this project. First, combining relativistic

> theory and classical theory is impossible at the pain of contradiction.

> Moreover, Hamilton's equation is dynamics. It deals with energy. So, it is

> impossible to combine STR which is essentially restricted to kinematics to

> avoid contradiction and Hamilton's energy equation. So, for Schrodinger,

> quantization simply meant to represent classical particle dynamics using

> relativistic de Broglie waves. Moreover, his effort to make his wave

> mechanics invariant under the Lorentz Transformation failed which is not

> totally unexpected.

>

> 9. By "first quantizing" Shcrodinger's wave mechanics, which means

> representing measurements which appear in Schrodinger's wave equation as

> self-adjoint operators and reducing the measured values to eigenvalues of

> these self-adjoint operators, von Neumann presented yet a another

> quantization. This is the first time when the measurement is associcated

> with probabilistic distribution of measured values. This quantization

> involved the reduction of state which Schrodinger vigorously opposed.

> Through this the quantum mechanivcs is associated with the probabilistic

> ambiguity.

>

> 10. As said before, Gordon-Klein, very frustrated by the failure to

> relativize Schrodinger's wave mechanics as invariant under the LT, picked

> energy-momentum relation of STR (dynamics) and replaced energy and

> momentum variables by self-adjoint operators. From this point on,

> replacing classical physical quantities by self-adjoint operators became a

> fashion to do quantization. The wave mechanics of Schrodinger was

> forgotten. This made quantum mechanics completely unrelated to physical

> reality and for mathematicians this kind of move is nothing but abuse of

> mathematics.

>

> 11. In his attempt to derive photons from pure EM theory of Maxwell

> (without going through obscure Planck/Einstein Equation e=hf), Dirac

> "second quantized" em field itself by quantizing vector potential through

> Fourier expansion of the vector potential. This produced yet totally new

> kinds of photons as the "quantization" of em waves. The relation between

> Planck/Einstein's photon and Dirac's photon is not as clear as it should

> be.

>

> 12. Dirac went on to second quantize Schrodinger's wave functions by

> Fourier expansion and removed all fields concept from QM leading to

> Quantum Electro Dynamics where everything is expressed as the interaction

> among quantum particles.

>

> Looking back this entire development, what is striking is that all of

> theses new concepts of quantizations were introduced and there is no

> systematic study on how these qnatizations and quantum particles are

> related. This is of course putting the invalidity of the constructions

> yielding new quantum particles aside.

>

> Akira

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

## Komentar

## Posting Komentar