I am afraid that I gave Yanniru the benefit of doubt in error. (Our exchange at
of April 20)
He may have a Ph.D. in physics (which I think he said once) but, if he does, he certainly has never studied any aspect of physics which involved the Dirac delta function. If I may quote him:
Well in my mind I believe this issue has been resolved. The key step in your mathematical derivation is from eq(2.4) to eq(2.5). In eq(2.4) the summantion over the beta terms equals zero because the sum is over indices where the delta function equals zero, and the delta function is a multiplier in thise terms.
This statement clearly indicates his complete unfamiliarity with the Dirac delta function. The step from eq(2.4) to eq(2.5) constitutes nothing more than rewriting the integral over every xj taken from the set of unknowable data (integrated over xj from minus infinity to plus infinity) as a function of the xi (the set of knowable data). He clearly claims the integral is zero when in fact, anyone competent in the behavior of the Dirac delta function would be aware that the integral does nothing more than pick up the value of the probability density of the unknowable data evaluated at point where xj=xi.
His comment, that the delta function is a multiplier in these terms, shows exactly the same mathematical competence which would be displayed by a statement that all integrals over f(x)dx must be zero as dx is zero and is a multiplier of f(x) thus the product must be zero and, even if you have an infinite number of them (as an integral is in fact the limit of a sum), the sum of a bunch of zeros is still zero! Absolute mathematical incompetence!
If one understands the Dirac delta function, the fact that an integral over it evaluates to unity if the integral includes the point where the argument of the delta function is zero, means that if one has any function g(x) multiplied by the Dirac delta function of (x-y), which is then integrated over all x, the product will evaluate to exactly g(y). I believe even Yanniru will admit to that once he begins to study the actions of the Dirac delta function as the proof is quite straight forward. What his statement points out is that he has never worked with the Dirac delta function and is completely ignorant of the mathematics involved in my work.
Apparently his comment "The math is beyond me for now." Was strongly indicative of his expertise and does indeed remove any support provided by his comment:
"(Dr. Dick's) theory does not contradict any theory known to physics and verified by experiment. For example, it does not overturn the standard model. So in a sense his theory fails to overturn all accepted theories of physics. But what he has shown is important because, using a very novel and clever theoretical derivation, he can derive wave function equations from more limited and simple assumptions (or definitions if you will) than heretofore thought possible."
That is very sad as the statement is true none the less, just worthless coming from him. It is apparent that no one on this forum is capable of following my thesis save Paul. Nevertheless, I still state that what I have proved is that there exists no internally self consistent set of concepts which do not include the fundamental laws of physics as we understand them. This is essentially a proof that those rules cannot be violated and must be part of any rational explanation of anything.
There are two consequences of that fact. First, contrary to Harvís authoritarian position, solipsism does not destroy physics. And second, more significantly, it raises the issue of fundamental miscommunication. If all self consistent models of any information must contain the ingredients to build our modern picture of the universe, the fact that we agree to almost all the factual details put forth by pragmatic evidence is no support at all for the idea that we are communicating. It could very easily be exactly analogous to one of those comic movie sequences where the real subjects being discussed by each party have no bearing at all on what the two are thinking about. That would certainly make the obvious arguments a lot more understandable.
That second issue is the one I wanted to discuss with Harv; however, the concept seems to completely beyond his comprehension.
Sorry about all that -- Dick