Hitoshi Kitada (email@example.com)
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:23:30 +0900
Stephen King wrote:
> > > I am thinking hard about this! Have you read the latest books by
> > > Schommers?
> > No. What books?
> The Visible and the Invisible : Matter and Mind in Physics (Series on
> the Foundations of Natural Science and Technology, Vol 3) by Wolfram
> Schommers (June 1997) World Scientific Pub Co; ISBN: 9810231008
> "Reviews by Booknews, Inc.
> A theoretical physicist reasons that if there is no counterpart
> in the physical world for each element of a theory about it, then there
> are metaphysical elements to the theory. He argues that there are
> obviously no theoretical conceptions of the world without metaphysical
> elements, and includes theories about space and time as well as about
> matter. He outlines the consequences in connection with modern
> conceptions of the world. Translated from published by Die Braue Edition
> in 1995.
> In this book it is argued that there are obviously no theoretical
> conceptions of the world which are free of metaphysical elements. This
> is not only valid in connection with matter but also for the conceptions
> of space and time. The consequences in connection with modern
> conceptions of the world are outlined."
> Space and Time, Matter and Mind : The Relationship Between Reality and
> Space-Time by W. Schommers, (October 1994) World Scientific Pub Co;
> ISBN: 9810218516
> I will write up a relevant quote as soon as possible...
Thanks for the quotation.
> > > Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear Stephen,
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Hitoshi,
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be canonically conjugate to the LS's Hamiltonian... It's
> > > > > energy?
> > > >
> > > > Let H be the Hamiltonian of the LS: L, consisting of N particles 1,2,
> > > > H acts on the state vector (function) Psi(t) of the system, where t is
> > > > local time of L. In this case what do you mean by canonical conjugate
to H? If
> > > > such a conjugate exists, on what space is it defined (or on which
> > > > the canonical conjugate, say T, act), and how does T act on such
things? H in
> > > > itself means the energy in QM.
> > The local time t of L can be thought as an operator that acts on
> > as it is a numerical multiplication operator. If this t can be canonically
> > conjugate in some sense to H, your expectation would be correct.
> Yes, but this implies that the energy of the LS has some strange
What is the strange point?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST