Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Planck's Constant And Dr. Dick's Paper

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on March 2, 2002 04:38:00 UTC

Hi Dr. Dick and co.,

1. I found something that looks very reminiscent of Schrodinger's equation and of what you did in your paper. See page 26 of chapter 1 "Meaning And Definition" of the book: "An Introduction To Philosophical Analysis" by John Hospers.

2. He talks about defining a telephone and defining an elephant. Telephone as "instrument for communication" is too broad, not precise enough. Tree as "that 50ft object there with green leaves" is too narrow, for defining such a general word as "tree".

3. "Telephone" as "instrument for long-distance communication" is both too broad (other items can be used for communication) and too narrow (phones can be used over short distances too).

4. (Side note: Maybe you'll be interested that I'm going to try to explain to Yanniru how I think Planck's constant h, speed of light c, and gravitation constant G, might be the same constant. (Actually I attempt this below, think h squared may be c = G) The relevance here is that when "too broad" and "too narrow" converge on a limit; you get a constant that relates the relationship between "narrow" (reality)(constraint) and "broad" (what reality has options to be)(freedom)

5. If quantum theory, gravitation theory, and relativity theory, tend to clash with each other, it may be because they are double defining one theory (so they interfere with each other in the textbooks!)

6. Quoting the John Hospers chapter on "Meaning And Definition": "The problem is to get all the defining characteristics into the definition, but none that are not defining".

7. For example "long distance" was not a defining characteristic for telephones as it was too broad. "That 50ft object there with green leaves" was not a defining characteristic for the word "tree" as it was too narrow.

8. Now, the following looks rather like your paper and Schrodinger's equation: From John Hospers chapter on meaning and definition:

9. "The problem is to get all the defining characteristics into the definition, but none that are not defining.

10. In other words a definition must be adequate to the possible as well as the actual cases. We want to know what are the characteristics, the presence of which would entitle something to be called an elephant and the absence of which would keep it from being called one. To know this, we must go beyond the range of the actual things to which the word is applied.

11. The practical test in fact, when we wish to know whether any proposed definition is a true one or not, is to try whether by any conceivable variation of circumstances we can cause it to break down, by its exclusion of what we are resolved to retain, or its inclusion of what we are resolved to reject".

12. From Roger Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind" I gather that the Schrodinger equation gives:

the rate of change, with respect to time, of the quantum state or wave function.
(Rate of change with time of: entire weighted sum, with 2-D number weighting factors, of all the possible alternatives that are open to the system (only ratios being significant))

13. In my opinion "time" is just "reference space", and "system" presumably is "spatial" at least 2-D so: Schrodinger gives rate of change of the 2-D weighted sum of all possible options open to a 2-D or more system against a reference 2-D system.

14. So it's a 2-D weighted view of the possibilities of a 2-D or more system as seen in the mirror of a reference 2-D system.

15. Effectively it is like standing between two mirrors, and then you take the probability of finding a particular 2-D surface within that long tunnel of mirrors in front and behind you!

16. In your language: the rate of change of a system (set of numbers) with respect to a reference set of numbers (time) of all the possibilities (potential pairings of sets of numbers) open to the system as seen from the perspective of an observation (a pair of sets of numbers).

17. So you are going to be looking for the probability of finding a pair of sets of numbers (system state) paired with another pair of sets of numbers (reference system i.e., time) in the pool of all possible system states (sum of possible pairs of sets of numbers)

18. That is, when you look at all the possible pairs of sets of numbers open to the system, from a pair perspective (stereo view!) of pairs-of-sets-of-numbers (generates 4-D!); what is the chance you'll find the pair "your chosen viewing pair" looking at (pairing with) a particular "system state pair"?

19. In other words, what is the probability of finding a particular real observation?

And you'll always find a 4-D object (particle) when you make an observation; unless you look for the range of possible ways of making an observation (when you'll get a wave).(Solutions to double-slit and to EPR puzzles seem close here).

20. Well, it looks like the Schrodinger equation is true by definition because you will always find you are looking at what you can be looking at! (?) The "deterministic" aspect of Shrodinger's equation was due to a circular argument. The "wave function" thus always "collapses" when you make an observation!

21. It appears that Dr. Dick's paper involves deriving physics from philosophy because I read that philosophy includes the characteristics:

looking at the nature and extent of human knowledge; the relation of the knowing mind to the outside world; the clarification of our concepts or ideas, and accordingly the clearer usage of our key terms; deals with issues and problems of the highest degree of generality; proceeds by reasoning and argument; asks ultimate questions; probes investigates and questions the underpinnings of all the special sciences (condensed from John Hospers' book).

22. Of particular relevance is "the telephone exchange analogy" from pages 502 to 505. Here Dr. Dick's claim that "human intelligence is isolated from the outside world" appears to be not proven. Essentially, that theory procedes on the basis that it itself is not true: if we were really totally isolated from the outside world (like an operator in a telephone exchange) and could never know outside things; how could we know about the exchange or the wires (senses) at all? We cannot know about the exchange (body) that feeds us info. via wires (senses) (required for concept of SENSE impressions or 'model') and not know there is an exchange (body) and wires (senses) given the theory required we be isolated and only know output of the wires (nerves).

23. To talk of output of something, requires assuming the something that is outputting.But it occurs to me some may argue that we don't 'know' we have a body or senses; that we just holographically project this notion from the impressions we have. But where do we get the impression of "I" from, one may ask? Could a computer holographically project a sense of "I-ness" just from incoming data? But the "I-ness" must be real, namely the "I" that processes that data; or must be already present in the data stream. Could a complex system evolve to the point it generated a sense of "I"? I'm skeptical on that. Could the universe evolve not only concentrations of complexified mass but even concentrations of self-awareness? Something seems amiss here. More likely it appears that matter is a projection of consciousness, that everything is of consciousness.

24. May I quote Dr.Dick's comment, to Paul, that instead of giving a description of a method of communication; what the paper gives is " "...describes a universal way of perceiving the result of any communication." That is, it provides us with a universal foundation of concepts against which any specific communication can be analysed!"

25. How about I call "universal way of perceiving" a "universal perspective"; and "the result of" I'll call "any specific perspective of", and "any communication" I'll call any message, that is "any other perspective".

26. So I have: Dr. Dick's paper describes a universal perspective of any specific perspective of any other perspective. Which means it is about partially differentiating out one perspective, because "any other perspective" IS your "universal perspective (the unknown is your solution!) leaving you with just a particular perspective! Then you 'look' with your 'double mirror' ("any other perspective" reflected in "any other perspective") you just see one particular perspective (whatever one you want).

27. It is about collapsing the wave function of possible alternative perspectives; it looks like QED and Schrodinger equation!

28. I just realised that Dr.Dick headed his Feb 26 comments to Paul with "Just A Slight Shift In Perspective!" Sensational! Surely that "slight shift in perspective" is exactly what Planck's constant, the speed of light c, and the gravitational constant g; actually are about! A single quantum jump in perspective!

29. I think I can demonstrate how this could be!

Speaking of "slight shifts in perspective"; notice that when you look at a cube box with TWO eyes you get a superposition of two mono-eye views-of-the-box-as-a-2-D-item, each mono-eye-view has a slight difference in perspective from the other. Combining the views from each eye gives a 3-D object seen by stereo vision.

30. Note also: hold your finger in front of your nose with both eyes open and you get an effect of it being in two places at once, an interference pattern. Take an observation with one eye only by closing the other; and your finger seems to jump over to the closed one; is now a solid 'particle' no longer a 'wave'. There is something about "stereo viewing" going on in nature; because the 2 slits in the double-slit experiment act like 2 eyes, and the beam-splitter in the EPR experiment acts like 2 eyes. Always a complementary effect seems to happen at the other 'eye' when you look through/ take an observation from one 'eye'.

31. Example: measure up-spin on one photon in EPR experiment ('look through up-down-spin eye') and you automatically close left-right-spin 'eye' at the other photon (can only measure downspin there). Measure left-spin of one photon ('look through left-right-spin eye') and this closes up-down-spin eye at other (can only measure
right-spin at other photon.

32. When you use a clock, you are always using an imaginary comparison clock, and measuring an object against your initial clock; so the object is effectively a second imaginary clock. Taking a time-observation involves THREE clocks. Taking a space observation similarly involves three rulers.

33. Taking a space-time observation involves: regarding one 3-clock (or ruler) as a 1 constant added to the other 3-ruler (or clock) to give a 4-D item. The 6 missing dimensions are: the 2 imaginary D that were collapsed when you made one 3-clock (or ruler) as a 1 time (or place); plus the complementary 4-D-item you could have seen if you had held the other 3 ( the 3-ruler (or clock)), to be 1. So that may explain how you end out with 4-D with 6 hidden Dimensions.
An event is two observations thus a 10-D + 1 jump (gives 11-D) to the new 10-D.

34. Maybe a math-only observation is the 1 view you have (in the ‘eye’ of the ‘= ‘sign) where you see the 27 minus 1 other views you could have had (thus a view of a 26-D object) from all the combinations of a 3-D x a 3-D x a 3-D. So the '=' sign is the hidden 27th-D in the equations.? Another possibility is that since you can choose between two 4-D views of a space-time object; a simplified space-time view is just a 2-D view of an 8-D object.

Example: your watch goes "tick, tick, tick....tick" a number of ticks per your reference, say the Earth rotating once (one TICK) and your object being measured has so many 'ticks' also. So you are taking a rate of change (watch-ticks per object ticks) of a rate of change (watch-ticks per Earth ticks) and noticing the difference, which is a rate of change (object ticks per Earth ticks).

36. A rate of change per rate of change per rate of change is acceleration; your observation involved comparing and matching two patterns to create the stationary object from three compensating accelerations. (Two accelerations compared implies a third acceleration between them) Speed is: space per reference space. Velocity has direction so that gives another reference space making velocity as: space per reference space per reference space. Rate of change of velocity is: space per ref. space per ref. space per ref space and is acceleration or 4-D space.

37. Velocity is actually acceleration (of time): directed distance per time per imaginary time; i.e., referenced-distance per reference distance (time) per calibrating reference distance (imaginary time). The speed of light c is thus a constant consciousness or self-reference of space.

38. Conservation of momentum:
Mass is negative velocity, as it is a measure of inertia or how hard it is to stop something by applying positive velocity times mass (i.e. momentum) to it. That is: since F =ma, then the measure of inertia (mass) needed to counter an object’s inertia (mass) is F divided by a so is ma divided by a so is m times a over a. And a over a is acceleration divided by acceleration which is just velocity so mv or momentum is what you need to apply to affect the inertia of something. The total momentum is obviously conserved as the effect of the one mv alters the other mv in accordance with the scale of the first mv.

39. Force is negative velocity (mass) times acceleration. So F=-v by rate of change of +v so gives a net v so involves consciousness of velocity

40. Law of gravitation:
If F = G x (mm /r squared) then substituting -velocity x acceleration for F, and substituting -velocity x -velocity for mm gives

-v x a = G ( -v x -v / r squared) and r squared is distance squared. Also each -v is distance per reference distance (direction) per reference distance (time) so each -v = d cubed (or maybe cube root of d).

41. So one idea is: d cubed. x d cubed. = G (d cubed x d cubed / d squared) gives G (d x d squared x d x d squared / d squared); that is G (d sq. x d sq. x d sq./ d squared)= G (d sq. x d sq )

-v x a is just -d x d sq x -d x-d x d sq. = d sq. x d sq. x d sq. x d sq. = self-conscious distance in 4-D =G (d sq. d sq. d sq. / d sq.) gives

say multiply each side by distance squared (d sq.) and get

5 dimensions or d sq. d sq. d sq. d sq. d.sq. which is 10 d dimensions= G (d sq. d sq. d sq.)

42. So divide by d sq. d sq. d sq. on both sides gives

d sq. x d sq. (which is 4-D space-time) = G the gravitational constant which is 2-dimensional (a. directed distance i.e. a vector) from a 2-D view (space-time view) so is the force of gravity from one 2-D viewpoint but from the 2-D gravity perspective is a 'speed' (distance per reference distance) most likely = c the speed of light. in 4-D space-time. (As force is self-conscious velocity; from the gravity perspective , and velocity is self-conscious force, from the speed-of-light perspective).

43. An ‘event’ is a stereo view (2-D) or change of the 4 dimensions with total energy content from Poincare should be: rest mass x c sq. = d sq. x -d (rest mass) x d sq. d sq. ( i.e. c sq.)

44. Energy is the ability of one system to do work on another system; work is component of directed force along a curve between two points in space.

45. The curve would be d; the force is ma is –v x a is –d x d sq. x –d x d sq. d
E = mc sq. means = -d x d sq. d sq. x d sq. = the –d or direction of 6 d dimensions.

So total E is -d x d sq. d sq. d sq. is ability to do d sq. d sq. d
sq. along path d of a system d sq. d sq. d sq.

46. Maybe Planck’s constant h = d; so if c = G = d sq.; c = h sq. =G

What I've attempted to do is reduce the definitions to universal-distance d units as time is reference distance.

47. If mass is negative velocity is negative direction (reference -d) by distance (d) per reference distance (d)(as time) then acceleration is –d. x d per d or a change in direction. F = ma = -d x d per d x d x d per d per d = -d so force is a vector that acts on directed distance.

48. You could have a game of musical chairs (a field of option pairs: option 1: child on chair; option 2 vacant chair) (thus a field of binary (quantum) oscillations.). Roger Penrose used spinors which have just two options (up, down) and added them to make twistors. So he was adding 2-D items just like adding chairs and children to a musical chairs game.

49. Roger Penrose thought he should place the twistors (musical chairs games) in a complex-number-space; which is a 2-D number space, which is effectively placing 2-D constructs (twistors) (musical chairs games) in a 2-D construct (twistor)(musical chairs game) from where he looks at interactions with other 2-D constructs (twistors) (musical chairs games). Richard Stafford apparently does the same thing by his universal way of analysing the result of a communication: he looks at the probability of finding a set of numbers (result) seeing (pairing) itself (communication) (set of numbers) in the mirror (pairs of sets of numbers)

50. So effectively twistors look at twistors in a twistor mirror; or complex numbers measure complex numbers in a complex number mirror; or one compares and matches patterns; sets of numbers look at sets of numbers in a (set of numbers looking at a set of numbers); or two musical chairs games are connected by joining the dots to create a third musical chairs game; or CONSCIOUSNESS and self-reference.

51. Paul A.M.Dirac imagined space was full of billions of oscillations. You could have a game of musical chairs, a second game of musical chairs; and a third game which takes the role of the music. Children without chairs in game 1 can be matched with chairs without children in game 2 to create a third game of children on chairs so that all the chairs are occupied. Dirac’s occupied negative energy states?

52. Freeze the first two games with a freeze of the third game (i.e. stop the music game), and you can look at how the games match up. As mentioned, you could suppose that vacant chairs in game 1 might be matched with children off chairs in game 2 and this match constitutes game 3. You could suppose that the three games must always be such that everybody at least gets matched with a chair in one of the other games.

53. The constant match would equate with the constant c; like if one game travelled too fast over another, the games might not synchronise. The value of c may be determined by Planck’s constant h, the child-chair oscillation distance, which when squared may give G the constant of gravitation, holding the games together.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins