Can you verify this calculation ?

In summary, the conversation discusses the possibility of using the Compton wave length to calculate the holographic principle, which could potentially simplify the understanding of space, time, matter, and energy as being made of quantum information. This would also explain interference patterns and the effects of dark matter and dark energy. However, some physicists have not used this approach because they do not believe in non-locality as a real phenomenon. Smolin and Susskind have previously written about the Compton wave length in relation to the mass of a system, but their equation does not make sense and they instead use Shannon entropy.
  • #1
czes
222
1
I do show my simple calculation since some weeks. Is it correct or wrong ?

The distance and all the space is created by a quantum information. It agrees with a holographic principle. I propose a simple calculation if we assume the quantum information creates an interference pattern due its probability. The time dilation of the interaction between the non-local quantum information creates an illusion of the space-time. We receive a known holographic relation if we assume the structure of the space is based on the Compton wave length:
[M/m]*[2 pi R/L(1)] = [R [tex]c^2[/tex] / 2Gm]*[2 pi R / (h/mc)] = pi[tex] R^2[/tex] / ( hG/[tex]c^3[/tex]) = pi[tex]R^2[/tex]/[tex]L^2[/tex] = A/4[tex]L^2[/tex]
where M/m is a number of the rest mass particles in a system, R=average distance between particle=radius of the sphere around a system, L(1) = an average Compton wave length of the particles, L=Planck length.
http://www.cramerti.home.pl/

If it is correct the space, time, matter, energy is made of a quantum information. Time is just an entropy of the system.
We can also use Planck time and Compton wave time of the oscillation.

Physicists use Shannon entropy till now, what is very complicate.
http://lanl.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9310/9310026v2.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
If my assumption that number of microstates per particle W=2 pi R / h/mc is correct we may then complete the Hartley entropy H=log M = log (2 pi R/ h/mc) and also Boltzman's law S=k log W = k log (2 pi R / h/mc).
Where R=mean path of the particle creating a system, h/mc= Compton wave length of the mean particle in the system.

Anybody can write if we may do that ?
 
  • #3
Is here "Question and Answer" on this forum ?
I have above a simple question:
May we use the Compton wave length to calculate Holographic Principle ?
It is much easier than a statistical integral of thesum of the probabilities as in Shannon entropy. Additionally it explains interference patterns, darkmatter/dark energy effect.
http://www.cramerti.home.pl/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Probably the reason that the physicists didn't use the Compton wave length is that they do not believe the non-locality is a real phenomenon in physics. In String Theory for example there are particles in an empty space which mediate the interactions. According to non-locality the particle is everywhere with a certain probability and interacts with each other there and here. The distance between the particles creates a number of the non-local information of the Compton wave length.

It explains a cosmological redshift as the space recession. If there are added more information in a chain between the particles the distance increases. This supply of the information (increae of the entropy) causes expansion of the space of our Observable Universe.

Smolin and Susskind wrote about Compton wave length in relation to the whole mass (M) of the system, then (2 pi R) / (h/Mc) = A /4 [tex]L^2[/tex]
but this equation doesn't has a sense. Therefore they used Shannon entropy.
 

Related to Can you verify this calculation ?

1. Can you explain how you arrived at this calculation?

As a scientist, I understand the importance of transparency and reproducibility in calculations. Therefore, I will walk you through my process and provide any necessary equations and data used.

2. Are you confident in the accuracy of this calculation?

Yes, I have double-checked my work and taken into account any potential sources of error. However, if you have any concerns or suggestions for improvement, I am open to discussing them.

3. Can you provide any supporting evidence for this calculation?

Absolutely, I have kept detailed records of all my data and sources used in this calculation. I am happy to provide that information for your review.

4. Have you taken into account any potential limitations or assumptions in this calculation?

Yes, I have carefully considered any limitations or assumptions that may affect the accuracy of this calculation. I will make sure to mention them in my explanation.

5. Can you verify the reliability of the data used in this calculation?

Yes, I have obtained the data from reputable sources and have checked for consistency and accuracy. If there are any concerns about the reliability of the data, I will mention them in my explanation.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
971
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
909
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
1K
Back
Top