**Hitoshi Kitada** (*hitoshi@kitada.com*)

*Tue, 7 Sep 1999 01:31:27 +0900*

**Messages sorted by:**[ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 698] Re: [time 696] Re: [time 695] Re: [time 691] ... Re: [time 686] Time operator?"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 696] Re: [time 695] Re: [time 691] ... Re: [time 686] Time operator?"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 686] Time operator?"**Next in thread:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 703] Re: [time 694] Re: [time 674] Reply to NOW/PAST question"

Dear Bill,

Bill <WDEshleman@aol.com> wrote:

Subject: [time 694] Re: [time 674] Reply to NOW/PAST question

[snip]

*>
*

*> Hitoshi, Matti, and Stephen,
*

*>
*

*> I wish I had said that. We are discussing some competing
*

*> notions of change. Hitoshi's result for Schroedinger case,
*

*>
*

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

*> = (1+ x + x^2/2! + x^3/3! + x^4/4! + ...) Psi(t), (A)
*

*>
*

*> is partitioned between the extremes,
*

*>
*

*> Psi(t+Deltat) = (1 + x) * Psi(t) (B)
*

*> and,
*

*> Psi(t+Deltat) = Psi(t) / (1 - x) (C)
*

*>
*

*> And A is very close to the average of B and C, below x = 0.1 .
*

*>
*

*> B implies that the future is entirely determined by full knowledge
*

*> of the present. Or, FUTURE = (1 + x) * PRESENT.
*

*>
*

*> C implies that the present is determined by knowledge that
*

*> will only be complete upon arriving at the present. Or,
*

*> NOW = PAST + x * NOW => NOW = PAST/(1 - x).
*

*>
*

*> A implies that the future is entirely determined by knowledge
*

*> of the present and additional knowledge of the past (or at
*

*> least past knowledge of the properties of exp(x) ).
*

*>
*

*> Given a choice, I choose C because it is suggested
*

*> by Relativity. Eg., M^2 = (M_0)^2 + (v^2/c^2) * M^2
*

*> => M^2 = (M_0)^2 / (1 - v^2/c^2). Because it
*

*> seems to be a reason for believing that it is the
*

*> possibilities of the future that attract the present
*

*> to it. And because I some interesting notions
*

*> and additional identities concerning 1/(1 - x).
*

*>
*

*> Now, if Relativity turned out to be, as in A,
*

*> M^2 = exp(v^2/c^2) * (M_0)^2,
*

*> I could see a unification by the similarity of their
*

*> "first principle of change." Since this does not appear to be
*

*> true for Relativity, I am then prone to at least question
*

*> and speculate whether we ought to consider wave equations that
*

*> do follow C's notion of change? If you reply with a wave
*

*> equation for the notion of C, I will appreciate it alot.
*

*>
*

*> Why/how? Because I am at a stage where consistency is far
*

*> more important than being correct.
*

I do not think these notions of change competing. Your claim for C is correct

in observation, while A is also correct inside an LS with respect to its own

time. These two notions of change are consistent, whose proof I refer to the

reference

http://www.kitada.com/time_I.tex

*>
*

*> Sincerely,
*

*>
*

*> Bill
*

*>
*

Best wishes,

Hitoshi

**Next message:**Stephen P. King: "[time 698] Re: [time 696] Re: [time 695] Re: [time 691] ... Re: [time 686] Time operator?"**Previous message:**Hitoshi Kitada: "[time 696] Re: [time 695] Re: [time 691] ... Re: [time 686] Time operator?"**In reply to:**Stephen P. King: "[time 686] Time operator?"**Next in thread:**WDEshleman@aol.com: "[time 703] Re: [time 694] Re: [time 674] Reply to NOW/PAST question"

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