Apropos Rukhsan's remarks on QM and geometry, I offer the interesting remarks of Ed Dellian on the topic:
***************************** Dear Bob, thank you very much for recalling my work in the geometry of quantum theory (QM). I think that the mysteries and paradoxes of QM are rooted in its mathematical foundation by Planck, Heisenberg and Schrödinger. Unfortunately this foundation is not disputed. But it implies a basic mathematical mistake. just note that Planck's E/f = h = constant shows a /linear/ relation of energy, E, to the concept of momentum, p. This "linear relation" is nothing other than /a geometric proportion/, E ~ p. If you put E over p, reminding that p = h/lambda, and lambda times f = c = constant, you finally get E/p = c = constant (also known as Poynting's vector, and in special relativity!). This I call /the "linear" concept /of energy E. But from classical mechanics we know a /different concept /of E. It stands in a /squared /relation to momentum p; it is the concept E = p^2/2m; I call it/the "squared" energy //concept/. Both concepts are used and confused in the mathematical foundation of QM. Heisenberg introduced the "linear" relation E/p = c, while Schrödinger based his equation on the traditional "squared" concept. Nobody realized an inconsistency, because both men asserted their formalisms to be equivalent. This seems indeed to be the case, since both concepts seem to bear identical dimensions. But actually, even though the dimensions are seemingly identical, the concepts themselves are not, as you can prove by relating them to each other according to "E (Heisenberg) over E (Schrödinger) = pc/p^2/2m". See that E (H) /E (S) results not in "1", as it would be the case if the concepts were equivalent; rather it results in E (H)/ E (S) = 2mc/p, or, with p = mv, E (H) / E (S) = 2c/v. This confusion of incommensurable mathematical concepts is responsible for a lot of mathematical complexity of modern QM, as I could show you in detail. Now, even though modern QM mostly uses the Schrödinger equation only, confusion remains, because the "squared" classical energy concept (wich is the basis of Schrödinger's equation) is itself a very problematic one. It was conceived by Leibniz in 1686, when he proposed a measure of "force" which he developed in considering the "force" of a falling body in proportion to space, h. Now, since h is proportional to the square of velocity, as has been shown by Galileo, Leibniz conceived the "force" as being also proportional to the square of velocity. So he gained the formula "force" = mv^2", which he called "vis viva", which was later on called "energy". Somewhat later Coriolis (?) completed it by the factor "1/2" at will, and so classical mechanics was based on this Leibnizian concept in the "squared" form E = mv^2/2 = p^2/2m (present also with the Hamiltonian H). Unfortunately, this concept bears a congenital defect. Galileo has shown (Discorsi, 1638) that to put the velocity of a falling body proportional to space leads into the absurdity of the body to cover different places in space at the same time. For this reason, Galileo developed the realistic geometric proportion of velocity not to space /but to time/. Leibniz, however, took the wrong proportion "velocity to space"; and this mistake is still present with the classical "squared" concept of energy, E = p^2/2m. As this concept lies at the basis of Schrödinger's QM, it is no wonder that the absurd consequence of things appearing at different places in space at the same time characterizes QM as well (entanglement, non-locality). Note that this mistake of Leibniz was well-known to Newton who called it a "wonderfully philosophical error" - but to no effect, as the error survived, and infects modern QM, being responsible for the "mysteries" and "paradoxes" of a theory of mechanics which would be clear and simple had it not been led into the absurd by a mistaken mathematical concept. Easter was fine, yes. Time was filled considering the fact that according to experience of the balance, the center of rotation of a many-body system (a galaxis, for example) _can never be a massive object_. Just think of the center of a hurricane, or of the water vortex at the outlet of your bath tube. Rather it must be a mere immaterial point in space. Note that even the center of gravity of our system is not the center of the sun but rather an immaterial point in space; note that the sun itself rotates around that point (which was already known to Copernicus, Galileo, and Newton). Therefore, "black holes" (massive objewcts) at the rotation centers of galaxies are impossible. Best wishes, Ed. ********************************* It has always bothered me that QM, as commonly conceived, has nothing at all to do with mechanics. (I always refer to it as "quantum physics". Perhaps Ed has made a connection? The best to all, Bob > Dear All > As Prof Kauffman has pointed out that there are many mysteries in quantum > theory which need to be decoded. The measurement problem being the central > one. And I agree with Prof Kauffman that taking the eigenvalue aspect of quantum theory seriously and relating to Lambda calculus can help us to understand its deeper aspects. > However I would like to point to yet another related aspect. Spin is called > essentially quantum mechanical property which has no classical analogue. Yet when one does construct the formalism to treat spin we just use SU(2) > group which provides the double cover for SO((3) group and all of it was known before quantum theory as well. Similarly fermions are also very quantum objects but their algebra was once again developed by Grassmann in > an entirely different context. It begs the question how does the Grassmann > algebra which was developed to understand geometry is exactly the same for > building blocks of matter. Is somehow quantum > properties of matter coming from geometry. You will be surprised that in recent developments in quantum theory(Berry phases) it has been found that > important physical properties of matter are related to geometry and topology of space of quantum states. > So all of it suggests that we have a long way to go before we resolve the > paradoxes of quantum theory. Geometry and topology are going to be beacon > lights in this endeavor. I am not forgetting algebra and logic which are already there in the quantum theory itself,Heisenberg commutation relations > are algebraic and logical expressions of underlying quantum world. Rukhsan _______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis