QUANTUM MECHANICS TOO IS RELATIVE?
----------------------------------------------------------------.
Physicists today mainly use three basic theories to explain
the universe, one is “general theory of relativity”, the second is “quantum
mechanics” & the third is Newton ’s
“laws of gravity & motion’.
We will not discuss here Newton ’s theory, as this paper is not meant
for that, that is, is not the subject of this analysis.
The first general theory of relativity (GTL), it deals with
gravity, speed of light, relativity, that is large scale structure of the
universe, distances from miles to light years away, a few hundreds of miles to
billions of light years (LY) in stretch.
While quantum mechanics (QM) deals with phenomena at
extremely low scale, that is sub atomic level, only at stretches of millionth
parts of a millimeter.
Here two master theories come into play, first Planck’s
“quantum theory”, which basically denies any randomness of quantity (concept of
energy packets) & infinite divisibility of matter or energy, second is
Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle”, according to which we can not measure
beyond a smallness as the shorter a “particle’s (for example a photon) wave
length” is (I am using the term particle instead of ray or any electromagnetic
radiation, because of wave particle duality, a particle is nothing but a wave
packet, it is conclusively proven & a wave also behaves as a particle), the
more it will affect the object of measurement as it will have more energy due
to higher frequency & obviously we are not going to measure an apple like
big thing with such high frequency, nor is our or Heisenberg’s aim was that, so
for only measurement of tiniest of tiniest things & that tiniest of things
will get disturbed by the measuring particle, also more important, as it has
been taken a particle is also a wave packet so confining it to a precise point
is impossible & if that particle has movement at very high rate it becomes
more difficult to pinpoint its position & if you pinpoint its position
(theoretically, as you can’t do it practically), it’s velocity gets affected.
So it can be seen why at such low scale velocity &
position become uncertain to measure.
THE CONTRADICTION.
---------------------------------.
From above two theories (quantum theory & uncertainty
principle) do we get a hint of absolute size or measure of anything in nature,
that is a basic & fundamental size or measure of anything or not?
Quantum theory predicts an absolute minimum size, a quantum,
that is an absolute minimum amount of everything (be it quantity, position or
motion, motion is wave length, frequency & velocity, that is, a total wave
function), but uncertainty principle predicts, one can not precisely quantify,
measure position, velocity at a very small level (quantity too can’t be
precisely measured beyond a minimum level, because that means
one has to break that
quantity further & further, but one can not even theoretically & even
mathematically divide to the last level as such division will be infinit
So from these two theories we get on one hand an absolute
measure of quantity (be that of velocity, mass or position), quantity here, is given
by particle’s 3 dimensional shape, on the other we get inherent uncertainty of
the above, that is uncertainty of measure of quantity (be that velocity, mass,
position).
So both theories are inconsistent to one another, but both
true & valid.
NOW THEORY OF RELATIVITY.
---------------------------------------------------.
Now, as per theory of relativity, everything is relative:
size (of anything), space (distance between objects), time (interval between
events), in other words space-time is relative, be it small as per quantum
theory or be it big as per theory of relativity, even at small scale it
(everything) should be relative (although at such small scale theory of
relativity is not taken into account). That is, at small scale too, it should
not be “small enough in absolute term”, that is, behavior of particles can’t be
absolute as per theory of relativity, but contradictorily & in fact they
become quantum in absolute term, that is behave as quantum also in absolute
term.
That is they become “fixed units” & also do “fixed
scale” behavior (act also in quantum), as if a quantum is fixed by the NATURE,
like an electron is a fixed unit (may be it can be elevated to a higher energy
or brought back to a lower energy, but levels are fixed by quanta of energy
given to them or taken away by any process otherwise we deny
photon/electromagnetic radiation as a quantum & moreover an electron can not
be taken down to a lower level than it is at absolute zero temperature) so behavior
of an electron or a photon (of a certain energy) is fixed i.e. quantized.
Again below a level, if we want to determine size, position,
velocity, whatever, we can not do it with certainty either, it becomes
uncertain i.e. they (particles) can’t be fixed further (as a particle has wave
particle duality, so it can not be fixed at a point below a minimum area), also
it’s acts can not be fixed below a minimum level as our limit is upto a
quantum, that is we can be precise upto a level then hand over things to
approximation & uncertainty & that there is a LIMIT
for everything (determined by the nature as nature’s constants, in case
of electron too, our determination level is very limited & to know further
we require to break apart the electron to its components or take that an electron
is an absolute basic building block, which always existed in nature & that
too existed even before the universe & the big bang, as could not broken or
smashed, but it is not at all permissible as it indicates eternity of matter
& energy & negates any beginning of the universe or the end, only way
to explain it to say hypothetically, that all electrons at the end change into
photons colliding with anti electrons).
So we come to two points, firstly fixedness of size, amount
& act due to Planck’s constant, second uncertainty of minimum size, amount
& act due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty.
BUT THE NATURE
----------------------------------.
But the nature too is clearly in favour of a “quantum” as appears from
experiments, observations & real
phenomena, example: suppose a photon of a certain energy hits an atom & a
photon of lesser energy than the incident photon comes out leaving behind a part of its energy at that
atom & that quantum of energy left back in the atom, is not arbitrary
quantum of energy, a fixed quantum depending upon the nature of atom, the
photon has hit, if a lesser energy photon hits it then incident photon will
come out without losing energy, so a photon of certain energy or of higher
certain levels energy has to hit a particular atom so that photon’s energy can
be transmitted into the atom & an electron or more of that atom can jump
orbit.
FROM ABOVE, A SURPRISING RELATIVITY CAN BE DEDUCED
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
From above a surprising “RELATIVITY” is seen, THAT QUANTUM
OF (OF PHOTON) ENERGY LOSS IS ALSO RELATIVE TO A CERTAIN ATOM, THAT IS IF KIND
OF ATOM IS CHANGED, QUANTUM OF ENERGY LOSS WOULD (in accordance with Planck’s
constant) ALSO CHANGE, SO QUANTUM IS ALSO RELATIVE to a particular atom, &
that is in accordance with Einstein’s theory of relativity & is
contradictory to Planck’s absolute or fixed quantum, that quantum is also relative
depending on electrons, protons & their configurations, that is, Planck’s
Quantum theory is true but is also relative, but as Planck’s constant is unchangeable
then question is, how it could be relative? It is relative to electron, proton
& atomic structure, again atomic structure is relative to electro-magnetic
force (emf) & emf depends on wave functions of electrons & protons (wave
function is their BASIC building blocks & this wave function also
gives them their CHARGE & MASS) & wave function is variable.
(But this topic needs more analysis, now it may appear to be
very speculative & assumptive, so may be totally baseless.)
Subhro Das
23/02/2011
