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
Is The Summation Different

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Richard Ruquist on May 10, 2002 14:06:39 UTC

In my copy of your derivation you expressly exclude the case of xi=xj in the summation over the delta functions. Has that step in the derivation changed?

And if xi=xj is allowed in the rather early step defining F, how do you avoid the resulting infinity that F would then equal?



PS: The Hall derivation of Schroedinger's equation is quite different. He extends classical mechanics to quantum mechanics by introducing the so-called Fisher information (published in 1925). B J Frieden has written an entire book on Fisher information called Physics from Fisher Information, 1999, Cambridge Press. I am unable to locate that book in any of the libraries I frequent. I'll have to find it at MIT some day.

Also PS: You seem to be claimint rigor in the above post. Yet between eqs (2.14) and (2.15) you assume that psi is given by an exponential in time. That is how you go from a wave equation to Schroedinger's equation. Hardly a rigorous step to assume the solution rather than deriving it.

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