# [time 703] Re: [time 694] Re: [time 674] Reply to NOW/PAST question

WDEshleman@aol.com
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 04:36:26 EDT

In a message dated 9/6/99 12:30:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> Subj: Re: [time 694] Re: [time 674] Reply to NOW/PAST question
> Date: 9/6/99 12:30:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> To: WDEshleman@aol.com, matpitka@pcu.helsinki.fi
>
> 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
>
>
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Bill
> >
>
> Best wishes,
> Hitoshi
>

Hitoshi,

I find my intuitions evaporate and my notions crushed, but
when I read your work I find that you agree that relativity alters
the subjective experience of the observer, but to say that the
Schrodinger perspective is the objective perspective for local
systems? I will accept that. It is interesting to note that a
"factorial operator" will transform

1/(1-x) = (1+x+x^2+x^3+ ...) to
exp(x) = (1+x+x^2/2!+x^3/3!+...).

As you say in your paper, "The quantum phenomena occurring is a local
system follow non-relativistic quantum mechanics, but the observed
values of quantum mechanical quantities should be corrected according
to the classical relativity so that the corrected values equal the values
predicted by the (non-relativistic) quantum mechanics."

Would not the "factorial operator" qualify as a corrector?

Sincerely,

Bill

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