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?

Regards,

Richard

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.

• It is rigorous! - doctordick - May 10, 2002 - 15:22 UTC
  • I will read on- but - yanniru - May 10, 2002 - 21:09 UTC