Jump to content

Fourier's Transform of the Quantum: Difference between revisions

From Natural Philosophy Wiki
Imported from text file
 
Imported from text file
 
Line 14: Line 14:
==Abstract==
==Abstract==


I show that the quantum relations, <em>E = hv</em> and <em>p = h / L</em> are sufficient for deriving the two corresponding uncertainties, and need no help from the Fourier analysis, as is the typical method.&nbsp; If <em>v</em> involves a period <em>t &gt; 0</em> that is the minimum time interval needed to define <em>E</em>, then defining <em>E</em> any sooner will introduce an uncertainty in its value proportional to how much sooner.&nbsp; And if <em>L</em> stands for a minimum distance needed to define <em>p</em>, then defining <em>p</em> in any shorter distance will introduce an uncertainty in its value, proportional to the amount shorter.&nbsp; Since, however, <em>E</em> is to be defined over <em>t</em>, and not sooner, <em>Et = h</em>. And since <em>p</em> is to be defined over <em>L</em>, and not shorter, <em>pL = h</em>. Hence, altogether,&nbsp; <em>dEdt, dpdq&nbsp;&gt;= h</em>.&nbsp; In the Fourier treatment, however, <em>E = hv</em> does not suffice to deduce <em>dEdt &gt;= h</em>; another premise, <em>dvdt&nbsp;&gt;= 1</em>, is equally necessary to the deduction. Inclusion of this extraneous premise literally transforms this uncertainty from a lim-ited, and therefore manageable, energy-time opposition, into an unlimited, and therefore unmanageable, opposition, demanding all kinds of absurdities for its satisfaction, as several reliable commentators have noted since the early 60?s. These problems are inherent in the Fourier approach, but my derivation escapes them.[[Category:Scientific Paper]]
I show that the quantum relations, <em>E = hv</em> and <em>p = h / L</em> are sufficient for deriving the two corresponding uncertainties, and need no help from the Fourier analysis, as is the typical method.&nbsp; If <em>v</em> involves a period <em>t &gt; 0</em> that is the minimum time interval needed to define <em>E</em>, then defining <em>E</em> any sooner will introduce an uncertainty in its value proportional to how much sooner.&nbsp; And if <em>L</em> stands for a minimum distance needed to define <em>p</em>, then defining <em>p</em> in any shorter distance will introduce an uncertainty in its value, proportional to the amount shorter.&nbsp; Since, however, <em>E</em> is to be defined over <em>t</em>, and not sooner, <em>Et = h</em>. And since <em>p</em> is to be defined over <em>L</em>, and not shorter, <em>pL = h</em>. Hence, altogether,&nbsp; <em>dEdt, dpdq&nbsp;&gt;= h</em>.&nbsp; In the Fourier treatment, however, <em>E = hv</em> does not suffice to deduce <em>dEdt &gt;= h</em>; another premise, <em>dvdt&nbsp;&gt;= 1</em>, is equally necessary to the deduction. Inclusion of this extraneous premise literally transforms this uncertainty from a lim-ited, and therefore manageable, energy-time opposition, into an unlimited, and therefore unmanageable, opposition, demanding all kinds of absurdities for its satisfaction, as several reliable commentators have noted since the early 60?s. These problems are inherent in the Fourier approach, but my derivation escapes them.
 
[[Category:Scientific Paper|fourier 's transform quantum]]

Latest revision as of 12:26, 1 January 2017

Scientific Paper
TitleFourier\'s Transform of the Quantum
Author(s)Constantin Antonopoulos
KeywordsFourier Transform, Quantum Mechanics
Published2009
JournalGalilean Electrodynamics
Volume20
Number4
Pages74-80

Abstract

I show that the quantum relations, E = hv and p = h / L are sufficient for deriving the two corresponding uncertainties, and need no help from the Fourier analysis, as is the typical method.  If v involves a period t > 0 that is the minimum time interval needed to define E, then defining E any sooner will introduce an uncertainty in its value proportional to how much sooner.  And if L stands for a minimum distance needed to define p, then defining p in any shorter distance will introduce an uncertainty in its value, proportional to the amount shorter.  Since, however, E is to be defined over t, and not sooner, Et = h. And since p is to be defined over L, and not shorter, pL = h. Hence, altogether,  dEdt, dpdq >= h.  In the Fourier treatment, however, E = hv does not suffice to deduce dEdt >= h; another premise, dvdt >= 1, is equally necessary to the deduction. Inclusion of this extraneous premise literally transforms this uncertainty from a lim-ited, and therefore manageable, energy-time opposition, into an unlimited, and therefore unmanageable, opposition, demanding all kinds of absurdities for its satisfaction, as several reliable commentators have noted since the early 60?s. These problems are inherent in the Fourier approach, but my derivation escapes them.