[time 1046] [Fwd: Re: [time 1045] Re: [time 1044] The Un-logic]

ca314159 (ca314159@bestweb.net)
Sun, 21 Nov 1999 00:28:20 -0800

attached mail follows:

   Stephen and I had a very long talk. And some analogies which came
   out, may be of interest. Particularly the last example.

   There is a difference between ray optics as a particle model
   (in terms of the orthogonality of the rays) and the Huygens construction
   (in terms superposition and interference of waves).

   There is a difference between filtered light (which is received
   only subtractively through filters) and reflected light which
   is received superpositionally (in terms of additive and subtractive

   There is a difference between and electric circuit modelled
   in terms of one the possible paths for an electron to follow
   and the circuit modelled as a whole.

   There is the difference between recorded (orthogonalized) time
   and dynamic time (superpositional time).

   The former cases are all distinctive or orthogonalized (particle) models
   while that later models all allow for combinatorics in the superpositional
   sense of interference (wave-like models).

   There are many other analogs such as in terms of datagrams and streams
   in network theory or in terms of fundamental or speculative stocks....

   We try to connect these two extremes in each case together.

   Special Relativity is a particle-like model with local times.
   General Relativity is more of a wave-like model with a universal time
   but it tries to include Special Relativity as a subset
   (wave-like models include particle-like models as subset)
   The particle models can be called slices of the wave-model.

   The wave-particle model or unified model is a further consideration
   of what happens when these two complementary models morph are allowed
   into each other.

   There is this same sense in Feynman's path integrals in terms of
   local rays(paths) and the more global superposition (the extrema).

   When looking at a painting (reflected light), two people see much
   that is the same, and this is their global commonality analogous
   to common or global time, and what they don't see in common is due
   to superpositional interference and results in their local distinctions
   or analogously their local times.

   But if the two people look so closely at the painting that they
   cannot each see the superpositional effects, then they will see absolute
   frequencies, and not colors. Their _measurements_ and their times
   become the same or common because they have eliminated the
   interferences. They enter more closely into the same local system
   with the same space-time reference.

   Every electric circuit is based on fundamentals like resisters
   capacitors and inductors. The different impedances create different
   currents and so different "times" in the different branches of the
   circuit. These different times in each branch can only be measured
   statically by closing off power access to all the other branches.
   This "branch time", expressed in terms of resistance or current, is
   reversable because of the static nature of its measurment.
   (This assumes we have infinite power to test each branch
    parametrically; the power supply is distinct from the circuit's
    power supply).

   There is also the "global time" of the circuit which
   is measureable only dynamically in terms of the overall power
   consumption and expressed as the impedance of the circuit
   as a whole. This global time is not reversible because of the
   dynamic nature of its measurement. (This assumes there is
   a finite amount of power in the power supply when we test the
   circuit as whole; we use the circuits power supply when we
   test the circuit. We do not use an separate power supply)

   The impedance is reactance + resistance. The reactance
   is in terms of alternating current which obeys the superposition
   principle and direct currents under resistance obey the mixture
   or filtering principle.
   When we try to combine dynamic and static measurements, we
   are performing a power measurement which has an inherent
   uncertainty in it at some level. But in a practical (empirical)
   sense, it's not terribly important for electric circuits,
   only at a theoretical level does it become important when
   we try to unify all the analogs under the same model.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:40 JST