Video

I don’t understand you 😅 but you’re welcome ☺️ ❤️

@@ankidokolo That was my answer of homework 😌

And it’s correct 😅🤓🙌

@@ankidokolo ❤️

I agree that the notation there isn’t the best. When I made the video I didn’t actually expect so many viewers. There are some writing errors also. Anyway, the quantum part is alright.

@@ankidokolo Thank You

You're welcome

Yes he did. But that’s for the relativistic part of quantum mechanics ☺️

@@ankidokolo That means what ? IT IS Not right ?

No it's right. But only at high energies (small wavelengths) and high speeds. The rules of quantum mechanics does not change in the relativistic part of it. But Schrödinger's Equation just doesn't work in it.

@@ankidokolo Thank you, now got that, relativistic means near light velocity, didn't know that Schrödinger equation doesn't work then. He had big struggle with Heisenberg about his equation I have heard.

Yep, it doesn't work relativistically. It changes its form upon "Lorentz transforming." You're very welcome.

Yeah he said a lot of things. But actually you can, and that’s why math exists. It‘s not intuitive that’s all.

@@ankidokolo I adore that , get more and more interested in maths, but couldnt follows that even with degree in medicine. 😅

Yeah, it needs repeating and reading to get insight. Some people got it a little wrong. The video is meant to help by reading textbooks. It doesn't replace textbooks. Actually nothing does.

😂😂😂😂 yes yes Of COOOURSE!

Angry boy can’t read. Open ANY quantum mechanics book and read the MATHEMATICAL STRUCTURE chapter. And ONLY when you’re ready come back and discuss, little boy.

@@ankidokolo yes it is, go read my paper "real space quantum mechanics" O Loiselet. Hilbert space of functions is secondary. It is explained from a very physical point of view.

What you’re referring to is called „virtual particles“. They exist because of the uncertainty relation of time and energy. They can’t last long due to energy conservation constraint in the universe. Quantum Field theory explains all than better, but it’s advanced. However it’s also built upon the stuff in the video and my previous ones.

Great story. Now all you have to do is to present scientific evidence for your opinion and we are all good. ;-)

Yes. There is no wave in the frame of reference that moves with the particle. Watch the video I suggested at the end of this video, to see how de Broglie thought about this duality.

You mean ads? I have no control over that, yet.

Yes! He has no control over Ads.

Here’s an idea buy CZcams red

@@chancegeorge5583 Here's an idea post on CZcams and RUMBLE. Here's another idea BOYCOT products from CZcams ads that obnoxiously interrupt their videos.

Speaking of respect ….. cultivate some, perhaps ?

I know 😥 and I’m sad for that

It’s like watching a textbook, though… :)

🤔🤔

For me to fully understand it , I would have to watch it 10,000 times .

Those and more are in my plan. I’ll come to them in this series (playlist). But they are not a direct subject for the mathematical structure for quantum mechanics. Like in all standard textbooks.

Continuous (classical) is dual to discrete (quantum). Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Injective is dual to surjective synthesizes bijective or isomorphism -- group theory. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages or communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Lie groups are dual to Lie algebras. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases. Riemann geometry or curvature is dual -- upper indices are dual to lower indices. Positive curvature (convergence, syntropy) is dual to negative curvature (divergence, entropy) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Subgroups are dual to subfields -- the Galois correspondence. Elliptic curves are dual to modular forms. Categories (form, syntax, objects) are dual to sets (substance, semantics, subjects) -- Category theory. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Poles (eigenvalues) are dual to zeros -- optimized control theory. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Duality creates reality!

@@hyperduality2838 Can't disagree

​@@hyperduality2838There is some merit to this. But Lie groups and Lie algebras are not really dual, instead several Lie groups correspond to the same Lie algebra. Syntax is not necessarily dual to semantics, because on the one hand one semantic can have several syntaxes and one syntax can have several semantics, on the other hand semantics may be considered more like the terrain of reality itself, while syntax may be considered more like a map of reality, thus semantics is richer than syntax. Only Galois subfields correspond to subgroups iirc (or was that normal subgroups?), and also this is more like an adjunction (Galois connection) than an equivalence (duality). Most of your other dualities are correct, although the duality between "real" and "imaginary" depends on an Archimedean metric, if we use a p-adic ultrametric instead (for some prime p) we get a more complex situation where "complex" numbers are infinite dimensional (over p-adic numbers, the analog of real numbers) instead of two dimensional. This is even more true if we avoid metrics and create algebraic numbers over the rational numbers as a base field. We may also use a formal metric on functions in one variable over the finite field GF(q) where q = p^n for some prime p and positive integer n, and i think we can create "complex" numbers over this field as well. We may consider position as belonging to the matter aspect and momentum as belonging to the motion aspect, while the wave function is belonging to the consciousness aspect. These three are the fundamental aspects of all reality: motion, consciousness and matter, nothing can exist without partaking in all of them. Along all the dualities (orthogonalities) of linear algebra, where an inner product over V makes V naturally isomorphic to V*, there are also a few trialities, namely in 1, 2, 4 and 8 dimensions of V, working over real numbers. The one in 8 dimensions is most interesting, because here we have three equivalent representations of Spin(V) even working over complex numbers. These are the vector representation and the two half-spinor representations, which may represent consciousness, and the dual matter and motion, all of them dual (or "trial") to each other in this case. And yes, to me it is fully possible to be both scientific and metaphysical simultaneously.

It’s absolutely not. It’s public under the title „the math structure of quantum mechanics „

Thanks! Glad you liked it 😊

@@ankidokolo Continuous (classical) is dual to discrete (quantum). Waves are dual to particles -- quantum duality. Sine is dual to cosine or dual sine -- the word co means mutual and implies duality. Real is dual to imaginary -- complex numbers are dual. Injective is dual to surjective synthesizes bijective or isomorphism -- group theory. Syntax is dual to semantics -- languages or communication. If mathematics is a language then it is dual. Lie groups are dual to Lie algebras. Vectors (contravariant) are dual to co-vectors (covariant) -- dual bases. Riemann geometry or curvature is dual -- upper indices are dual to lower indices. Positive curvature (convergence, syntropy) is dual to negative curvature (divergence, entropy) -- Gauss, Riemann geometry. Subgroups are dual to subfields -- the Galois correspondence. Elliptic curves are dual to modular forms. Categories (form, syntax, objects) are dual to sets (substance, semantics, subjects) -- Category theory. "Always two there are" -- Yoda. Poles (eigenvalues) are dual to zeros -- optimized control theory. All numbers fall within the complex plane hence all numbers are dual. The integers are self dual as they are their own conjugates. Duality creates reality!

@@hyperduality2838 Indeed!

@@ankidokolo Watch the following videos about duality, watch at 11 minutes:- czcams.com/video/DoCYY9sa2kU/video.html And this at 1 hour 4 minutes:- czcams.com/video/UjDxk9ZnYJQ/video.html The Schrodinger representation is dual to the Heisenberg representation -- quantum mechanics. AdS is dual to CFT. Duality means that there is a 4th law of thermodynamics:- Syntropy (prediction) is dual to increasing entropy -- the 4th law of thermodynamics. Teleological physics (syntropy) is dual to non teleological physics (entropy). Positive is dual to negative -- numbers or electric charge. Your mind is syntropic as you are making predictions to track targets and goals or objectives (targets). "The brain is a prediction machine" -- Karl Friston, neuroscientist. Energy is dual to matter -- Einstein.

010 - The Eternal Now - T.E.N. d. Realistic Illusions. 010

Thanks Micheal ! And you're welcome :) For the voice, yes, actually, because my English accent is somewhat heavy on the ear. But the content/the text..etc. is 1000% made by me. I'm happy you liked it.

I hate to say this, but your comment is useless, because the video is a part of the series (quantum mechanics for everyone) and NOT everyone knows all that :)

Hi. Like quarks, the gluons carry a “strong charge” known as color. This means that gluons can interact between themselves through the strong force. In the 70’s confirmation of the conception came with the observation of the radiation of gluons by quarks in studies of high-energy particle collisions at the Electron-Synchrotron lab in Germany.

@@ankidokolo When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?

I don’t know what you actually want, but welcome in me channel anyway :)

Hi

Thanks. And I hope that :)

That's a great idea. I'll work on it in the coming weeks 👍😊

Actually no. You have 3 frames of reference (You don't have only 2 frames). Once B turns back his, he lands in an entirely new frame of reference (inbound), and for the entire trip, A always lives longer. (3 frames of reference) we don't compare the same 2.

@@ankidokolo If you consider twin B stationary, there are: B, A outbound, A inbound...

@@massimilianodellaguzzo8571 No. There isn't. I considered B stationary when I changed once to B outbound, and once to B inbound. I took 2 different frames for B. It requires some thinking, I admit, but then you'll see that the paradox is no more.

@@ankidokolo I would like to tell you about this scenario. A spaceship moves in the frame of the Earth, and travels a distance L. (to reach a star S, suppose the Earth-star distance is L in the frame of the Earth) The nose of the spaceship (the astronaut twin) and the Earth twin occupy the same position at the initial times (t = t’ = 0) ... and the twins are in relative motion to each other at speed v. If we consider the uniform linear motion of the spaceship in the frame of the Earth: 1) the astronaut twin reaches the star S at time t = L/v, in the frame of the Earth 2) the star S reaches the astronaut twin at time t’ = L / (gamma*v) in the frame of the spaceship In the spaceship frame the Earth-star distance is CONTRACTED ! But in my opinion if we consider the uniform linear motion of the Earth in the frame of the spaceship, then we need to consider SOMETHING ELSE: in this case it is necessary to consider the uniform linear motion of the star S in the frame of the spaceship. And if we consider the uniform linear motion of the star S in the frame of the spaceship: 1) the star S reaches the astronaut twin at time t ’ = L/v in the frame of the spaceship 2) the astronaut twin reaches the star S at time t = L / (gamma*v) in the frame of the Earth In my opinion the uniform linear motion of the star is hidden but it exists and happens. If we wait for the arrival of the star, the astronaut twin is younger, but if we wait for the arrival of the spaceship's tail, the earth twin is younger. (And the return journey is similar to the outward journey)

@@massimilianodellaguzzo8571 You can tell your opinion of course, but what I made in the video is not an opinion. Just separate the 2 frames in- and outbound, from each other. Look at time 04:48 , you'll see that in the outbound frame itself, A's frame and B inbound frame move in the (same) direction. In the inbound frame 05:18 , A's frame and B outbound now move in the (same) direction. You see how A's worldline maintains the same angle (speed) between it and the outbound worldline and between it and the outbound worldline, in both B's frames. This makes the entire worldline of A a single, long straight line. Therefore, I said A doesn't change his frame at any time.

Acceleration makes only a small difference actually, and not a difference by years as the paradox says. So, in this video, I show how the paradox can be solved without even involving acceleration. Changing the frame of reference alone, causes a time jump in A's frame for B. Hence, at the end of the journey, A will always be older than B, no matter which frame of reference we're measuring from. ♥

Acceleration makes a small difference only.

@@ankidokolo And what causes the change of frame in the single clock/observer the first place? What is the causative agent behind that?

@@aniksamiurrahman6365 There is no acceleration and no forces at all. Think of 2 spaceships moving in opposite directions at equal and constant speed. The traveller B just jumps between the two when they pass close to each other. This solution shows that even when the change happens instantaneously, observer A who didn't travel will be older than B, no matter how we look at it. Hence, there is no paradox in the first place, that needs acceleration to be solved.

@@ankidokolo Again, you're shunning my question. Any physical process tranfering twin B from outbound frame to inbound one is impossible without acceleration (say jumping from one spaceship to other moving at 0.96c, enourmous acceleration and deceleration).

Thanks ☺

​@@ankidokolo0:28

You're welcome

you did great! keep your accent it's very understandable and makes you sound trustworthy :)