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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Bruce: Please Show Me The Errors!

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alan on May 18, 2002 06:16:01 UTC

Hi Bruce,

You seem to know physics. I am an amateur; but this conversation with Yanniru did not yet demolish what I said. I was using an English word description of Schrodinger's equation from one of Roger Penrose's books. I am aware of how there are many Schrodinger equations tailored for each situation, but am referring to the underlying pattern in them as described by Roger Penrose.

Please show me the errors. Yanniru's responses are included.

Yanniru What Is Wrong With Para. 30? (April 4, 2002)

Reposting what I posted once before: Origin of some key physics equations in "time", step by step: Admittedly very tenuous arguments sketched further on. But the ideas beyond this may be valid..........

1. What is time?

2. Everyday usage shows that "time" involves a "reference space" (length, distance). Examples: the distance travelled by the second-hand on a clock. The back-and-forth length traversed by an atom vibrating, or a quartz crystal vibration, the distance through which the Earth rotates about its axis, etc.

3. Time also involves self-reference. An oscillator such as a pendulum or vibrating atom traverses the same length back and forth. A clock-hand rotates about a point fixed to the clock-hand. In this way clocks measure themselves to allow consistent comparison of their lengths with the lengths they measure.

4. Suppose you draw a series of parallel vertical lines, broken into various segments such that each line is broken twice as much as the line on its left. These broken lines can represent lengths moved by objects or the clocks that measure them.

5. On page 259 of "Shadows Of The Mind", Roger Penrose explains the Schrodinger Equation in plain English. He says the equation gives a rate of change with respect to time of the quantum state or wave function. That quantum state (or wave function) is the entire (complex-number weighted) weighted sum of all possible alternatives open to the system.

6. "Complex numbers" are 2-D numbers.

7. Comparing and matching two patterns is a 2-D view of the comparison.

8."Time", as shown, involves a comparison of 1 pattern with 1 self-referent pattern. So "time" gives a 2-D view of the comparison.

9. "Rate of change" means amount or quantity or mass of change.

10. "A rate of change with respect to time" means "the amount or mass of change in the 2-D perspective obtained by comparing the system with a self-referent reference-2-D, system.

11. So rate of change in time gives a mass of 2-D layers in the system.

12. "The entire complex-number weighted sum of alternatives open to the system" means "a 2-D weighted view of the alternatives open to the system".

13. So the Schrodinger equation gives: A 2-D weighted view of the alternatives open to the system; from the perspective of a rate of change in time; that is, from the perspective of the amount of 2-D change in the system with respect to a self-referent 2-D comparison.

14. In other words, the Schrodinger equation gives you a 2-D, that is, pattern comparison view (then till now) of the amount of 2-D change in all the 2-D weighted alternatives open to the system, as you go from one 2-D view to another 2-D view.

15. This correlates directly with R. Stafford's ideas on "time" and "observation"; the amount of change in the 2-D alternatives is the "examined subset of a set of numbers"; the system and all its alternatives is the "set of numbers"; a particular 2-D view of the amount of change (of the subset) is "the observation". Of course, comparing two 2-D observations gives you a 4-D "event".

16. Time gives Schrodinger's equation: suppose I draw a series of vertical line-segments. The first is 1 unit, the next on the right is 2 half-units, the next is 4 quarter units, the next is 8 eighth-units, and so on..16, 32, 64, etc.

17. Using numbers to describe these lines: A (1,2) that is "A (the 1 unit line, the 2 half-units line)" view compared to a (1,4) reference view of the rate-of-change-in-views of (2-D ratios weighted) all 2-D options open say (1,2),(1,4),(2,4), (1,2)(1,4), (1,2)(2,4), (1,2)(1,4)(2,4) gives you 6 views with four views difference between a plain (1,2) view and a plain (1,4) view.

18. The series of segmented lines describe "time" and Schrodinger's equation. They describe "time" becuse the 1 unit line can be your car-moves-24-meters say; half the 2 sub-unit line can be your clock-oscillator moves a smaller reference unit; the 4 sub-sub-unit line can be what confirms the clock-oscillator is covering the same distance in its next reference unit as in its last one by alternately swapping places 4 sub-sub-units with the clock 2 sub-units to allow self-referent pacing of the clock.

19. Time gives Einstein's equation: The speed of light "c" is just a 2-D view, a pattern comparison involving two patterns "distance" and "reference self-referent distance" (gives "speed"). Energy can be "the alternatives open to the system" which equals: mass (the comparison of one 2-D view with another, so the rate of change, the amount, the mass of change, between the two perspectives) multiplied by c squared.

20. "c squared" because the energy (alternatives open to) the system is found by comparing two c (i.e. two 2-D including self-reference) perspectives times the rate of change (mass) between those two perspectives. Example: one c can be: compare the first 1 unit line with the pair of the 2 and 4 lines; the other c can be: compare the pair of the first two lines (the 1 and the 2) with the 4 line.

21. Time involves Dirac's four quantum numbers: Consider a 1 unit line, a 2 sub-unit line, a 4 sub-sub-unit line. Principle quantum number: the 1 unit line. 2nd (orbital) quantum number: the 2 sub-units line. 3rd quantum number (precession of plane of orbit): the 4 sub-sub-units line. 4th quantum number (the double-valuedness): comparing lines (1,2) with 4 versus comparing lines 1 with (2,4).

22. Time gives Newton's equation: G = m1m2/ r squared. The lines (1,2,4) as mass times the lines (2,4,8) as another mass, divided by lines (2,4) times (2,4) as the square of the distance between them, gives the mass-effect of distance.

23. The above is admittedly speculatively sketchy!

24. Showing how Schrodinger's equation contains E= mc squared, F = gm1m2/ r squared, and Dirac's 4 quantum numbers, is more soundly argued I think:

25. I noted that as complex-numbers are 2-D numbers; I can refer to them as 2-D (which is also descriptive of the process: compare and match TWO patterns). (An abstract "space" of pattern-matching is thus a complex-weighted space).

26. Further, I treated "rate of change" in "time" as "2-D or more" per reference 2-D perspective. That is because a "rate" is just an amount or mass ,so "a rate of change" of a 2-D perspective thus refers to a bunch of 2-D perspectives representing a maximum amount of change-in-perspective possible between members of the group.

27. "Time" always involves a reference system, thus a reference or alternative 2-D view of the system. A rate of change per time thus means a communicable rate of change, one that a "time" (e.g. interaction by observer) can have a (2-D)(pattern comparing) view of. In other words, a rate of change in time is just a 2-D view + 2-D view; so a 4-D view; of all the alternative 2-D views open to the system, and the rate of change of those views being the 4-D aspect of them, that is, how they look from this 4-D viewpoint. (So no wonder Minkowski, Lorentz, Einstein, etc. physics all apparently falls out of this!)

28. In Stafford's language; one is talking about an observation being a specific subset of an examined set of a set of numbers. The set of numbers is all the alternative views. The examined set is the collection of examined views, and this collection is a rate or quantity per which a particular view changes with respect to an arbitrary reference view of all the alternative views.

29. Langan's CTMU fits here, because the arbitrary reference view represents the whole Universe of views represented by a "any 2-D view"; so Global representation; and the "rate of change" is the local viewpoints representation; so we have Langan's local-Global interchange.

30. Re: three equations within Schrodinger's equation: Consider: A 2-D VIEW OF A RATE OF CHANGE (so 2-D x density)(so “G” as the “2-D view” x “m1m2/ r squared” as the “density”)(so G x m1m2/ r squared) OF THE 2-D WEIGHTED ALTERNATIVES OPEN TO THE SYSTEM (so 2-D weighted permutations and combinations)(thus a constant speed, that is size per reference size)(so “c” is the 2-D constant speed through all the alternatives)( so “c squared” covers permutations and combinations?)(So if “alternatives” is “Energy”, and “combinations” is “mass”, then E = mc squared)(combinations times 2-D times 2-D gives permutations of combinations gives alternatives (Energy))(so energy is 4-D mass or hyper-mass) PER REFERENCE 2-D view (TIME) (jump from one view to the next, so jump in perspective, so Planck’s constant “h” as this “2-D”)(Dirac equation quantum numbers: the time jump as quantum number 1; the orbit of permutations around the combinations as quantum number 2; the precession of that orbit with changing combinations as quantum number 3; the 2-D view of the rate of change (density) as quantum number 4)

31. Apparantly the three equations in ONE describe a double helix (orbit, precession, double-valuedness, principle quantum jumps involving 4 “bases” and three triplets, where 3 Freedoms create a 4th freedom, the Creator creates one in freedom, one makes a choice, and the Creator creates one in freedom at the next step).

-dolphin

Time And Planck's Constant

Response by Yanniru on April 4, 2002:

Time: You seem to be defining time by how humans measure it. I would like to think that time has an existence that is not dependent on human measurement. That is why in another post I claim that time is defined by physical theory such as General Relativity.

Does time exist for you if there are no humans to measure it? Planck's constant: I do not understand where Planck's constant came from in paragraph 30. Could you elaborate on its derivation?

Regarding Schrodinger's equation in paragraph 30, most physicists seem to think that the wave functions derived from that equation do not have physical existence. They are just probabilities- not real.

I tend to think they are fields and are the only thngs that exist. Does your analysis shed any light on the physical existence of wave functions? It seems that you analysis can be reduced to mathematical equations. Could you write down the math. I tend to get lost in the words. Regards, Richard

Response by me:

O.K. (April 5, 2002)

Thanks Yanniru! What I liked about Roger Penrose is that he translated the math into ordinary English. Unfortunately I find the words much easier to cope with than the math; mainly because math-explanations are not always fully clarified in books.

Math is just another language; I suppose I could try and write it sometime.

Quote "Time: You seem to be defining time by how humans measure it. I would like to think that time has an existence that is not dependent on human measurement. That is why in another post I claim that time is defined by physical theory such as General Relativity. Does time exist for you if there are no humans to measure it? " True, I am being consistent with how humans neasure "time".

But it does not mean that its existence depends on humans. "time" is a self-referent reference-space; but in galaxies where there are no humans there is still "time".

Any structure, by virtue of being a structure, has the possibility of being looked at from differing perspectives which can be compared to give reference perspectives.

"Time" occurs wherever there is a standing wave of stability, in a sea of change. Any relatively unchanging component of structure within a larger structure will give you "time", the potential to compare changes in structure with relatively unchanging portions.

Time is thus defined by relativity as you say; but exists in relativistic structures as a way one can view them. Planck's constant apparantly represents the jump from one view of a set of permutations and combinations, to another view where the alternatives have changed due to the constraints imposed by the new view. It represents the quantum of action; the discontinuity. It, as I think Dick says, can be any size; in the theory it is a 2-D parameter, a jump, reflecting the nature of the measurement systems (clocks and rulers) in its dimensions, it seems. Change those rulers and you can change its value. But I have to dig up a pattern-match explanation of blackbody radiation to derive its origin rigorously, I guess.

Quoting: "Regarding Schrodinger's equation in paragraph 30, most physicists seem to think that the wave functions derived from that equation do not have physical existence. They are just probabilities- not real. I tend to think they are fields and are the only things that exist. Does your analysis shed any light on the physical existence of wave functions? "

I agree that the wave functions are just about alternatives available to the system. But they are real possibilities in the context of limited knowledge of the system. What is real is that to exist is to have freedom. Just as the existence of a particular move in a Chess game involves a real freedom of opportunies related to that position.

Re; fields; I think existence and freedom are entangled. To exist is to have freedom. The light I might shed is that freedom exists; a "wave function" of opportunity asociated with a particular Chess move is a real field of freedom of available next-moves if you make that particular move. Freedoms and constraints push each other along like electromagnetic waves; new constraints (moves in Chess) open up new freedoms but close down other options. This seems to tally with Chris Langan's CTMU ideas. More work needed on precise derivation of Planck's constant. Regards, Alan

Reply from Yanniru:

Time And Planck's Constant For A Photon Posted by Richard David Yannopoulos-Ruquist, on April 6, 2002

Alan, A photon has a definite frequency and by your definition qualifies as a measurement of time. Planck's constant is the constant of proportionality between a photon's frequency and its energy. So given this I am having difficulty understanding the following quote from your post above. ***Planck's constant apparently represents the jump from one view of a set of permutations and combinations, to another view where the alternatives have changed due to the constraints imposed by the new view.*** It seems to me that Planck's constant is just the proportionality between time and energy, at least as far as photons are concerned. Richard

I replied to Yanniru:

Does This Work? (April 11, 2002)

Thanks Yanniru. A textbook says energy IS frequency. So is mass = "frequency". (700+ pages, "LIGHT" by Ditchburn) So a constant of proportionality between energy and frequency IS a constant of proportionality between TWO frequencies. Thus it is a 2-D perspective giving one frequency that relates the two frequencies.

"Time" is how we describe the DIFFERENCE between TWO measurements; in this case comparison of TWO frequencies, two energies, two alternatives involving permutations and combinations.

Planck's constant thus may well be a constant of proportionality between "time" and "energy" from the perspective of ONE of "time" (the difference in energy). In other words, it is about quantum jumps of energy! There are three ways of looking at it; (1) from the perspective of ONE frequency (energy) and "time" (the difference between the two energies), (2) from the perspective of the new frequency (energy) and "time" (the difference between the two energies), and (3) from the perspective of "time" (the difference between the two energies; so what you say: proportionality between "time" and "energy"). Does that work?

-dolphin

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 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