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
What Is The Dirac Delta Function?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on June 23, 2002 09:49:40 UTC

Yanniru wrote: My guess it was because I found a paper that derived the Schrodinger's eq. correctly, essentially using his approach of unknown data; and I also indicated where he made mathematical errors that allowed him to derive the same equation."

It is possible that Dick got a correct result in an erroneous way; and that a different correct way could also obtain that result.

Y: "The essential error was to give the Dirac delta function a finite value, rather than treating it as zero or infinity. I even pointed out where he admitted doing this in his paper."

Could you please explain to me about just what is the Dirac delta function and how it works in math?

"The function of x is x squared" is easy enough: take any value of 'x' and square it. What operation do you do when the function of 'x' is "Dirac delta function of 'x' "?

Replace 'x' with a value and then what do you do here? What operation?

I do know that the Dirac delta function involves a jump to infinity the moment you think it's about to hit zero.

There appears to be an interpretation of the Dirac delta function that reconciles your view with Dr. Dick's view. There may be other perspectives on the Dirac delta function that mean that the usual perspectives are a subset of a more broad view of it.

My guess is that Dick has found a complementary new way of looking at it. When people try to understand his work as physics it doesn't work, maybe because his work is bigger than physics. It might not fit into physics (or Bruce's space-time). Instead, it may be that it is physics that fits into Dick's work (as a subset). Aurino has hinted at this too I think.

Consider: If how you look at an object IS "a way of looking; a perspective"; AND IF THE OBJECT ITSELF is "a perspective, a way of looking"; then you have an infinite jump in perspective when you go between the two perspectives. Traditional Dirac delta function: one perspective hits zero and suddenly you are infinitely into the new perspective.

BUT ALSO THE WHOLE THING CAN BE SEEN AS CREATING A FINITE STRUCTURE OUTSIDE THE TWO PERSPECTIVES. And that "4th axis" structure can be any size. So you have a quantum jump in perspective that creates a finite structure.

You can try this yourself: look at your desk. Look at your street. You jumped perspectives; but you crossed a finite distance that is measureable from your desk to the street. Now look at a star. You made another jump, but the distance was far greater, yet you did not have to travel to the star.

Physicists test their theories against experiment. Dick must have realised that "experiment" is itself like an alternative "theory", a different way of looking at things, a different perspective.

So testing a theory against experiment, can be compared to testing a theory against a theory; or interpreting a communicated concept. So he regards the view of reality delivered by one's senses as itself a VIEW; so you interpret your senses getting A VIEW OF A VIEW because he doesn't regard the first view as other than another perspective?

He simply analysed the tautological pattern framework in comparing and matching two patterns to create "common ground". I can see intuitively how Relativity, QED, and Gravitation; all flow easily from this.

Y: "So the claim that he found the laws of physics is entirely unfounded."

I'm not so sure about that.

If "objects" are "ways of looking"; then seeing an object is "a way of looking at a way of looking". But that's consciousness! A way of looking AT a way of looking! So the "wave fuction" IS CONSCIOUSNESS? Take an observation means LOOK; so of course the wave function jumps- like switching one's attention?

So far Dick still seems headed for the Field Medal in mathematics and the Nobel Prize for physics. But maybe not?

About that delta function...........?

Just as there are complementary perspectives; wave / particle; so there may be complementary ways of looking at Delta fuctions. Dick's work may be wider than physics so needs to be seen from a broader perspective?

Regards,

Alan

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 1994-2021 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