Curiously, ChatGPT is trained to give a lot of excuses for the fact that relativity (any) breaks down at depths lower than 10^-09 m (1 nm), but
it's also trained to validate GR up to the limit of the visible universe (about 13.5 bly classical radius or 46 bly relativistic radius).
It represents a domain of applicability with a ratio of upper and lower limits of 5 x 10^35. Cosmologists apply time dilation formulae to
galaxies 10 bly far away, which are captured as a few pixels with Hubble Ultra Deep Field resolution, which takes almost 11 days to collect
photons for a 16 pixels pic, and still use it to gather information
about speed of recession, speculate about shape, etc.
But not a single relativist can explain the behavior of two atoms (like
Ag) that act as emitter and receiver of photons in the visible range, separated by a distance of 1 mm, for example.
Like the phenomenon of sonoluminescence, in which atoms in water are
excited by sound waves and generate blobs of high luminescence and
extreme temperature, within a glass container.
The physics behind how sound waves are transformed into light in the blue-violet part of the spectrum is not understood, even when it was discovered almost 90 years ago.
Not to mention if TIME, as known in the macroworld, apply equally in the quantum world. Or what the speed of light really is in the atomic and subatomic realm.
Whenever you say "relativists" you could have said "physicist" because
all (or the overwhelming majority of) physicists are accepting SR and GR
as the only valid theories within their domain, and are considering QED
as the best experimentally confirmed theory of physics.
So your only argument is that all physicists are members
of a MAFFIA, and profit from it.
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:21:59 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Remember that in current physics, "photon" is defined in QED.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR.
So TIME is the same in the quantum world as in SR.
And the speed of light is invariant c in the atomic realm.
Explanations about QED being based on SR have the same value as
explanations about Sagnac effect based on SR, as desperate relativists
try to find alternate explanations of a simple non-relativistic
phenomenon.
Your comment about that QED is based on SR because Dirac's equation of
for electrons incorporates SR at velocities near c is far from true.
Dirac QF theory (1928) came after Heisenberg (1925) matrix QM and Schrödinger (1926) wave QM. Both theories, HIGHLY relevant even today,
ARE NOT RELATIVISTIC AT ALL.
Previous efforts (1913-1925) to find theories to explain the behavior of
H atoms were based in Newtonian celestial mechanics, with electrons performing elliptic orbits around the nucleus (hence the universal
symbol of the atom). ALL the physicists of that period (Bohr,
Sommerfeld, Born, etc.) were dedicated to enhance the original 1913
Bohr's model. In 1925, Max Born finished his book about this theory
(250+ pages), just to throw it away in the same year when the young and disturbed Heisenberg came with his Matrix Mechanics theory, under the guidance of Bohr (even when he was a Born's protégée). NO RELATIVITY
HERE.
In 1926, and out of the blue, came Schrödinger with his NON RELATIVISTIC wave theory, which captured the imagination of most physicists, Dirac included (due to the poor formation of most of them with matrix theory).
Born changed the interpretation of the distribution of energy amplitudes
for orbital electrons from DETERMINISTIC to PROBABILISTIC, which defined
QM SINCE THEN as a statistical theory (opening the door to a lot of
weird results).
Dirac was triggered by many deficiencies of QM, in particular the impossibility to explain the creation and absorption of photons by
atoms, and started to work in an extension of Schrödinger equation TO INCLUDE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, for uses at electron speeds close to c,
which he obtained in 1928. After that achievement, Dirac started to
develop a theory based on fields, not waves (QFT), in which photons
appeared and disappeared in his fields, without the need of atoms (which
led to the development of the Cassimir effect).
Dirac equation for electrons was so complex that only could be used in H atoms. His QFT was also so complex that it was buried in history until
WWII finished and Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichirō created the basis
of QED (1947).
QED is a theory that provided very few practical results, because it was plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions (like infinities, the need
of "virtual photons" that didn't verify Planck's E=hf, lack of domains
of applicability, etc.). Even when Feyman's diagrams provided a graphic
means for calculations of interactions between charged particles and
photons, QED was widely known as the "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE" theory. The enormous amount of defects of QED was buried by FORGED/FORCED results
thanks to the CRAP of virtual photons (what?). They didn't exist at all,
but being taken as "carrier forces", allowed some crappy explanations
about forces between electrons and nuclei and within atoms nuclei.
The myriad of short lived particles that started to emerge from
accelerators found in QED the necessary ground TO INVENT INTERACTIONS.
The final result, after 15 years, was the "unproven existence" of
hundred of quasi-particles, which made almost EVERYONE be crazy about
how to put order in such scenario.
By 1962, entered Gell-Man in the scenario of elementary particles. He
started to clean up the garbage of hundred of pseudo-particles, and
began to design the framework of the STANDARD MODEL OF ELEMENTARY
PARTICLES, which has resisted the reviews of the last 60 years. QED?
R.I.P.
For EVERY QED affirmation about WHATEVER, there are several NON-QED, NON RELATIVISTIC THEORIES that bring the same result. Yet, QED is hailed by relativists AS THE MOST PRECISE THEORY OF PHYSICS THAT EVER EXISTED.
Not going to continue with this post, because it doesn't worth it.
I only post here a link ABOUT THE VALUE OF RESULTS OF QED. There are
HUNDRED of them:
Does QED have any real-world applications?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-qed-have-any-real-world- applications.559356/
Relativists are willing to KILL to impose relativity as the only valid theory.
PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL AT QUANTUM LEVEL. THE AMOUNT OF INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS AND PLAIN LIES IS OVERWHELMING. But they
own publishing houses, media, academia and gov.
Den 26.01.2025 00:37, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:21:59 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Remember that in current physics, "photon" is defined in QED.
Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) is based on SR.
So TIME is the same in the quantum world as in SR.
And the speed of light is invariant c in the atomic realm.
Explanations about QED being based on SR have the same value as explanations about Sagnac effect based on SR, as desperate relativists
try to find alternate explanations of a simple non-relativistic
phenomenon.
Your comment about that QED is based on SR because Dirac's equation of
for electrons incorporates SR at velocities near c is far from true.
Dirac QF theory (1928) came after Heisenberg (1925) matrix QM and Schr�dinger (1926) wave QM. Both theories, HIGHLY relevant even today,
ARE NOT RELATIVISTIC AT ALL.
Previous efforts (1913-1925) to find theories to explain the behavior of
H atoms were based in Newtonian celestial mechanics, with electrons performing elliptic orbits around the nucleus (hence the universal
symbol of the atom). ALL the physicists of that period (Bohr,
Sommerfeld, Born, etc.) were dedicated to enhance the original 1913
Bohr's model. In 1925, Max Born finished his book about this theory
(250+ pages), just to throw it away in the same year when the young and disturbed Heisenberg came with his Matrix Mechanics theory, under the guidance of Bohr (even when he was a Born's prot�g�e). NO RELATIVITY
HERE.
In 1926, and out of the blue, came Schr�dinger with his NON RELATIVISTIC wave theory, which captured the imagination of most physicists, Dirac included (due to the poor formation of most of them with matrix theory). Born changed the interpretation of the distribution of energy amplitudes for orbital electrons from DETERMINISTIC to PROBABILISTIC, which defined
QM SINCE THEN as a statistical theory (opening the door to a lot of
weird results).
Dirac was triggered by many deficiencies of QM, in particular the impossibility to explain the creation and absorption of photons by
atoms, and started to work in an extension of Schr�dinger equation TO INCLUDE SPECIAL RELATIVITY, for uses at electron speeds close to c,
which he obtained in 1928. After that achievement, Dirac started to
develop a theory based on fields, not waves (QFT), in which photons appeared and disappeared in his fields, without the need of atoms (which led to the development of the Cassimir effect).
Dirac equation for electrons was so complex that only could be used in H atoms. His QFT was also so complex that it was buried in history until
WWII finished and Feynman, Schwinger, and Shinichir? created the basis
of QED (1947).
QED is a theory that provided very few practical results, because it was plagued by inconsistencies and contradictions (like infinities, the need
of "virtual photons" that didn't verify Planck's E=hf, lack of domains
of applicability, etc.). Even when Feyman's diagrams provided a graphic means for calculations of interactions between charged particles and photons, QED was widely known as the "SHUT UP AND CALCULATE" theory. The enormous amount of defects of QED was buried by FORGED/FORCED results thanks to the CRAP of virtual photons (what?). They didn't exist at all, but being taken as "carrier forces", allowed some crappy explanations
about forces between electrons and nuclei and within atoms nuclei.
The myriad of short lived particles that started to emerge from accelerators found in QED the necessary ground TO INVENT INTERACTIONS.
The final result, after 15 years, was the "unproven existence" of
hundred of quasi-particles, which made almost EVERYONE be crazy about
how to put order in such scenario.
By 1962, entered Gell-Man in the scenario of elementary particles. He started to clean up the garbage of hundred of pseudo-particles, and
began to design the framework of the STANDARD MODEL OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES, which has resisted the reviews of the last 60 years. QED?
R.I.P.
For EVERY QED affirmation about WHATEVER, there are several NON-QED, NON RELATIVISTIC THEORIES that bring the same result. Yet, QED is hailed by relativists AS THE MOST PRECISE THEORY OF PHYSICS THAT EVER EXISTED.
Not going to continue with this post, because it doesn't worth it.
I only post here a link ABOUT THE VALUE OF RESULTS OF QED. There are HUNDRED of them:
Does QED have any real-world applications?
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/does-qed-have-any-real-world- applications.559356/
Relativists are willing to KILL to impose relativity as the only valid theory.
PHYSICS DOESN'T WORK VERY WELL AT QUANTUM LEVEL. THE AMOUNT OF INCONSISTENCIES, CONTRADICTIONS AND PLAIN LIES IS OVERWHELMING. But they own publishing houses, media, academia and gov.
Whenever you say "relativists" you could have said "physicist" because
all (or the overwhelming majority of) physicists are accepting SR and GR
as the only valid theories within their domain, and are considering QED
as the best experimentally confirmed theory of physics.
So your only argument is that all physicists are members
of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is because the different
results are COOKED with the help of statistical manipulations,
fraud, cooking and peer complicity.
We leave it at that. :-D
I just tried DeepSeek with the same question that I did to ChatGPT:
QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
Even when Deepseek is fed with information available through Internet,
the differences with ChatGPT were shocking.
Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use
than Dirac's.
Quantum effects are much more relevant than relativistic effects and,
for this, SR is not relevant at quantum level in the majority of cases.
According to DeepSeek, SR is useful only with heavier atoms due to the "allegations" that low level electrons orbit at speed closer to c in
heavier atoms (gold, lead,..). Hyperfine states are more accurate
defined using Dirac instead of Schrodinger QM.
When I questioned it how physics managed "statistical orbitals" to apply relativity, being that in QM electrons don't have a neat, well-defined orbitals and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle collided with the pseudo-classic SR,
DeepSeek crashed and asked me to try again later, as the servers were
busy.
Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
current proposals are going to succeed.
I left the chat with the impression that DeepSeek is much less BIASED
about the influence of relativity in the quantum world than ChatGPT
(Altman) engine.
It's a refreshing feeling to learn that Chinese are MUCH LESS CRAZY
about relativity than Western science, even when AI engines access to
the same reservoir of information.
I noticed that DeepSeek don't glorify Einstein and relativity, but don't
deny it as a theory.
Only uses examples of its applications IN A
RATIONAL WAY. Relativity seems to be a marginal theory for Chinese,
which only have rational applications on the limits of time and space,
when velocities are close to c.
I only maintained a 5 minutes session, but it's promising.
Ask chat to invent a new rowing method
I just tried DeepSeek with the same question that I did to ChatGPT:
QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
Even when Deepseek is fed with information available through Internet,
the differences with ChatGPT were shocking.
Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use
than Dirac's.
Quantum effects are much more relevant than relativistic effects and,
for this, SR is not relevant at quantum level in the majority of cases. According to DeepSeek, SR is useful only with heavier atoms due to the "allegations" that low level electrons orbit at speed closer to c in
heavier atoms (gold, lead,..). Hyperfine states are more accurate
defined using Dirac instead of Schrodinger QM.
When I questioned it how physics managed "statistical orbitals" to apply relativity, being that in QM electrons don't have a neat, well-defined orbitals and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle collided with the pseudo-classic SR,
DeepSeek crashed and asked me to try again later, as the servers were
busy.
Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
current proposals are going to succeed.
Am Dienstag000028, 28.01.2025 um 18:42 schrieb rhertz:
I just tried DeepSeek with the same question that I did to ChatGPT:
QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
Even when Deepseek is fed with information available through Internet,
the differences with ChatGPT were shocking.
Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use
than Dirac's.
Quantum effects are much more relevant than relativistic effects and,
for this, SR is not relevant at quantum level in the majority of cases.
According to DeepSeek, SR is useful only with heavier atoms due to the
"allegations" that low level electrons orbit at speed closer to c in
heavier atoms (gold, lead,..). Hyperfine states are more accurate
defined using Dirac instead of Schrodinger QM.
When I questioned it how physics managed "statistical orbitals" to apply
relativity, being that in QM electrons don't have a neat, well-defined
orbitals and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle collided with the
pseudo-classic SR,
DeepSeek crashed and asked me to try again later, as the servers were
busy.
Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
current proposals are going to succeed.
Well, how about my own idea?
See my 'book' about this idea:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Am Dienstag000028, 28.01.2025 um 18:42 schrieb rhertz:
I just tried DeepSeek with the same question that I did to ChatGPT:
QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
Even when Deepseek is fed with information available through Internet,
the differences with ChatGPT were shocking.
Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use
than Dirac's.
Quantum effects are much more relevant than relativistic effects and,
for this, SR is not relevant at quantum level in the majority of cases.
According to DeepSeek, SR is useful only with heavier atoms due to the
"allegations" that low level electrons orbit at speed closer to c in
heavier atoms (gold, lead,..). Hyperfine states are more accurate
defined using Dirac instead of Schrodinger QM.
When I questioned it how physics managed "statistical orbitals" to apply
relativity, being that in QM electrons don't have a neat, well-defined
orbitals and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle collided with the
pseudo-classic SR,
DeepSeek crashed and asked me to try again later, as the servers were
busy.
Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
current proposals are going to succeed.
Well, how about my own idea?
It isn't that new anymore, but aims to fill that gap and base particles
on spacetime of GR.
The concept is therefore called 'stractured spacetime', where 'timelike stable patterns' are, what we call 'matter'.
See my 'book' about this idea:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Relativistic effects are in this concept not related to velocity but to acceleration.
IOW: you could create matter out of nothing, by acceleration of
spacetime.
This should be observable in some cases as 'Growing Earth' or 'magic
dust'.
Also the opposite could be possible, where matter disapears without a
trace.
...
TH
Le 29/01/2025 à 08:36, Thomas Heger a écrit :
Am Dienstag000028, 28.01.2025 um 18:42 schrieb rhertz:
I just tried DeepSeek with the same question that I did to ChatGPT:
QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
Even when Deepseek is fed with information available through Internet,
the differences with ChatGPT were shocking.
Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use >>> than Dirac's.
Quantum effects are much more relevant than relativistic effects and,
for this, SR is not relevant at quantum level in the majority of cases.
According to DeepSeek, SR is useful only with heavier atoms due to the
"allegations" that low level electrons orbit at speed closer to c in
heavier atoms (gold, lead,..). Hyperfine states are more accurate
defined using Dirac instead of Schrodinger QM.
When I questioned it how physics managed "statistical orbitals" to apply >>> relativity, being that in QM electrons don't have a neat, well-defined
orbitals and that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle collided with the
pseudo-classic SR,
DeepSeek crashed and asked me to try again later, as the servers were
busy.
Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
current proposals are going to succeed.
Well, how about my own idea?
No one give a sh*t.
See my 'book' about this idea:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
It's a bunch of nonsensical bullsh*t.
Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR
has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
current proposals are going to succeed.
Well, how about my own idea?
It isn't that new anymore, but aims to fill that gap and base particles
on spacetime of GR.
Just forget the depravity of all relativity.
The concept is therefore called 'stractured spacetime', where 'timelike
stable patterns' are, what we call 'matter'.
Matter is charge - electrons orbiting protons or getting stuck to
protons.
See my 'book' about this idea:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Relativistic effects are in this concept not related to velocity but to
acceleration.
Relativistic effects occur from Earth's movement in space.
IOW: you could create matter out of nothing, by acceleration of
spacetime.
Protons and electrons come from aether and vanish into aether. The most striking demonstration is growth from life internal forces; cell
splitting into two.
This should be observable in some cases as 'Growing Earth' or 'magic
dust'.
See any cell split. how matter appears.
We come from aether. We return to aether.
Am Mittwoch000029, 29.01.2025 um 17:06 schrieb Bertietaylor:
Regarding GR, it started to mumble shit about quantum spacetime and
Planck's lengths and times, to later accept that IT'S BELIEVED that GR >>>> has to have a role in atom's behavior, but immediately it added that
such area is under heavy study by several researches, and that such
influence of GR on atom's behavior IS FAR FROM BEING KNOWN BY NOW.
Also, added that efforts to incorporate quantum spacetime in atomic
theory have been made in the last decades without results (string
theory, quantum loop gravity, etc.). Additionally, added that a
completely new theory is needed, but there are no indications that
current proposals are going to succeed.
Well, how about my own idea?
It isn't that new anymore, but aims to fill that gap and base particles
on spacetime of GR.
Just forget the depravity of all relativity.
The concept is therefore called 'stractured spacetime', where 'timelike
stable patterns' are, what we call 'matter'.
Matter is charge - electrons orbiting protons or getting stuck to
protons.
This is 'materialism' (also known as 'particle concept').
I wanted to prove, that matter is actually not materialistic, but is
build from imaterial 'structures'.
As 'proof of concept' I used 'Growing Earth'.
This goes like this:
if the Earth would grow from within, we can be certain, that the
particle concept must be wrong, because there can't be enough particles inside of this planet to make it grow from within.
But if matter is actually 'relative', the Earth could grow, we could use 'spacetime of GR' as replacement for 'aether' and all are happy.
See my 'book' about this idea:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/
d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
Relativistic effects are in this concept not related to velocity but to
acceleration.
Relativistic effects occur from Earth's movement in space.
Well, no!
'Space' has a different role in my concept.
It is is actually based on complex numbers (complex valued four vectors)
and an imaginary axis of time, which multiplied by i gives the three
real valued axes of space.
So: the term 'space' is depending on the axis of time, because a multiplication by i means (kind of) 90° rotation.
Now this has only a relevance, if you would rotate the axis of time a
bit, because in this case a new space would pop out of nowhere, which is filled with matter never seen before.
IOW: you could create matter out of nothing, by acceleration of
spacetime.
Protons and electrons come from aether and vanish into aether. The most
striking demonstration is growth from life internal forces; cell
splitting into two.
This should be observable in some cases as 'Growing Earth' or 'magic
dust'.
See any cell split. how matter appears.
We come from aether. We return to aether.
Kind of...
TH
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use
than Dirac's.
Correct, to lowest order.
Spin can be handled by Pauli. (to lowest order)
On 1/28/25 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use >>> than Dirac's.
Correct, to lowest order.
Well, sort of (see below).
Spin can be handled by Pauli. (to lowest order)
Not really. The math of spin is the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group -- that's inherently SR.
Tom Roberts
On 1/28/25 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
QUESTION: Does relativity breaks down at atomic level?
Regarding Special Relativity, DeepSeek agreed that non-relativistic
quantum mechanics is MUCH MORE RELEVANT than the Dirac's model.
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use >> than Dirac's.
Correct, to lowest order.
Well, sort of (see below).
Spin can be handled by Pauli. (to lowest order)
Not really. The math of spin is the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group -- that's inherently SR.
Tom Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/28/25 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use >>>> than Dirac's.
Correct, to lowest order.
Well, sort of (see below).
Spin can be handled by Pauli. (to lowest order)
Not really. The math of spin is the irreducible representations of the
Lorentz group -- that's inherently SR.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_equation>
You think that this needs a rewrite?
On 2/10/25 7:12 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Tom Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/28/25 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple
to use
than Dirac's.
Correct, to lowest order.
Well, sort of (see below).
Spin can be handled by Pauli. (to lowest order)
Not really. The math of spin is the irreducible representations of the
Lorentz group -- that's inherently SR.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_equation>
You think that this needs a rewrite?
Not really, because it does not claim that relativity is not needed.
That page simply presents the Pauli matrices (etc.) without explanation.
That explanation, if given, would inherently involve SR, the notion that
all physical laws are Lorentz invariant, and spins are described by the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group. Some links on that
page refer to discussions of spin, including its relationship to SR.
Tom Roberts
On 2/10/25 7:12 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Tom Roberts <[email protected]> wrote:
On 1/28/25 3:21 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
Schrodinger's theory reigns in most cases and is much more simple to use >>>> than Dirac's.
Correct, to lowest order.
Well, sort of (see below).
Spin can be handled by Pauli. (to lowest order)
Not really. The math of spin is the irreducible representations of the
Lorentz group -- that's inherently SR.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_equation>
You think that this needs a rewrite?
Not really, because it does not claim that relativity is not needed.
That page simply presents the Pauli matrices (etc.) without explanation.
That explanation, if given, would inherently involve SR, the notion that
all physical laws are Lorentz invariant, and spins are described by the irreducible representations of the Lorentz group. Some links on that
page refer to discussions of spin, including its relationship to SR.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:48:59 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,309 |