Jump to content
Science Forums

Conservation Of Inherent Ignorance!


Doctordick

Recommended Posts

Qfwfq, you have perhaps noticed that I no longer take these threads very seriously. My problem is the total lack of thought in your (and many others) responses. As I have commented many times, only Anssi seems to comprehend what this is all about and his knowledge of mathematics is quite limited. I had hoped you would provide some assistance in that regard but have discovered that you yourself apparently have no comprehension of what I am doing. Because of a private message from Anssi, which required me to log on to answer, I took a quick look at this thread.

 

Your last post to this thread makes it quite clear that you simply do not understand what I am doing and/or why I am doing it.

 

This is no justification for the choice. K being a constant is a specific case out of all possible ones; the most general treatment would start with phase being an arbitrary function. Your choice is only one quite narrow class of them and you do not prove it being equivalent to all possible choices.

What you fail to comprehend (because you clearly have no understanding of what I am doing) is that no justification is required.

 

All I am saying is that, if I have a solution [math]\vec{\Psi}(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math] which yields (via the expression [math]\vec{\Psi}\cdot\vec{\Psi}dV[/math]) exactly the same probability for the circumstances represented by the arguments stated as does the represented explanation, then there is a simple transformation which will yield a representation of those same probabilities explicitly exempt from complications due to shifting the origin of the “x” representation.

 

I was aying more about this in exchanges with Anssi but of course it's no use. He and Dick just suppose that the arbitrarity of labelling makes all choices equivalent to this one.

No, you are presuming I am saying that because you totally miss the point of what I am saying. You are free to make any representation you choose if you feel it leads to a simpler result. If you think you can obtain a better representation than the one I obtain, have a ball.

 

My representation depends only upon the simple fact that, if [math]\vec{\Psi}[/math] yields the desired probabilities, then so does [math]e^{ic\sum_i x_i}\vec{\Psi}[/math] (with the appropriate reduction in dimensionality of [math]\vec{\Psi}[/math] and the proper definition of [math]\vec{\Psi}^\dagger ).[/math]

 

That is a fact and it is a fact I find convenient to make use of. Sure, there are probably an infinite number of alterations in the expression which would yield different valid expressions but being possible is not the only issue of interest here. Moves resulting in convenient expressions are what is of real interest.

 

If you can show the move you want to make yields a convenient expression applicable to general explanations, have at it. I would like to see some of those “convenient results”.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I am saying is that, if I have a solution [math]\vec{\Psi}(x_1,x_2,\cdots,x_n,t)[/math] which yields (via the expression [math]\vec{\Psi}\cdot\vec{\Psi}dV[/math]) exactly the same probability for the circumstances represented by the arguments stated as does the represented explanation, then there is a simple transformation which will yield a representation of those same probabilities explicitly exempt from complications due to shifting the origin of the “x” representation.

 

My representation depends only upon the simple fact that' date=' [b']if [/b][math]\vec{\Psi}[/math] yields the desired probabilities, then so does [math]e^{ic\sum_i x_i}\vec{\Psi}[/math] (with the appropriate reduction in dimensionality of [math]\vec{\Psi}[/math] and the proper definition of [math]\vec{\Psi}^\dagger ).[/math]

 

That is a fact and it is a fact I find convenient to make use of.

 

Good Doctor. As highlighted above' date=' your logical argument is a series of [b']if-then[/b] statements. Such logical if-then statements ARE NOT A FACT. If-then conditional statements CANNOT BE VIEWED TO BE LOGICAL TRUE PREMISES OF AN ARGUMENT. THE VALIDITY OF ANY ARGUMENT IS A FUNCTION OF ITS FORM. The FORM of your argument (to state that your if-then statements are a fact) is invalid, thus the FORM of your argument is invalid.

 

For example, consider these if-then statements (that is, consider--are they both A FACT ?):

 

if my car runs out of gas, then my car stops

if my car stops, then my car runs out of gas

 

So, good Doctor, I hope you see how silly it is for you to make the logical claim that your if-then statement is a FACT and that you find it convenient to make use of it. You are not making use any any fact(s), you are incorrectly making use of statements connect by the words "if" and "then".

 

Now, this is not to say that your fundamental equation does not have value. You need to think more clearly how you present your logical argument to support your claim. Not being critical, just offer advice to help you better your presentation.

 

I also would advise that you move your presentation to the next level. I suggest concrete examples of how your fundamental equation could be taught at the high school level--that is, why would it be important for a high school senior science major to understand your fundamental equation, and exactly how would you suggest teachers present it ? This would make for a refreshing topic and move the debate forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
That is exactly the reason that almost twenty years passed between my derivation of the equation and my discovery of those subtle physical consequences which moved me to try and publish. That fundamental equation was never derived from any physics defense; it was never intended to yield any part of modern physics. When I derived it I knew it was true and nothing else. I continued to look at it because I felt that such a fundamental constraint ought to have some implied consequences. I was absolutely astonished to discover that the ordinary assumptions made to defend much of modern physics also caused my equation to map into the common relationships held to define the reality supposedly defended by modern physics.
Having read this again I find that I am absolutely astonished to learn that it was not obvious to you from the begin that your equation, being a "fundamental constraint", must map perfectly to equations of modern physics. All equations of physics are derived from laws of nature, and I'm sure you will agree that "every law of nature is a constraint". Given that "when a constraint exists advantage can usually be taken of it", naturally you would find that you could take advantage of a constraint (your equation) to map other constraints (equations of physics based on laws of nature). What would be absolutely astonishing is if you had concluded otherwise. Your equation defends that same reality as any equation based on a law of nature, bravo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...