Physics

  • Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

Post Reply
Vjk_007
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2024 6:04 am

Physics

Post by Vjk_007 » Fri Jan 26, 2024 6:17 am

Hello Friends I have done Masters in Geology and i want to persue GRE Physics . i am from India . Can anybody Guide me with Free resuources for the GRE Physics exam prepration or atleast tell me who takes classes of it ? that would be very helpful to me

User avatar
htam9876
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:16 pm

Re: Physics

Post by htam9876 » Sun Jan 28, 2024 5:47 pm

@007
Piggy read an essay about a physics GRE test once upon a time in a scientific site. For reference.
A professor asked his student a question: why seems a glass has no wave – particle duality? The student answered: its probability wave length is too small and not easy to observe. (Note: the Plank constant h is very small value, the momentum of the glass p is relatively very big, according to the equation λ = h / p, λ should be a very small value.)
The professor kept silent. Perhaps he was thinking why the train would not jump on the trails before stop?

Perhaps the student’s answer was a “standard” one. But the professor seems unsatisfied with it.
:mrgreen:
The microscopic vs the macroscopic, touchy and feely
Some guys resort to the idea of microscopic – macroscopic to explain the wave – particle duality problem of a glass. They say QM is applicable to microscopic particle, while Relativity is applicable to macroscopic object.
There is a question: anyone can find out the border between the microscopic vs the macroscopic? Perhaps they would have to spend thousands of years to do it…at last get nothing.
How small a molecule can count as microscopic, and how big a molecule can count as macroscopic? Perhaps human can employ high tech to make a glass with only one super polymer…
Some people might say fundamental particles can count as microscopic, while other things can count as macroscopic. Actually the glass is made up of fundamental particles too. If the glass moves in a direction with velocity v, all fundamental particles inside it have a component of velocity v in that direction, then all fundamental particles inside it have a probability wave presentation in that direction, then the glass should have an obvious probability wave presentation in that direction when velocity v declines to a very small value. (Perhaps such visibility of the effect of probability should not concern wave length because it’s not mechanic wave.)
The funny thing is actually SR can reflect the movement of fundamental particles in an accelerator very accurately, while QM can’t do that.
The idea of microscopic – macroscopic seems a man’s perception only. It’s research “started from the wrong burst point, then traveled in a long and complicated curve, at last trapped in a blind alley.”
Moreover, why we can’t pursue a unified rule of cosmos?
…………….
Or people can have a third way of thinking. Why we can’t suspect whether wave – particle duality always established or not? Originally, the concept of wave – particle duality was a speculation / assumption only. According to some statement, once upon a time, when people knew released photon is “wavicle”, Duc de Broglie initiated a genius – rated ASSUMPTION “all microscopic particles should be wavicle”. Then, the conception of “matter wave” / probability wave appeared on the stage of physics. In philosophy it equals to “the father pig is a good swimmer, then, the little piggy should be a good swimmer too”. Gangster’s logic. Oh Lord, please don’t throw the little piggy into water to do experiment…People mistake some theories as truth, just because they kept hearing them.

If people are willing to resort to the third way of thinking, the answer is already there, very simple, explicit and understandable. Anyone can accelerate the glass to the speed of light c?
In the new era of meta physics & PRESENCE – PROPERTY, we can explain very explicitly why light has wave – particle duality, while a glass not.
An excellent GRE should learn to break through traditional barrier of thought and raise the spirit of innovation.

User avatar
htam9876
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:16 pm

Re: Physics

Post by htam9876 » Tue Jul 09, 2024 9:25 am

Pig Head Award 2024 is going on in a2k galaxy:
https://able2know.org/topic/586167-1#post-7370905
https://able2know.org/topic/574067-2#post-7371518
A question: may I talk about it here too?
8)

User avatar
htam9876
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:16 pm

Re: Physics

Post by htam9876 » Wed Jul 24, 2024 10:34 pm

Pig Head Award 2024 No. 8 position.

To Mr. Ding’s physicsgre test: why seems a glass has no wave particle duality?
(Sorry guys, piggy can’t find out where’s the essay mentioned Ding’s physics test. Ding is a professor in MIT.)


Piggy’s additional comment here:
Piggy read an essay about a physicsgre test once upon a time in a scientific site. For reference:
A professor asked his student a question: why seems a glass has no wave – particle duality? The student answered: its probability wave length is too small and not easy to observe. (Note: the Plank constant h is very small value, the momentum of the glass p is relatively very big, according to the equation λ = h / p, λ should be a very small value.)
The professor kept silent. Perhaps he was thinking why the train would not jump on the trails before stop?

Perhaps the student’s answer was a “standard” one. But the professor seems unsatisfied with it.

Piggy’s analysis:
Such visibility of the effect of probability should not concern the magnitude of wave length or amplitude, because it’s not mechanic wave.
The glass could be considered as a big neutral particle / free particle. The amplitude of its wave function is a constant A. Probability density | A |² is a constant. That means the chance of its presence in the whole space is the same. It’s obviously not inconformity with fact.

Some guys resort to the idea of microscopic – macroscopic to explain the wave – particle duality problem of a glass. They say QM is applicable to microscopic particle, while Relativity is applicable to macroscopic object.
There is a question: anyone can find out the border between the microscopic vs the macroscopic? Perhaps they would have to spend thousands of years to do it…at last get nothing.
The funny thing is actually SR can reflect the movement of fundamental particles in an accelerator very accurately, while QM can’t do that.
The idea of microscopic – macroscopic seems a man’s perception only. It’s research “started from the wrong burst point, then traveled in a long and complicated curve, at last trapped in a blind alley.”
Moreover, why we can’t pursue a unified rule of cosmos?

Or people can have a third way of thinking. Why we can’t suspect whether wave – particle duality always established or not? Originally, the concept of wave – particle duality was a speculation / assumption only. According to some statement, once upon a time, when people knew released photon is “wavicle”, Duc de Broglie initiated a genius – class ASSUMPTION “all microscopic particles should be wavicle”. Then, the conception of “matter wave” / probability wave appeared on the stage of physics. In philosophy it equals to “the father pig is a good swimmer, then, the little piggy should be a good swimmer too”. Gangster’s logic. Oh Lord, please don’t throw the little piggy into water to do experiment…People mistake some theories as truth, just because they kept hearing them.

If people resort to the third way of thinking, the answer is there.
In 2023, delved into the level of meta physics, piggy found that wave – particle duality is not always established.
For details please see Analysis of the Speed of Probability Wave (the first chapter of piggy’s new article Research on the Root of Quantum Mechanics).

I don’t know how to display the full context here because I am not able to use the software to show some mathematical calculation. What I can do is to show its abstract.

The beginning of the context is:
According to Duc de Broglie’s original idea, the frequency of probability wave γ = E / h, the wavelength of probability wave λ = h / p.

The speed of probability wave of a free particle could be calculated as below:
If v is the moving speed of the particle, then, the speed of the corresponding probability wave:
u = γλ = (E / h)( h / p) = E / p =…

The conclusion of the context is:
When v → 0, Lim u = 0,
When v → c, Lim u = c,
When 0 < v < c, v > u

There are two hard problems as below:
1. What does the inconformity between “v” and “u” in case of 0 < v < c mean exactly in physics? It represents the wave state separating from the particle state? How lame it all sound. It’s too abstract and not understandable. It just means the concept of wavicle (wave – particle duality) in QM can’t establish in this situation. Why?
Seems there is a flaw here in QM.
2. And what does the conformity between “v” and “u” in case of “v → c, Lim u = c” mean exactly in physics? It should mean the concept of wavicle established in this situation. Why?

Piggy has given up the conception of probability wave and initiated the new conception of “electric wave”. QM should be the science to research the wave characteristics of electric interaction, or say, wave function should be to describe “electric wave”.


Anyone can accelerate the glass to the speed of light c?
According to Analysis of the Speed of Probability Wave, in case of 0 < v < c, the concept of wavicle (wave – particle duality) in QM can’t establish. Wave function should be to describe “electric wave”.


Liqiang Chen
July 25, 2024
Thanks G*. Thanks GRE. Thanks America.
Relevant reference material: Piggy’s post in thread “quantum action”.
In this century, physics either delve into the meta level to make clear some fundamental physical / natural rules first, thereafter touchy and feely ahead step by step on the sound base, or keep on dancing on the “tower floating in the air”, playing math game and speculation.



Post Reply