Press "Enter" to skip to content

Continuous Space (Under Construction)

an icon showing tools to indicate work in progress
Under Construction.

Heisenberg Introduction

Werner Heisenberg, 1901—1976.

WikiMechanics is bare naked quantum mechanics. [[[aggregates |Particle]]] attributes are always quantized because we use a finite [[[categorization |categorical]]] scheme of [[[binary |binary]]] distinctions to describe sensation. Quantization comes from the logical structure of the descriptive method, even for a continuous sensorium. Time is quantized too because the [[[time |time coordinate]]] depends on a chain’s event index. Indices are always integers so [[span style=” font-family: times ; font-size:135% “]]//t//[[/span]] changes in steps. Motion is discontinuous in principle, and sometimes this is even observed as quantum leaping and tunnelling. We are cautious about using calculus because the logical foundations of both differential and integral calculus are proven using assumptions about continuity. So WikiMechanics does not require calculus; instead calculations are designed to be implemented on digital computers, in a finite number of discrete steps.

Big Idea

  • Let the total number of quarks [[N]] get very large, i.e. say of order [[10^{50}]]. Write this as [[\lim_{N\to\infty}]]. Example: [*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_number Eddington number].
  • Then the increments [[d \overline{r}]], [[dt]] and [[d \theta]] which are all finite numbers that are inversely proportional to [[N]], get very small.
  • Then the theoretical difference between quantum vs continuous space-time becomes moot. There is no measurable difference. So we can make a smooth, glossy, continuous approximations for the parameters of space-time; [[\overline{r}]], [[t]] and [[\theta]].
  • Then work back through the theorems of calculus (e.g. mean value theorem, [*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/(%CE%B5,_%CE%B4)-definition_of_limit Cauchy & Weierstrass theorems]) to determine the limits of how differential and integral calculus can be applied to quantum mechanics.

Displacement

WikiMechanics uses a finite [[[categorization |categorical]]] scheme of [[[binary |binary]]] distinctions to describe sensation. So the number of sub-orbital events may be large but not infinite. In principle [[N]] is finite and accordingly displacements may be small, negligible or nil, but not infinitesimal. Later we may assume that [[N]] is large enough to make an approximation to spatial continuity, then allowing the use of calculus.
ḏ Ḏ ⒟ ⓓ ? ? ? ? ? ? ⨺ ⫒

Position

These definitions imply that position, separation and distance are quantized. Their variation is discontinuous because WikiMechanics is based on a finite [[[categorization |categorical]]] scheme of [[[binary |binary]]] distinctions. Quantization comes from the logical structure of the descriptive method, even for a continuous sensorium. In principle, motion is always some sort of quantum leaping or jumping from event to event. Phenomena like this have certainly been observed in twentieth-century physics and can, for example, be used to understand [[span style=” display:inline-block ; “]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_diode zener diodes][[image /icons/Xlink.png link=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zener_diode” ]][[/span]] and the [[span style=” display:inline-block ; “]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment Stern-Gerlach][[image /icons/Xlink.png link=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment” ]][[/span]] experiment. For WikiMechanics, smoothly continuous motion is therefore presumed to be a macroscopic approximation. We are cautious about using calculus because the logical foundations of both differential and integral calculus are proven using assumptions about continuity. So WikiMechanics does not require calculus; instead calculations are designed to be implemented on digital computers, in a finite number of discrete steps.

Phase Angle

The change in [[\theta]] during one sub-orbital event is called the phase angle increment and written as d\theta \equiv \delta_{z} \dfrac{2 \pi}{ N }. WikiMechanics uses a finite [[[categorization |categorical]]] scheme of [[[binary |binary]]] distinctions to describe sensation. So the number of sub-orbital events [[N]] may be large but not infinite. This requirement can be relaxed later to make a continuous approximation, thereby allowing the use of calculus. But in principle [[N]] is finite and accordingly changes in [[\theta]] may be small but not infinitesimal. For isolated particles the increment in the phase angle does not vary and so there is an equipartition of [[\theta]] between sub-orbital events regardless of their quark content.

Gamma Rays

etc.

Uncertainty

Another consequence of unmitigated quantum mechanics is that there are lower limits for the certainty of some measurements. For example, consider a [[[aggregates |particle]]] P described by a [[[historical-order |historically]]] ordered [[[orbits |repetitive]]] [[[chains |chain ]]] of events

\Psi ^{\sf{P}} = \left(      \sf{\Omega}_{1},   \sf{\Omega}_{2}   \;   \ldots  \;  \sf{\Omega}_{\it{i}} \;   \ldots  \;  \sf{\Omega}_{\it{f}}  \;  \ldots    \;    \right)

If P is [[[processes |isolated]]] then the [[span style=” display:inline-block ; “]][[[time |elapsed time]]][[/span]] between events [[i]] and [[f]] is

\Delta t  =        \left( \, f-i \right)  \hat{\tau}

where [[\hat{\tau}]] is the [[[time | period]]]. Consider [[span style=” display:inline-block ; “]][[[time |measuring the elapsed time]]][[/span]] from observations of event indices and periods. The [[span style=” display:inline-block ; “]][[[measurement-energy |experimental uncertainty]]][[/span]] in repeated measurments of [[\Delta t]] is written as [[\delta t]]. By the usual rules for assessing the propagation of [[span style=” display:inline-block ; “]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty#Example_formulas experimental errors][[image /icons/Xlink.png link=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty#Example_formulas” ]][[/span]] this uncertainty is given by

\delta t = \left( \delta f + \delta i \right) \hat{\tau} + \left( \, f-i \right) \delta \hat{\tau}

As discussed [ where? ] the uncertainty in the period is bounded by

\delta \hat{\tau} \ge \hat{\tau} k_{S}

And some unavoidable uncertainty is also associated with event indices. They are required to be integers, so rounding-off errors are [[\delta i \ge 1/2]] and [[\delta f \ge 1/2]]. Then

\delta t \ge \hat{\tau} + k_{S} \left(\, f-i \right) \hat{\tau}

And since [[i < f]] we know that [[\, f - i \ge 1]] so

\delta t \ge \left( 1 + k_{S} \right) \hat{\tau}

or in terms of the energy

\delta t \ge h \left( 1 + k_{S} \right) /E

Thus the uncertainty in a time measurement can be //decreased// by working with high energy particles. In contrast, if [[\delta E \ge k_{S} E]] where

k_{S} = \frac{ 1}{2} \sqrt{ 1 + 1 / \pi \; \vphantom{\Sigma^{2}} } - \frac{ 1}{2}

then the uncertainty in an energy measurement is //increased// for larger particles. The two effects cancel for the product of the uncertainties

\delta E \, \delta t \ge h k_{S} \left( 1 + k_{S} \right)

leaving a constant

\delta E \, \delta t \ge h /4\pi

This is one of [[span style=” display:inline-block ; “]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg Werner Heisenberg’s][[image /icons/Xlink.png link=”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg” ]][[/span]] uncertainty relationships.

Distance between Events

The distance between initial and final events is given by

\ell \equiv \left\| \, \overline{r}^{\, \mathbf{B}}_{f} - \overline{r}^{\, \mathbf{A}}_{i} \right\|

If the frame of reference is inertial and   \mathsf{X} is isolated (apart from the interaction under consideration) then the wavelength  \lambda does not vary so that

\ell = \left( \rule{0px}{10px} f-i \right) \lambda^{\mathsf{X}}

Then using de Broglie’s expression for the wavelength in terms of the momentum  p gives

\ell = \dfrac{h \left( f-i \right)}{p^{\,\mathsf{X}}}

Elapsed Time between Events

Let us assume that atoms   \mathbf{A} and   \mathbf{B} share a common reference frame where they both exhibit slow motion. Then the difference in the time of occurrence  t between initial and final events is

\Delta t = t_{f}^{\, \mathbf{B}} - t_{i}^{\, \mathbf{A}}

If the frame of reference is inertial and   \mathsf{X} is isolated (apart from the interaction under consideration) then the period  \widehat{\tau} of   \mathsf{X} does not vary between events. So the elapsed time is given by

\Delta t = \left( \rule{0px}{10px} f-i \right) \widehat{\tau}^{\mathsf{X}}

or in terms of the frequency  \nu

\Delta t = \dfrac{f-i}{\nu^{\mathsf{X}}}

Then using Planck’s postulate gives the elapsed time in terms of the mechanical energy  E as

\Delta t = \dfrac{h\left(f-i \right)}{E^{\mathsf{X}}}