Doctordick Posted July 16, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2011 Or maybe three dimensional form is just "enough" for survival, and more would be a wasted effort. But I can't analytically prove any of this, it's just thoughts I'm having.Well, it is quite clear that a single rotating simple polygon in an n dimensional space would display all the relationships conceivable in a three dimensional space sort of says that, if we could comprehend the phenomena possible in that projection, we could understand everything. It is clearly just something beyond our comprehension. We just don't have the mental prowess to use the picture: i.e., we have to fall back onto mathematics. Well if you think it might have any value, you could still just lay the math down for easy reference of any educated physicist who might stumble across this post in the near or distant future.Actually the procedure is quite simple for anyone with a decent education in quantum mechanics. The procedure for laying out those solutions is first year graduate study common to any class in angular momentum. But I will comment that a lot of the graduate students I knew didn't really understand what they were doing. It is not a trivial exercise. What do "l" and "m" stand for here?“l” is the angular momentum quantum number and “m” is the projection on a specific axis. The position of an object in a three dimensional universe is described by three arguments (x,y and z in rectilinear coordinates or “r”, theta and phi in spherical coordinates) only the angular coordinates end up being quantized. The two can be quantized at the same time. Why "n+1 pieces of data"?A couple of paragraphs earlier, I held “r” out as quite different from the angular variables yielding “n” as the number of angular variables to be analyzed. You are using a language that I am not very familiar with, but I believe I understand what you are saying. That your result implies, that the 3 dimensional representation of information that we are using, has one additional "momentum quantized dimension" worth of information embedded to each element. And as I well know, you are using the concept of tau-dimension with infinite uncertainty to position to represent that information, and that it just so equals exactly to the modern physics definition of mass if you make the appropriate approximations to the solutions of the fundamental equation.Also note that in the n (or n+1) dimensional system, tau is no longer necessary as everything in the universe is represented by one point and the idea of two points being the same vanishes. It's quite interesting, I really hope there are more people than just me who understand what you are saying there.That would be nice but I suspect it is very rare for truly thoughtful people to read these forums; the overwhelming volume of thoughtless posts just blocks interest in reasonable discussion. You are a very unusual find in that you are willing to put up with the baloney. On the other hand it is entirely possible that there are actually some thoughtful people reading this stuff. Indeed. And if I'm capable of understanding this thing, I'm sure there are plenty more out there.Oh, I am sure there are some intelligent people out there but I think they have better things to do with their life than read these forums. There are aspects of the standard forum structures which essentially bury intelligent conversation. I have thought about that quite a little and am often tempted to make some comments about it to Tormod. I have a strong feeling that it would improve things considerably if some forums were controlled by a committed monitor. Someone who had the authority to edit and/or move off subject and idiotic replies to alternate threads. Essentially leave the forum with some seriously controlled threads which anyone could read but which contained only coherent comments. Sort of analogous to educational class rooms with controlled participation. I haven't made any such suggestions because it reeks of authoritarianism which I am violently against; however, something analogous to Socrates' walks in the garden (his academy) with limited participation seems very reasonable. Something anyone could read but only a handle-able few could participate. The rest could talk amongst themselves outside of “class”. If I were allowed to clean them up a bit, my threads could almost satisfy that requirement now. If you really want me to show you how to solve that hyper-spherical representation of my fundamental equation, I could go through it (and I think you could follow it) but it would be a lot of work for both of us. Have fun -- Dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.