Dear John Rider Klauder,

In response to a comment above, you note that "the current rule sometimes leads to nonsense." and elsewhere,

"The usual rule of the relation of a classical/quantum connection fails sometimes."

I confess not to have followed your complete argument, however it seems to derive from Dirac's interpretation of all contact transformations in which the...

view entire post

Dear John Rider Klauder,

In response to a comment above, you note that "the current rule sometimes leads to nonsense." and elsewhere,

"The usual rule of the relation of a classical/quantum connection fails sometimes."

I confess not to have followed your complete argument, however it seems to derive from Dirac's interpretation of all contact transformations in which the classical transformation has a role to play in the quantum theory.

The classical variable is either random or varies with respect to something. If it varies with respect to something, say z, then we typically form an 'operator' of the form O ~ d/dz, and the formalism that results (incorporating h) is a quantum theory. It is difficult to see how the quantum operator could possibly be more fundamental than the classical variable from which it is derived, and, in fact, the correspondence principle insists that the quantum operator equations must be derived from the appropriate classical Hamiltonian. This seems compatible with your statement that

"The Hamiltonian operator is the same function of P and Q as the classical Hamiltonian is of p and q ... [plus o(h)]..

I will not repeat your logic but will say that I agree with your conclusion that

"The special role played by Cartesian coordinates in canonical quantization is essential."

Your goal, as I understand it, is "an alternative quantization procedure relating classical and quantum variables to each other", and your derivation of equation (5) seems to yield the correct classical action function without the need to modify the quantum operators at all.

I did not follow your switch to affine variables, but, to return to your point that "the current rule sometimes leads to nonsense", I would note that Steven Kauffmann (viXra:1707.0116) has shown that the Dirac equation was not derived from a classical Hamiltonian, but was instead influenced by 'space-time symmetry' considerations, and, accordingly, leads to some nonsense results, such as particle speed ~1.7c. Additionally, the result of Dirac's equation is a spin that differs from Pauli's eigenvalue spin; in fact Dirac does not have a spin eigenvalue equation, and such is obtained only after a Foldy-Wouthuysen transformation smears a spin over an extended region (viXra:1411.0096 ).

If you're wondering where this extended comment is leading, it is the fact that Dirac based his equation on space-time symmetry considerations and my current essay treats the development of space-time symmetry concept. I hope you will read my essay and comment on it.

Thanks for a very interesting essay,

My best regards

Edwin Eugene Klingman

view post as summary

Hi John Rider Klauder

You said “This failure is due to the rigid connection of quantum variables arising by promoting the corresponding classical variable from a c-number to a q-number….When Canonical Quantization Fails, Here is How to Fix It ….wonderful solutions, you have very vast experience also sir John Rider Klauder…….wow……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate...

view entire post

Hi John Rider Klauder

You said “This failure is due to the rigid connection of quantum variables arising by promoting the corresponding classical variable from a c-number to a q-number….When Canonical Quantization Fails, Here is How to Fix It ….wonderful solutions, you have very vast experience also sir John Rider Klauder…….wow……..….. very nice idea…. I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton’s Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true….Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.h
tml

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information……..

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from “http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ ”

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

view post as summary

JK

That looks quite brilliant, but the details were a little beyond me as I'm no mathematician (though scored top on Wigner with red/green lined socks in 2015!)

I hope you can help. It looks to me as if you have an algorithmic solution to non-linear classical 'quantum' interactions. That's of great interest as my essay describes a full ontology (and scaled up experiment) achieving...

view entire post

JK

That looks quite brilliant, but the details were a little beyond me as I'm no mathematician (though scored top on Wigner with red/green lined socks in 2015!)

I hope you can help. It looks to me as if you have an algorithmic solution to non-linear classical 'quantum' interactions. That's of great interest as my essay describes a full ontology (and scaled up experiment) achieving what I think is 'impossible', a geometrical solution for the same problem, reproducing QM's predictions free of weirdness. You'll be one of a few here qualified to check it. I Analyse 'OAM/QAM' more closely & in essence do the following;

Assume pairs retain anti-parallel polar axes but random x,y,z for each pair.

Assume physical particle OR wavefront/fermion interaction as absorption & momentum exchange at some tangent point on the Bloch sphere.

Start the pairs with Maxwell's FOUR states, inc. 'curl' (polar N/S) AND equatorial (0 curl but max +/- linear) momentum. QAM is then just spherical rotation.

Identify from Geophysics that the momentum distribution of both pairs is inverse and by Cos latitude (as 'surface speed' but for any diameter within the field fermion (theta set by A,B)

Take polarised/modulated 'requantized' Cos values (also now theta dependent) to the (2 channel) photomultiplier fields for further orthogonal interactions and 2nd requantization, squaring the Cos values (Borns Law).

Working with all 3 degrees of freedom and detections only above a certain energy threshold at each angle (subject to phase) the mechanism provides the outputs which (when collated and misunderstood statistically!) fully reproduce QM's predictions! Actually just as John Bell predicted, and a Bayesian distribution.

Few can grasp the ontology. Declan Traill's short essay provides the computer code and plot supporting the mechanism, including meeting CHSH >2 and the 'Steering Inequality' >1 test closing the 'detector loophole'.

Non-integer spins emerge from y,z rotations and non-locality isn't required!

What I'm unable to do (simple incompetence I think) is find the Hamiltonian. I'll also of course be unable to convince the academic community it's no joke.

I'd greatly appreciate your advice and perhaps help.

Thanks for your own inspiring insights which I'm sure are connected.

Very best

Peter J

view post as summary