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
To Yanniru On Dirac Delta Function

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on July 2, 2002 06:09:21 UTC

Hi Yanniru,

"The Dirac Delta function is not a curve, so it could not be applicable. "

But it is applicable: there is more than one way to look at the scenario. From one perspective, the dirac delta function describes it (it is a pulse). From a different perspective, a curve describes it. It is no problem to have something that looks like a pulse from one point of view.

"And how is a universal delta fuction different from the ordinary one? "

The idea of "definition" inherently contains a delta function apparantly. It is different solely in that it is universal, not particular.

"Not true. Icke emphasizes that spin has nothing to do with rotation. Read the book again"

You may be right. But my recall is that Icke uses "rotation" example as a metaphor; while admitting it is nothing to do with rotation.

"assume you are walking in a straight line and that the mailbox is stationary,"
That would only give one perspective on the variety of possibilities that may be taking place?

"Dr. Dick says nothing about entanglement. His equations do not apply to entanglement. In fact, the equations of entanglement are not known, only the data exists. "

He might not use the language: but his work is all about entangled perspectives when you attempt to define reality.

"I have demonstrated by pure logic that his math is incorrect. His departure is evidence of that claim."

I have not seen that demonstration as far as I can tell. My quote from a textbook I gave here (More on Dirac delta function) confirms he was right?

"No. There is only one view of the delta function."

I disagree. My two superposed traffic jams at right angles can be described from various INCOMPLETE points of view. One viewpoint shows that the more narrowly you look at a moment (position!) of the car; the more you "switch on" the "at right angles" traffic jam that always passes through that car at right angles and is carried sideways by it.

As soon as you hit "an instantaneous position" of the car (delta becomes zero "spreadness"; you pick up an infinite spreadness at right angles to the car (the other traffic jam or density-description of the car).

There is your delta-function perspective on things. But take TWO instants of the car's position in the first traffic jam; and the car's position has also changed in the at-right-angles superposed jam. Beyond the narrow perspective of the delta function; one sees that looking at ALL FOUR TRAFFIC JAMS SNAPSHOTS (instant 1 in jam 1; instant 2 in jam 1; instant 1 in jam 2, instant 2 in jam 2) you now get to see that you can plot a finite path (curve) between sequential positions of the car if it is regarded as simultaneously navigating both jams moving at right angles to each other. (these four lead to the four quantum numbers, I'm guessing, for any 'event').

"You cannot bend math to suit your purposes. His wider view is irrational."

I am not bending math to suit my purposes. I am only noticing the INCOMPLETENESS of certain mathematical descriptions when applied to certain scenarios. It is thus not irrational.

"His wider view is irrational. I now have to judge that your original statement about looking at looking is also irrational. Can you defend yourself and convince me that you view is rational. "

How about the above explanation. Note that the post where I quoted a math text at length does talk about a finite perspective as well as the zero/infinity perspective on the delta function.

When you look at something: ultimately what are you looking at? Are you not experiencing a change in your own pattern? Do you see an object? Or do you see the signal from it? Or do you see the pattern change in your brain? Or is perception the experience of changes in one's own self-perception projected on to one's surroundings?

And via the law of non-contradiction, structures are built up as interpretations of one's surroundings? This doesn't deny objective surroundings; just how can you know them except by the law of non-contradiction and pattern comparison? Although I think that spiritually one can know things direcly by "living in Existence".

If self-referential pattern matching is how we build up a view of our surroundings; Dick may be right that physics reduces to the tautological framework of this consciousness.

"No hard feelings please"
No problem. Don't hold back; exciting to be proved wrong- I learn stuff!

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 1994-2018 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