FOR POSTING: UFT436 Section 3.
This section is full of interest and uses m theory in computational quantum chemistry for the first time. The harmonic and anharmonic oscillators are developed in m space, which has various effects on this important problem in quantum mechanics. The local density approximation in an ab initio method is used to compute the charge density of nickel, which is important for low energy nuclear reactions. The effect of m theory is evaluated and graphed. It becomes clear that the concept of an m space works its way through into the whole of quantum mechanics. Both Horst Eckardt and I come from a chemical background so this type of computation gives particularly interesting results. Chemists regard quantum electrodynamics as an abstruse mathematical maze, leading nowhere in particular – dippy physics in the words of Feynman. It is particularly interesting to note that m theory dominates in nuclear physics. Clearly, its effects are also present in chemistry (the electrons outside the nucleus) as this important section 3 shows. In reproducing the spectra of atoms and molecules it will be particularly important to see whether one m(r) function is sufficient. For example Lamb shifts occur between certain states but not others. This note is essentially the application of computational quantum chemistry to the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity. This gives the effect of the vacuum on all kinds of spectra, from radio frequency to microwave to far infra red, infra red, visible, ultra violet and gamma ray. The vacuum is now understood as the geometry of space itself.
This is section 3 of the paper. I added some graphics and a principal description of inclusion of m theory in quantum chemistry. We will see if this can be further developped.
Horst
Am 12.04.2019 um 08:26 schrieb Myron Evans:
FOR POSTING: UFT436, Sections 1 and 2
Many thanks for going through these notes.
1) The problem of the divergence was addressed in Note 436(3), by restricting the normalization to the unit sphere. The same type of problem occurs in linear motion and has to be dealt with using a limit procedure (see Atkins, "Molecular Quantum Mechanics" for example, in this case Atkins happens to be right, his treatment of the particle in a box is wrong, as we showed in UFT226 ff.).
2) The separation of variables technique used in this paper is the same as in the previous paper UFT435, and the result (8) is more general. In other words if the assumption (2) is made, Eqs. (6) and (7) result self consistently. Eq. (6) is H psi1(r) = E psi(r) and Eq. (7) is the original Schroedinger quantization of energy. Since psi2 is defined as a function of t, then its partial derivative with respect to r vanishes. Similarly psi1 is defined as a function of r so its partial derivative with respect to t vanishes. These results were used in Eqs. (3) to (5) to give the self consistent result (6) and (7). To check this conceptually, consider the hydrogenic wavefunctions. These are made up of the product ps1(r) psi2(theta, phi), so the derivative of psi with respect to theta or phi is zero, and the derivative of psi2 with respect to r is zero. 3) The quantization rules in UFT435 and UFT436 were introduced so that the wavefunction is modified, but the structure of the Schroedinger quantization remains the same:
E psi = i h bar partial psi / partial t; p psi = – i h bar del psi.Your use of this new method in a computational quantum chemistry package produced sensible results, so my suggestion is to develop it systematically in computational quantum chemistry, in the first instance to give the Lamb shift in H.
Notes 436(3) and (5) had not come through to me before. There is a problem in both. The integralintegral m(r)^(1/2) d tau
diverges since m(r) goes to 1 for r–>inf.
The problem obviously is that replacement of time in the time part of the wave function psi_2 destroys its independence of r and even the separability of the wavefunction psi = psi_1 * psi_2.A second point is the question if also the integration variable r had to be transformed by
r –> r / sqrt (m(r)^(1/2)) .
This would probably lead to the result that the integrals have the same values when taken in r or r1 space. From the standpoint of general covariance this would even be desirable. As I had pointed out earlier, it seems only to make sense for me to transform the RESULTS obtained in m space back to the configuration space.
Horst
Am 10.04.2019 um 09:18 schrieb Myron Evans:
FOR POSTING: UFT436, Sections 1 and 2
This paper is on the development of generally covariant standard solutions of quantum mechanics. In section 3, the same kind of development can be implemented with computational quantum mechanics, an important new development by co author Horst Eckardt.