*WDEshleman@aol.com*

*Sun, 5 Sep 1999 00:13:23 EDT*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 675] Infinite Objective Reality"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 673] Re: [time 672] Re: [time 667] Stephen's duality theory, Plus Infinite Products"**Maybe in reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 672] Re: [time 667] Stephen's duality theory, Plus Infinite Products"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 676] Re: [time 674] Re: [time 664] Reply to NOW/PAST question"

Matti,

Here is some fixing up.

Bill

[MP]

a) I could not quite understand you NOW= PAST + x*PAST. If one starts

from Schrodinger equation one has -i dPsi/dt= HPsi.

Psi(t+deltat) = Psi(t) + i*HPsi(t)*Deltat = (1+ iH*delta t )*Psi(t)

What troubles me is the identification of x. I would identify

it as operator. My formula was also for infinitesimal time interval

delta t. Perhaps we understand by z quite different things.

[WDE]

Yes, the name operator for v^2/c^2 is imprecise, it is a true factor,

not the mathematical convenience, operator. Let me try to escape

this imprecision. First evaluate the operator and write it this way:

Psi(t+Deltat) = Psi(t) + [ i*HPsi(t) ] * Deltat

normalize,

Psi(t+Deltat) = Psi(t) + [ i*HPsi(t) / Psi(t) ] * Deltat * Psi(t)

then x = [ i*HPsi(t) / Psi(t) ] * Deltat

I cannot think of a name other than "operator", but Stephen

might call it a "propagator". It is simply just a factor.

And,

Psi(t+Deltat) = Psi(t) + x * Psi(t)

But what I suggest is that we subjectively see,

Psi(t+Deltat) = Psi(t) + x * Psi(t+Deltat)

= Psi(t)

+ [ i*HPsi(t+Deltat) / Psi(t+Deltat) ] * Deltat * Psi(t+Deltat)

or, Psi(t+Deltat)/Psi(t) = [ 1/(1 - x) ]

= 1/ { 1 - [ i*HPsi(t+Deltat) ] * Deltat / Psi(t+Deltat) }

or, Psi(t+Deltat)

= Psi(t) / { 1 - [ i*HPsi(t+Deltat) ] * Deltat / Psi(t+Deltat) }

because of an objective multiplicity of other-worlds that

trick observers into believing that the NOW is attracted

to the FUTURE.

Matti,

If I made another error in the algebra, please don't give up.

[MP]

Is your fomula really consistent with Schrodinger equation?

[WDE]

I suspect not, but it might be, and I suggest that it should be.

Sincerely,

Bill

**Next message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 675] Infinite Objective Reality"**Previous message:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 673] Re: [time 672] Re: [time 667] Stephen's duality theory, Plus Infinite Products"**Maybe in reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 672] Re: [time 667] Stephen's duality theory, Plus Infinite Products"**Next in thread:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 676] Re: [time 674] Re: [time 664] Reply to NOW/PAST question"

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3
on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST
*