Jump to content
Science Forums

The nature of a "Final Theory"!


Doctordick
 Share

Recommended Posts

I looked at my derivation in detail and, as far as I was able to see, I never even mentioned the sets C and D. That derivation was no more than proving that Schrodinger's equation was an approximation to my fundamental equation. It has absolutely nothing to do with how I came to the fundamental equation itself. It would make utterly no difference in the derivation if I had simply pulled it out of the air! You are very clearly confusing two very different issues.
Well Dick your derivation took place in two posts, with C and D being used in the first one, which starts with the fundamental equation, but not in the second one which takes up from where the first left off.

 

Did you look through both, before denying?

 

By the way, the issue of complexity out of simplicity concerned the geometric proof itself. The projection of a rotating n dimensional equilateral polygon (quite a simple concept) yielding the complexity of absolutely any three dimensional collection of of n points (the complexity of the entire universe) pretty well covers the issue of the possible range of emergent phenomena.
Well, I'm still waiting for how you get the value of the proton's mass from analytic truths. When I read through your post about the Dirac equation, it seemed to be bringing in a few things that are known, not just the fundamental equation and analytic truth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you suckered me in again. Trying to figure out what you don't understand is like pulling teeth. Sorry, I really don't mean to be disrespectful but I definitely get the impression that your attention span is around one sentence.

When I read your derivation of the Shrödinger equation you appeared to be interpreting C and D as the initial and final states in transition amplitudes, but I still don't get the way you treat them in deriving the fundamental equation.
Your complaint,
Well Dick your derivation took place in two posts, with C and D being used in the first one ...
seems to arise from that aside concerning the definition of tau (which, by the way had nothing to do with the derivation itself).
I made the separation into set one from C and set two from D because of a subtle difference between the two. The tau axis was introduced for the sole purpose of assuring that the existence of two identical elements would not invalidate the representation. You should note that this constraint need not exist on the hypothetical elements represented by D. Of importance here is the fact that the constraint is not implicitly included in the equation. If we allow solutions which violate that constraint on C then the purpose of the introduction of tau is totally defeated.
Do you have any comprehension at all as to why tau was introduced into my original representation? You should try rereading "sub problem number 1" in my original discourse on creating a general model of "An explanation".

 

When, in that derivation of Schrodinger's equation, I went to show the procedure I used to find solutions to my fundamental equation, I began with a specific step which pointed out two important issues: first, to demonstrate a general procedure for separating out expectation relationships for different classes of elements and second, why the requirement of asymmetry in fermion wave function is forced to arise.

In order to show a number of interesting things, I will first show how to separate the variables into two sets consisting of those variables related to C and those related to D. I will call those variables directly representing C set number one and those related to D set number two.
Any explanation is based on two classes of things C the things you know (which the explanation was created to explain) and D the things you think you know (which only the explanation requires to exist). How you could possibly confuse this issue with "initial and final states in transition amplitudes" is totally beyond me. Especially in view of the immediacy of the following statement:
It should be clear to anyone who understands probability that I can write down the following expression:

[math]P[/math](set #1 and set #2) = [math]P_1[/math](set #1) [math]\cdot P_2[/math](set #2 given set#1)

 

Exactly the same arguments I gave for the general representation of P([math]\vec{x}[/math],t) suffice to yield the fact that [math]P_1[/math] and [math]P_2[/math] may be represented by the functions [math]\vec{\Psi}_1[/math] and [math]\vec{\Psi}_2[/math]. That is,

[math]\vec{\Psi}(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2, \cdots,\vec{x}_n, \cdots,t) = \vec{\Psi}_1(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2,\cdots,\vec{x}_n,t)\vec{\Psi}_2(\vec{x}_1,\vec{x}_2,\cdots,\vec{x}_n,\cdots,t)[/math]

Which was apparently not clear to you at all.

 

Having no idea as to what you understand and what you don't understand leaves me at a complete loss as to how to explain anything to you.

When I read through your post about the Dirac equation, it seemed to be bringing in a few things that are known, not just the fundamental equation and analytic truth.
If I understand you (and I am beginning to suspect that I do understand you), this comment was generated by the paragraph:
... where the vector "p" represents a four dimensional momentum arising from the standard three dimensional momentum plus the momentum in the tau direction (which is defined to be mass). In this case (since we are concerned with Dirac's equation) the two elements we are interested in have very specific masses. The term which corresponds to Dirac's electron (which I will call element #1) is clearly a massive element: i.e., [math] -i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial \tau} \vec{\Psi}_1 = m_e c \vec{\Psi}_1[/math]. The other element must represent interaction with electromagnetic phenomena. Anyone who has any comprehension of what Dirac's equation is all about cannot fail to recognize that the element has to be what is commonly called a photon: i.e., a massless entity. Thus it is that we can conclude that the partial with respect to tau of the second entity must vanish. Furthermore, since we already know that [math]E = \sqrt{(|p| c)^2+ (m c^2)^2[/math], if the mass vanishes, the magnitude of the three dimensional momentum is exactly the energy of the second element. It follows that momentum term and the energy term of element #2 exactly cancel. Note that only the interaction term is important to us as the dynamic behavior of the photon itself are pretty much outside our interest here. Thus it is that we are left with an equation constraining the dynamic behavior of an electron. These considerations mean that our equation (where the vector "p" now represents a three dimensional momentum) can be written,

[math]\left{c \vec{\alpha}_1 \cdot \vec{p}_1 + \alpha_{1 \tau}m_e c^2 -2i \hbar c \beta \delta(\vec{x}_1 -\vec{x}_2)\right}\vec{\Psi}_1\vec{\Psi}_2 = - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\vec{\Psi}_2 i \hbar \frac{\partial}{\partial t}\vec{\Psi}_1. [/math]

Do you have any comprehension as to why such things have to be brought up? My equation is totally general and, if you wish to see what it says about a specific situation, you need to specify the limitations which define that situation. As I said later,
We have examined the interaction of two events in isolation from the rest of the universe. We allowed one to be massive and the other to be massless. In this particular case we discovered that the fundamental constraint was identical in form to the Dirac equation.
If I am wrong in my opinion as to what drives your comments let me know. Tormod has already expressed his dislike of multiple posts of the same information and I hate to be repeating myself all the time.

 

Have fun Y'all, I have more important things to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if I could convince you of these facts [consequential to purely deductive analysis], with no understanding, belief is nothing but religion and is no more defendable than any other "squirrel" conclusion. :naughty:

I disagree heartily, and I'll tell you why. Carrying on a discussion requires willing participants, right? Well around here, you're more likely to draw a crowd when you make apparently indefensible claims. This is because people don't want to reason with you as much as they want to reason against you, even if it's over the way you structure your sentences.

 

But this can work to your advantage. Say you lay out some of the consequences of your model in english. They will attack it with whatever. Then, you can see their reasoning and pinpoint where they are misunderstanding you. Assuming they have one, you point out the flaw in their reasoning. And then you can contrast that by showing how your reasoning doesn't suffer the same weakness.

 

Besides, that is the only way I will know what consequences your model suggests until I'm capable of working it out on my own. And I'm not planning on a Doctorate any time soon. :fly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc, I totally agree with your assessment of our ability to describe the universe in terms that we currently use to think. If I were to give you a description of an individual and tell you to go out on the street to find that individual you would bring in hundreds if not thousands that fit the description. If I were to give you a quantum description we would still be unable to find him because we can not visualize large objects as a quantum picture. The term “ There is no distinction between the observer and the observed. “ produces an overlap of physics and metaphysics and that overlap defies our current ability to describe. Mathematics is the best tool that we have for describing the universe but it also has shortcomings. Einstein’s E = MC^2 tells us what we will get when we convert matter to energy and energy to matter but does not tell us how that process is achieved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Natural philosophers have long been aware that any "clock" relies on an assumption of periodicity (of some repeating process). Since ancient times, we've been aware that we can only compare ratios of time, just as we can only compare ratios of lengths.

 

SR, with Minkowskian space-time geometry, simply views these two as being the same thing, c is just the ratio between the two different unit "lengths" employed (such as seconds and miles). Therefore:

Because until you define that fourth dimension, you have yet to define the clock, correct?
No, it isn't strictly necessary to define the dimension before you can define the clock, no water running downhill, you were simply putting the cart before the horse.

 

Galileo tested the periodicity and isochronicity of funipendulous bodies against his pulse. With a bit of technology, or of nerdish steadfastness, he could have counted swings between sunset and sunset (or settings of fixed stars). Today's technology allows many comparisons to be made very precisely. If you aren't a conspiracy theorist, you get the mild impression that you can call "something" time and use certain repetitive things to compare time intervals, i. e. take the ratio of the interval between two events to that between another pair.

 

To go beyond this is pure metaphysical musing. If we conjecture that the conspiring lords change everything so that our pendulum swings twice as quickly, but so does everything else happen twice as quickly so that we could have no whatsoever way of detecting it, then we must ask what the hell "twice as quickly" actually means. To state the matter for SR it's enough to keep Lorentz-covariance in mind. According to the current epistemological point of view, if no physical way exists of detecting that things are "going twice as quickly" then, to us, they aren't. To whom are they, then? The statement is purely metaphysical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn't strictly necessary to define the dimension before you can define the clock, no water running downhill, you were simply putting the cart before the horse.

. . .

The statement is purely metaphysical.

I think it's pretty realistic. Whether you define a second as a tick of the clock or 9+ billion cesium-133 cycles, time is a result of process and not vice versa. We've used time periods in calculations to high precision, but when trying to get that precise, such as getting two atoms in different, unpredictable gravity fields to agree, we begin to realize that time is an unknown variable until all the other facts are in.

 

I think Dick is trying to explain that very same issue to help us conceive of the problem that physicists have unifying GR and QT. Time is always an unknown variable in a mathematically recreated universe because it would take on a new definition related to the calculated processes within that imaginary system. Because, after all, that's how it's defined in the real world. And to me that sounds like a good reason why GR and QT wouldn't jibe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that is no novelty and if you go down to scale under Planck we are still quite ignorant, but I would add that the same goes for space/lengths/distances as for time. In Lorentz-covariant dynamics, time is part of configuration as well as space.

 

Of course, a Fourier transform takes you to the impulse representation, much more useful in phenomenology for treatment of collision and scattering processes. I don't really see what Dick is adding to the matter and I would revise his sentence in your sig to "The correct value for the speed of light is unity.".

 

I think his problem lies much in not having followed the modern evolution of quantum field theory and how it is understood, since his days. He talked about having had unjustified rejections from academia but I think that a bit more sense could have overcome this. I think he has wasted far too much effort on pointless antagonism instead of joining a sizeable comunity of people that publish on topics of the same type (by which I mean regardless of which specific opinions one agrees or disagrees with and/or finds interesting or valueable). This is quite apart, though, from the question of style and manner of presentation that he would have needed to refine and adjust a bit IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dick is trying to explain that very same issue to help us conceive of the problem that physicists have unifying GR and QT. Time is always an unknown variable in a mathematically recreated universe because it would take on a new definition related to the calculated processes within that imaginary system. Because, after all, that's how it's defined in the real world. And to me that sounds like a good reason why GR and QT wouldn't jibe.
You hit me as being very close to my complaint. If I may restate it in another form: clock's are very useful devices but they are very definitely "devices" constituting semi-stable extended constructs. As such their behavior is a consequence of the "laws of physics" and cannot be a function of the frame of reference used to describe that behavior. It follows that, if it measures something, exactly what it measures cannot be a function of the frame of reference used to describe that behavior. This is no more than a simple statement of the constraints on any modern theory.

 

And physicists are well aware of that fact. Any competent physicist will agree that any clock (any device which displays a repetitive behavior which can be physically counted) measures exactly what Einstein refers to as the "invariant interval along the space-time path of that clock".

 

My complaint is that he then sets up his "space-time" coordinate system defining time to be "the reading on a clock" full well aware of the fact that, in order to measure time, that clock must be at rest in an inertial frame. Anyone competent in quantum mechanics also knows full well that no mechanical device can be considered (in the final analysis) to be at rest, let alone in an inertial frame. We are speaking of definition here, not an approximation. It seems to me that the only reason they insist on this is that they simply cannot conceive of an alternative perspective and they are going to fight me tooth and nail against the possibility of an alternative view.

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My complaint is that he then sets up his "space-time" coordinate system defining time to be "the reading on a clock" full well aware of the fact that, in order to measure time, that clock must be at rest in an inertial frame.

 

And my complaint, as well as Qs has been that physicists DON'T set up their coordinate to be "the reading on a clock." Second, SPECIAL relativity and quantum mechanics DO work perfectly fine together. You have claimed several times that your theory resolves the difficulty between relativity and quantum, but your theory refines special, not general relativity.

-Will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And my complaint, as well as Qs has been that physicists DON'T set up their coordinate to be "the reading on a clock."
If that is true, then exactly what do they mean when they say "time (one of the coordinates of their geometry) is, by definition, what clocks read"?
Second, SPECIAL relativity and quantum mechanics DO work perfectly fine together. You have claimed several times that your theory resolves the difficulty between relativity and quantum, but your theory refines special, not general relativity.
In my opinion, that is a complete and total misrepresentation of what I have said. I made the statement that my perspective fulfilled all of the needs of special relativity which you asserted was false. I could not refute your position so long as you could not comprehend my perspective. By showing you how to solve a one body problem in my perspective, the issue of of the representative geometry was explicit and, having that relationship available to me, demonstration of satisfaction of special relativity was quite straight forward. I demonstrated conclusively that the universe not only obeyed special relativity in my perspective but had to in order to be internally consistent. Now you present that as if my perspective applied only to special relativity which is not at all what I said.

 

Any competent physicist, and I presume you have some competence in physics, understands that relativity is an issue first brought up by Galileo and that relativistic transformations related to Newton's inertial frame explained a lot of physical phenomena of the time. When Maxwell's equations and the null results of the Michelson Morley experiments disturbed physics and Einstein's solution was put forth, it was called "special" relativity because he could not provide the general transformations. Since time was involved in the geometry itself and was not a mere parameter of motion, provision of the general transformation could not be directly deduced from the geometry. When Einstein put forth his "general relativity" (which is a theory by the way) the community took the problem to have been solved.

 

In my perspective, time returns as a mere parameter of motion, having nothing to do with the "geometry of the universe". The representative geometry I use is Euclidean and the relativistic transformations are as straight forward as they were in Newton's time. There is no need for the division between "special" and "general" relativity. The only issue is one of establishing the correct way of defining one's measuring devices. I gave you enough clues to understand that process in my derivation of Schrodinger's and Dirac's equations. Until I am convinced you have at least a inkling of what I am doing, I find little reason to go on as I perceive your true interest resides in ridicule of what I say rather than understanding what I say.

 

And finally, I have put forward no theory! What I put forward is an alternative way of viewing the information everyone is trying to explain and my perspective yields some interesting insights (as far as I am concerned anyway). See my latest post to "The Problem with Scientists"

 

Have fun -- Dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that relativity is an issue first brought up by Galileo, but not that:

When Maxwell's equations and the null results of the Michelson Morley experiments disturbed physics and Einstein's solution was put forth, it was called "special" relativity because he could not provide the general transformations.
AFAIK it wasn't called 'special' until GR was published. I'll check at home because my memory is feeble and I can't find it online, but I seem to remember that the term special actually comes from his remark in the first paragraphs of his Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie publication.

 

Since time was involved in the geometry itself and was not a mere parameter of motion, provision of the general transformation could not be directly deduced from the geometry.
:cocktail:

 

I really fail to see the implication, or even the sense of the statement. Which provision? General transformation simply means GL(4, R) for each point with appropriate requirements of continuity.

 

I don't know about Will, but I've been trying to understand what you say, no effort to ridicule except to point out when you aren't coherent, lack clarity, or when your arguments are pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
AFAIK it wasn't called 'special' until GR was published. I'll check at home because my memory is feeble and I can't find it online, but I seem to remember that the term special actually comes from his remark in the first paragraphs of his Allgemeine Relativitätstheorie publication.
That may very well be true but it does not, in any way, diminish the fact that Einstein’s “special relativity” was very special when compared to the general relativity obtained from the Euclidean reference system used by the science community prior to the Michelson Morley results. It totally failed to provide a general transformation of measurements.
I really fail to see the implication, or even the sense of the statement. Which provision? General transformation simply means GL(4, R) for each point with appropriate requirements of continuity.
The general relativistic transformations of a Euclidean coordinate system are straight forward and well defined, whereas the general transformations in Einstein’s picture require additional parameters not settled by the character of the coordinate system. I am referring here to the cosmological constant, an additional parameter required to be specified outside a straight forward description of the coordinate system to be used. This is a complexity introduced by the fact that he sets time equal to tau failing to recognize the fact that the possibility of interaction is another parameter outside geometric considerations (the issue of “same time, same place”). Plus that, Which comes first, the geometry or the mass distribution? There is something quite circular about his approach.

 

Sorry, but Einstein’s solution is a quick and dirty solution to a complex problem.

 

Have fun -- Dick

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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...