Hitoshi Kitada (email@example.com)
Tue, 7 Sep 1999 18:37:57 +0900
Bill <WDEshleman@aol.com> wrote:
Subject: [time 703] Re: [time 694] Re: [time 674] Reply to NOW/PAST question
> In a message dated 9/6/99 12:30:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> I've now read your paper on local times. Usually when I read
> 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?
Yes, if you mean by the factorial operator the one that tansforms n to n!,
your statement is right and justifies the transformation from QM to Relativity
and vice versa, on the level of calculus/mathematical rules. I postulated this
relation between QM and relativity as a mathematical framewrok and proved its
consistency as a mathematical theorem. We have justifications on the same
level: I think you can assure the consistency of the two views related by the
transformation by the factorial operator with some additional words.
As a corrector, the factorial operator transformation might be useful in
applications and would make the understanding of the consistent unification of
the two seemingly contradictory views easier.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Oct 16 1999 - 00:36:39 JST