Sun, 21 Nov 1999 04:29:30 -0800
Dear Hitoshi and all,
Hitoshi Kitada wrote:
> Dear Robert and all,
> ca314159 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > 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
> > interference.
> > 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).
> Wave models are always approximations and as such I agree with your arguments
> below fundamentally.
> > 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.
> Or wave models can approximate the particle models.
Analogically speaking, I tend to find the "particle model" to be
enclosed within the "wave model" as the simplest solution, to
the many of the analogies. Whether this is true in the
mathematical sense I do not know. You will know better.
> > 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.
> Two observers are not synchronous much in this case.
I get the impression, that the comparison of the
individual superpositions here, is an entanglement.
The entanglement is in terms of superposing the individual
Two holograms can be placed on top of each other an you
will see a composite of both pictures, but they do not
seem to interfere with each other much unless the
phases are very close; which is how they do "non-destructive
testing" using holography to see where the "defects" are
between one standard view and a test object. The defects
positions are exposed as an interference pattern; I know this is
used in automobile tire quality control and testing nuclear
reactor pipes. The interference pattern only occur positionally
where the defects deviated from the standard. Where the test
object and the standard is the same, there is no interference
and you see both images superposed (in the sense of transparancies
The "phase difference" in the case of humans likely can
display much more easy such an "interference pattern",
but I don't know of any research in this regards. The
metrics would have to be on a positive and negative scale
which it probably never occured to sociologists and psychologists
to do ?
 I can generate this same effect more easily in the
macrocosm using images printed on plastic transparencies.
> > 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.
> There is much synchronization between the two observers.
If they have the same orientation. Or they will see their
own views as completely distinct and orthogonal. But they
can still communicate that difference deterministically
so in a sense I think that we can call them still local
with respect to each other ?
 superpositions are deterministic in the sense that they
can be calculated classically on plane waves, but this
depends on the "window size", and so in the more general
quantum mechanical sense superpositions are non-deterministic.
> > 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.
> The observed "circuit" is divided into several sublocal systems in this
Here, I need more help from you on terminology. What distinguishes
sublocal from local ? Is the local system a sublocal system to another
local system and so on ? ....
> > 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 is the case as the branch time is exactly the local time of each sublocal
> system. In the same sense the global time of the circuit as a whole is also
> reversible if it means the local time of the circuit.
Hmm, I'm starting to see what you are saying.
Could I say that your model is like an optimal mathematical
"breadboard" upon which many possible circuits can be made ?
(bread boards being those plug boards for circuit components
which alleviate alot of soldering)
> > (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 is an observer's time that observes the circuit, and as a
> subjective local time of the observer it is not reversible.
The terminology you are using is starting to make sense
to me. This is very interesting. I wish I knew more mathematics
so I can follow your details as well. Sounds like you have
an interesting generic solution. (I'm sure you already knew that :)
> > 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,
> Yes, as we know when we see things there are not serious problems or
> discommunications among plural observers. If another observer would be in
> Andromeda galaxy, there might be a problem in communication.
> > only at a theoretical level does it become important when
> > we try to unify all the analogs under the same model.
> Yes. And I proposed a theoretical distinction between the local times and the
> usually conceived space-time.
Your model sounds very right to me as far as I can understand it.
It seems to have the necessary generality and specificity
that any unified view must cover.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Dec 01 1999 - 01:15:40 JST