Need help with maths for new theory of physics

[topsquark]

Okay. But a couple of points to consider.

I agree with not using the Schrodinger equation (at least, not for what you fully want to do) but you are going to have to consider the Klein-Gordon, Dirac, and Proca equations. They are the Relativistic wave equations for QFT. In addition, before you are done you are going to have to consider the wave equation for gravitons (some kind of linearization of the Einstein field equations), which is something I've never worked with.

My second comment is that every statement above (except for 5) holds for any kind of wave, not for photons specifically. You are going to have to get more specific at some point. 5 sounds like a repetition of 2 but I'm not certain of why you would repeat it.

-Dan

 

[JeffM]

Dan

As you know, I do not claim to know anything about physics, but I do know something about epistemology. What I think the person you are trying to help does not seem to realize is that his theory must give numerical results that are consistent with experiment. He wants show that there is a logical flaw in modern physics. Even if that is true, no one will accept his theory unless it generates numerical results that AT LEAST match the confirmed experimental results predicted by modern physics.

 

[topsquark]

Dan

As you know, I do not claim to know anything about physics, but I do know something about epistemology. What I think the person you are trying to help does not seem to realize is that his theory must give numerical results that are consistent with experiment. He wants show that there is a logical flaw in modern physics. Even if that is true, no one will accept his theory unless it generates numerical results that AT LEAST match the confirmed experimental results predicted by modern physics.

I hadn't gotten to the point of telling him that, but yes it's a truth. I am (roughly) more interested in the moment as to what Math skills he has. He's supposedly solving PDEqs but seems to know very little Physics beyond algebra level. (And he doesn't seem to realize that there is a serious problem there.) But your comment is probably pretty well timed.

Thanks!

-Dan

 

[ddj]

Sorry the maths editor is not working wven though when I enter the equations in a site like Online Latex Editor everything is fine. Since I can't seem to get to the root of the problem I just deleted the post in its totality.

 

[JeffM]

Sorry the maths editor is not working wven though when I enter the equations in a site like Online Latex Editor everything is fine. Since I can't seem to get to the root of the problem I just deleted the post in its totality.

Do you see in the tool bar the little icon that looks like a hand calculator? Push it to get the proper delimiters.

 

[ddj]

Do you see in the tool bar the little icon that looks like a hand calculator? Push it to get the proper delimiters.

Thanks. Will try it out.

 

[ddj]

First off. Spoiler alert, I do not want to know about the wave function, or how it collapses, or where it goes, or how many multiverses might be born out of the collapse of that wave function. I am only interested in the data in as far as a technician detecting and receiving radio signals, (or light signals for that matter), gets the right answer and the right data using my theory . Apart from that, what other theories say that data should be, or how those theories arrive at that data, does not really concern me . As long as my theory yields the correct empirical results it should not and does not matter, what other theories might say. Note that there exists a fine distinction. If my theories yield the wrong result, then there is no problem and your theory must be right. On the other hand if my theory yields the correct result, as it does, then there should be absolutely no grounds for anyone to insist that their theory is right and my theory is wrong. Other than that there is nothing much more to be said.

Putting my theory into mathematical form:

For some time now I have been working on putting the Gestalt Aether theory into a mathematical form. The written description works superbly. In putting my theory into a mathematical form, a good place to start would be with a description of the aether. Taking [MATH] \Psi [/MATH] to represent the aether in a random state and [MATH] \dot\Psi [/MATH] to be the polarized aether. Similarly. Taking [MATH]\gamma_i[/MATH] to be an element of the virtual photon aether when in a neutral state and [MATH]\dot\gamma_i[/MATH]to be an element of the virtual photon aether in a polarized state.

Then

[MATH]\Psi = {\{\gamma_i , \gamma_i , \gamma_i \}}[/MATH]
And the polarized aether to be represented by:




If:

[MATH]\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}[/MATH] = real photon

The formula given below yields not a summation but a progression describing the rectilinear progression of a ray of light made up of trillions of connected photons travelling along a line of virtual photons and promoting the virtual photons with which it comes into contact by the relationship of number of promoted photons is equal to square of distance travelled in metres. This might not be conventional usage, but it does perform the task of clearly demonstrating how a real photon moves through the aether as a line of hundreds of trillions of connected photons and of how a ray of light disperses its energy as it moves through the aether.

[MATH]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\overset{\rightarrow}\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e} = n^2}{2n-1}\right) = \begin{Bmatrix}{\frac{4}{2},\frac{9}{3},\frac{16}{4},\frac{25}{5},\frac{36}{6},\frac{49}{7},\frac{64}{8},\frac{\gamma n^2}{n}}\end{Bmatrix}[/MATH]
The next step would be to show how the intensity of light is related to the number of photons available.

 

[topsquark]

Putting my theory into mathematical form:

For some time now I have been working on putting the Gestalt Aether theory into a mathematical form. The written description works superbly. In putting my theory into a mathematical form, a good place to start would be with a description of the aether. Taking [MATH] \Psi [/MATH] to represent the aether in a random state and [MATH] \dot\Psi [/MATH] to be the polarized aether. Similarly. Taking [MATH]\gamma_i[/MATH] to be an element of the virtual photon aether when in a neutral state and [MATH]\dot\gamma_i[/MATH]to be an element of the virtual photon aether in a polarized state.

Then

[MATH]\Psi = {\{\gamma_i , \gamma_i , \gamma_i \}}[/MATH]
And the polarized aether to be represented by:

View attachment 27743

You are going to have to describe what you mean by aether. Your definition [MATH]\Psi = {\{\gamma_i , \gamma_i , \gamma_i \}}[/MATH] appears to make no Mathematical sense. What do the i's represent? Is this a 3D model of some kind? Why are all the indices the same? What does the [math]\infty[/math] mean? If it is a neutral state why are you providing the [math]\pm[/math]s? When you introduced [math]\Psi[/math] you included 3 terms...how did that jump to 5 in the last line? What do the [math]\rightarrow[/math]s mean?

Lots to explain and none of it seems to start with anything basic.

-Dan

 

[ddj]

You are going to have to describe what you mean by aether. Your definition Ψ={γi,γi,γi}Ψ={γi,γi,γi} appears to make no Mathematical sense. What do the i's represent? Is this a 3D model of some kind? Why are all the indices the same? What does the ∞∞ mean? If it is a neutral state why are you providing the ±±s? When you introduced ΨΨ you included 3 terms...how did that jump to 5 in the last line? What do the →→s mean?
Lots to explain and none of it seems to start with anything basic.
-Dan

Well, it is a work in progress. The symbol [MATH]\Psi [/MATH]has been usurped from quantum mechanics to represent the aether. In this sense, the aether is made up of infinitesimal electric dipoles that permeate the whole of the Universe, including all of matter. They were created at the time of the Big Bang and because of the photon to electron ratio which is about [MATH]10^{14} : 1[/MATH] they soon spread throughout the Universe. Since these photons could not cross over the edge of the Universe, they started to fill the Universe itself; forming the fabric of space. In the beginning light was unable to propagate in the manner that is so familiar with us today. But as the Universe filled up with photons, it had two effects. The first was that as the Universe continued to expand the energy between the linked in network of virtual photons was shared out until a point was reached when their energy reached such a low level that they could hardly be considered to exist. With an individual energy of about [MATH]10^-{40}[/MATH] J such photons could pass through all matter as if it did not exist and vice versa. Since, no electron could possibly require or even recognize a photon of such low energy. Simultaneously with this and in keeping with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as it has to do with energy and time[MATH] \Delta E |Delta \geq h[/MATH] meant that these virtual photons that permeated the Universe could exist forever. The symbol [MATH]\Psi[/MATH] therefore represents this aether. In the presence of a real photon the aether becomes polarised:[MATH] \dot\Psi[/MATH] In the ordinary sense the virtual photons of the aether are organised at random. It should be added, and it is important, to note that these individual virtual photons of the aether are more or less fixed in place but have 360 degrees of freedom. This gives the virtual photon aether the properties of a classical field. Wikipedia defines a field as follows:

“In physics, a field is a physical quantity, represented by a number or another tensor, that has a value for each point in space and time.

Since I do not know the symbol to denote randomness, I felt that showing a lack of polarity would suffice. Hence:
[MATH] \Psi = \displaystyle \Psi = {\{\gamma_i , \gamma_i , \gamma_i , \gamma_i, \gamma_i , \gamma_i , \gamma_i \}}[/MATH]
Here the aether [MATH]\Psi[/MATH] is described as a set of unpolarised virtual photons (this is what the I subscript represents.)

When a real photon is detected the aether undergoes polarization:
[MATH] \dot\Psi[/MATH]
A real photon is represented by : [MATH]\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}[/MATH]
The following formula shows everything that is needed to be known about how the photon travels through the aether, where n = distance in meters and [MATH]n^2[/MATH] equals number of virtual photons promoted to real photons as the line or ray of photons consisting of trillions and trillions of photons , spread out in keeping with area over which the light spread is varies directly as the square of the distance.

[MATH]\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\overset{\rightarrow}\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e} n^2}{2n-1} \right)= \begin{Bmatrix} {\frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{1} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{2} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{3} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{4} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{5} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{6} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{7} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{8} , \rightarrow \infty}\end{Bmatrix} = \begin{Bmatrix} {\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}1}{1},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}4}{2},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}9}{3} ,\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}16}{4},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}25}5},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}36}{6},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}49}{7},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}64}{8}\end{Bmatrix}[/MATH]

 

[topsquark]

Sounds neat. But you still haven't explained where any of this comes from!

Let's put it this way. In order to write an article (or textbook or whatever) you first have to lay down some groundwork relating to the material that has come before it. So even when you start in on something advanced like, say, Statistical Mechanics you still need to keep the definitions that were made before your work such as position, momentum, temperature, etc. p = mv still holds unless you want to change it to something more general. (Such as SR does.) But you have to have a starting point or no one will understand what you are talking about.

So what you wrote above is essentially meaningless because it doesn't follow any pattern I've ever seen and is inconsistent. You originally defined [math]\Psi[/math] using 3 photon functions and in your last post you have it as a function of 7! Then in your last line you have a sum that is equal to a set (at least that's the standard notation for what you are using.) The sum of a series of numbers is a number, not a set. And we still have that pesky [math]\rightarrow \infty[/math] business going on.

So relate what you are doing to what comes before it. If you are trying to say that the aether is made of polarized electric fields then maybe you should start by writing about it using, for instance, polarized electric fields! Start talking about something known before you start talking about the unknown. Define your terms physically or mathematically and stick to those definitions. That's the best advice I can offer you at this point.

-Dan

 

[ddj]

Dan,

I appreciate the level of tolerance you have shown so far. I can understand that anyone who is an expert in their field has every right to be short with a novitiate. However, while I may not be over skilled in presenting my theory in a mathematically acceptable form I am fairly accomplished when it comes to the written word. I therefore suggest that we do a brief recap of how the present situation arose. A few years ago I was just like anyone else; happy with the progress that science had made and willing to leave things in the hands of the scientists and carry on with my work.. Then I looked up light on the net, trying to imagine, at the same time, what wonderful advances must have been made in the understanding of light, since the same science had also produced personal computers, calculators and cell phones and had also enabled man to reach the moon. Imagine my surprise when I found that not a single site, not a university site, not a physics site, not an encyclopaeida site, was able to explain to me how light propagated. Or to put it simply the information on how light travelled from point A to point B was nowgere available.

This simple question, required it seemed a very complicated answer, wherein light actually undergoes disembodiment (is everywhere and nowhere at the same time) and also travels through multiple dimensions, can be in two places at once and so on. Here is what Max Born, the person who invented the concept of the wave-function has to say:

“We have two possibilities. Either we use waves in space of more than three dimensions…..or we remain in three dimensional space, but give up the simple picture of the wave amplitude as an ordinary physical magnitude , and replace it with a purely mathematical concept into which we cannot enter.” Yet one has to wonder how something that can be ethically unacceptable in the ‘real’ world can be perfectly justifiable in the abstract ‘mathematical’ world. …. " Max Born

From this point in time the wave function was treated as an abstract phenomenon, a wave of probability and not as something real. Unfortunately, the line between the abstract and the real all too often becomes blurred.

Therefore, as can be seen from the above quotation light as it travelled from A to B was not ‘real’ it travelled in multiple dimensions and so, on.

Historically, the reason for all these contrivances was that the aether, which would have explained all these properties of light could not be detected. Similarly, although man, was aware that an atmosphere existed, he was not able to identify what it was for at least two thousand years, in the same way although man suspected that the earth might be a spheroid shape he was not able to explain it for at least two thousand years. The fact that something had not been found does not mean that it could not be found.

I have given a very clear interpretation of what I think the aether is and the aether model I have put forward explains every property that light and electromagnetic radiation possess, it also explains, gravity, magnetism and superconductivity.

So when I write an equation (formula) that gives an explanation of how light travels from point A to point B what is so difficult to understand?


[MATH]\displaystyle \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\overset{\rightarrow}\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e} n^2}{n+1} \right) \begin{Bmatrix} {\frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{1} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{2} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{3} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{4} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{5} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{6} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{7} , \frac{\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}n^2}{8} , \rightarrow \infty}\end{Bmatrix} = \begin{Bmatrix} {\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}1}{1},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}4}{2},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}9}{3} ,\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}16}{4},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}25}5},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}36}{6},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}49}{7},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}64}{8},\vec\infty\end{Bmatrix}[/MATH]

The first set is the data set and the second set are the values that the data set yields. The bottom number shows the distance in meteres, the top figures show the number by which virtual photons are protomoted to real photons, which is unequivocally related to the manner in which light spreads out according to the square of the distance travelled.

The term for infinity is udes because the size of the Universe is both vast and uncertain. This formula raises two very intriguing possibilities. The first is that light can only travel for a limited distance, as proposed by most people who deal with luminance. This means that even if there is a continuous source of limited power, the amount of light would only be able to cover a limited distance. Which means that at the boudaries of this limit real photons would be boiling of the boundary and returning to the virtual state.

I realise with Voyager transmitting from distances of 25,000,000,000 km away, using jus a 400 watt maser, my theory might be a strectch, but it is nevertheless true. This is especially so as according to my theory, radio-waves have considerably less interaction with matter than optical frequencies. For instance if a radio-wave happened to meet an atom, the odds that it would be absorbed are from poor to next to nothing.

 

[topsquark]

I'm not upset and this has nothing to do with any Physics. I'm simply telling you that your presentation is extremely lacking. You can't base anything of what you are saying in the Math if you aren't using it correctly. Certainly you are either being inconsistent or you aren't editing your posts properly. In post 29 you defined a sum and in post 31 you define a sum of a set. I'm assuming that you meant the sum in post 29 as you didn't do the sum correctly in post 31. And if you meant what is in post 31 then what is meaning of the set on the RHS?

How can you possibly have the Math to know how to solve a partial differential equation and yet not know how to write (or do) a simple summation? It doesn't matter what you are describing in words you have to be able to describe it in terms of Mathematics before you can do anything with it. I am willing to help you with that (to a degree) but you aren't giving me anything to work with if I don't know how much Math you know.

So how much Math do you know?

-Dan

 

[ddj]

I'm not upset and this has nothing to do with any Physics. I'm simply telling you that your presentation is extremely lacking. You can't base anything of what you are saying in the Math if you aren't using it correctly. Certainly you are either being inconsistent or you aren't editing your posts properly. In post 29 you defined a sum and in post 31 you define a sum of a set. I'm assuming that you meant the sum in post 29 as you didn't do the sum correctly in post 31. And if you meant what is in post 31 then what is meaning of the set on the RHS?

You are probably right, one reason for the seeming disconnected nature of the posts is the narrow space of time given for edits and revisions; which means that rather than being able to correct a mistake, it is more convenient (or makes more sense) to just post what might be a corrected solution. So rather than posting what look like corrections, it is more convenient to just post something new. For instance, if I wanted to post a correction, I would have to post all the equations that had to be corrected, together with the corrections, it becomes complicated, even more so considering the fact that I am not familiar (as yet) with the maths format at this forum and sometimes, what I post is OK and when I go for an edit it doesn’t show up correctly, even if I did not touch it.

Strictly speaking this should probably be expressed as a function, and maybe the summation term is not necessary at all. On the other hand with the infinity limit included it does give an indication that this is not an ordinary summation. Again as you had pointed out, the middle (set) is not necessary:

[MATH] \dot\Psi = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\overset{\rightarrow}\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}= n^2}{n+1} \right) = \begin{Bmatrix} {\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}1}{1},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}4}{2},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}9}{3} ,\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}16}{4},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}25}5},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}36}{6},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}49}{7},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}64}{8}\vec\infty\end{Bmatrix} [/MATH]
In order to avoid the kind of confusion that occurred earlier. The polarized matrix [MATH]\dot\Psi[/MATH] = limit of infinity with n = 0, and the function [MATH]\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e} = n^2 [/MATH] and n + 1 . Therefore n= 0 would increase by 1 till (theoretically) infinity while [MATH] \vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}[/MATH] would increase by the square of n. Therefore in the first term n would be n = 1 and [MATH]\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}[/MATH] would equal 1, in the second term n = 2 and [MATH] \vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}[/MATH] = 4 and so on. If you have a better way of addressing this progression I would be happy to hear what you have to say.

 

[JeffM]

I am going to intrude again. The essence of his writing is that the mathematical description of reality that modern physics has developed does not make sense when translated into a natural language, which was evolved for a completely different set of purposes than particle physics and general relativity. This means the mathematical model is wrong, natural language is wrong, or both.

But for an alternative mathematical model to be adopted, it must give quantitative results that agree with experiment. There is not even an attempt to produce quantitative results testable by experiment. There simply is metaphysics and casual use of mathematical symbols. I keep waiting for some math that results in numbers that agree with observations.

 

[JeffM]

You are probably right, one reason for the seeming disconnected nature of the posts is the narrow space of time given for edits and revisions; which means that rather than being able to correct a mistake, it is more convenient (or makes more sense) to just post what might be a corrected solution. So rather than posting what look like corrections, it is more convenient to just post something new. For instance, if I wanted to post a correction, I would have to post all the equations that had to be corrected, together with the corrections, it becomes complicated, even more so considering the fact that I am not familiar (as yet) with the maths format at this forum and sometimes, what I post is OK and when I go for an edit it doesn’t show up correctly, even if I did not touch it.

Strictly speaking this should probably be expressed as a function, and maybe the summation term is not necessary at all. On the other hand with the infinity limit included it does give an indication that this is not an ordinary summation. Again as you had pointed out, the middle (set) is not necessary:

[MATH] \dot\Psi = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\overset{\rightarrow}\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}= n^2}{n+1} \right) = \begin{Bmatrix} {\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}1}{1},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}4}{2},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}9}{3} ,\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}16}{4},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}25}5},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}36}{6},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}49}{7},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}64}{8}\vec\infty\end{Bmatrix} [/MATH]
In order to avoid the kind of confusion that occurred earlier. The polarized matrix [MATH]\dot\Psi[/MATH] = limit of infinity with n = 0, and the function [MATH]\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e} = n^2 [/MATH] and n + 1 . Therefore n= 0 would increase by 1 till (theoretically) infinity while [MATH] \vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}[/MATH] would increase by the square of n. Therefore in the first term n would be n = 1 and [MATH]\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}[/MATH] would equal 1, in the second term n = 2 and [MATH] \vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}[/MATH] = 4 and so on. If you have a better way of addressing this progression I would be happy to hear what you have to say.

Oh for goodness sake. What a feeble excuse. There is a preview button that puts no limit on the time you can make edits.

By the way, integral calculus is all about summing an infinite number of terms. Do you know integral calculus!

 

[ddj]

Jeff, the last thing I wish to do is to enter into a firefight, with two mathematicians who share the same views. You, look around yourself and see the tremendous advancements that have been made in science and you naturally like to think that your belief in the maths behind it all has been vindicated. What I am trying to get across to you, is that it is not true. In life and in science, nothing is black and white, particularly as it has to do with quantum mechanics. The part of Ouantum mechanics that was discovered through empirical experiments is brilliant and it is this part of QM that has played such a tremendous part in the technical advances we enjoy today. This includes material science, plastics, transmissions systems,, communications, multimedia and so on. The mumbo jumbo part of quantum mechanics, that includes wave-particle duality, disembodiment, multiple dimensions has had little or nothing to do with any of these discoveries and advancements. What I find particularly fascinating, is that even after giving mathematical examples , and logical examples and quotations from the people responsible for evolving these theories: You are in denial, that is so firmly fixed that even a rock cannot move it. You have to get down from your ivory towers and think about these things.

Take the radio transmissions from the Voyager space craft that take place from 25,000,000,000 billion kilometres away. IF as your physics theories claim photons reduce in intensity because they are spread out in space. Just remember that the solar system is only about 10 billion kilometres in diameter. If your theory is true the gaps between the transmissions as they radiate out would be so massive by the the that they reached earth that it wouldn’t be possible to communicate at all. Those transmission would miss us altogether.

Would man have reached the moon or would the Voyager space craft be where they are if it were left to General Relativity. I think not. So, in so far as I am concerned, the ludicrous mathematics that supports the wave function (or rather the ludicrous logic behind the wave function) is more a way to befuddle the layman, than for any ‘mathematical’ merit that it might have.

 

[JeffM]

Jeff, the last thing I wish to do is to enter into a firefight, with two mathematicians who share the same views. You, look around yourself and see the tremendous advancements that have been made in science and you naturally like to think that your belief in the maths behind it all has been vindicated. What I am trying to get across to you, is that it is not true. In life and in science, nothing is black and white, particularly as it has to do with quantum mechanics. The part of Ouantum mechanics that was discovered through empirical experiments is brilliant and it is this part of QM that has played such a tremendous part in the technical advances we enjoy today. This includes material science, plastics, transmissions systems,, communications, multimedia and so on. The mumbo jumbo part of quantum mechanics, that includes wave-particle duality, disembodiment, multiple dimensions has had little or nothing to do with any of these discoveries and advancements. What I find particularly fascinating, is that even after giving mathematical examples , and logical examples and quotations from the people responsible for evolving these theories: You are in denial, that is so firmly fixed that even a rock cannot move it. You have to get down from your ivory towers and think about these things.

Take the radio transmissions from the Voyager space craft that take place from 25,000,000,000 billion kilometres away. IF as your physics theories claim photons reduce in intensity because they are spread out in space. Just remember that the solar system is only about 10 billion kilometres in diameter. If your theory is true the gaps between the transmissions as they radiate out would be so massive by the the that they reached earth that it wouldn’t be possible to communicate at all. Those transmission would miss us altogether.

Would man have reached the moon or would the Voyager space craft be where they are if it were left to General Relativity. I think not. So, in so far as I am concerned, the ludicrous mathematics that supports the wave function (or rather the ludicrous logic behind the wave function) is more a way to befuddle the layman, than for any ‘mathematical’ merit that it might have.

I am not looking to engage in a firefight.

Nor do I believe that natural science finds ultimate and incontrovertible proof. I am a Popperian: if something is incontrovertible, it is not science. In fact, I personally suspect that real numbers (and thus all the math based on real numbers such as calculus) have no ultimate physical existence, but mathematics does not deal with reality at all.

Nor am I an academic in an ivory tower.

The very simple point I am making is that scientists accept general relativity as the best theory currently available because it explains the widest set of quantitive experimental results. Deduce numbers that agree with experimental results if you want to replace replace an accepted theory.

When Einsteininian dynamics replaced Newtonian dynamics, it did so because it explained a wider set of numerical observations.

When I was on a board of directors, I asked for numbers. Where are your numbers?

 

[LCKurtz]

I have been watching this from the sidelines. One question that has been repeatedly asked of @ddj is what is his mathematical background. Unless I have missed it, this question has been ignored. So, ddj, what is your mathematical background?

 

[JeffM]

I have been watching this from the sidelines. One question that has been repeatedly asked of @ddj is what is his mathematical background. Unless I have missed it, this question has been ignored. So, ddj, what is your mathematical background?

LC

I think he has ignored the question because he believes it to be irrelevant. (I may be wronging him of course, and if so, I shall gladly apologize.) He seems to think that the theories that he objects to are accepted because of some esoteric mathematical argument. The mathematics, esoteric or not, were developed to summarize observed results. It is the agreement between observed quantitative measurements and the quantitative results generated by the mathematics that justifies the mathematics. The mathematics on its own is indeed irrelevant. It is the agreement between mathematics and observation that is relevant.

 

[topsquark]

[MATH] \dot\Psi = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\left(\frac{\overset{\rightarrow}\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}= n^2}{n+1} \right) = \begin{Bmatrix} {\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}1}{1},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}4}{2},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}9}{3} ,\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}16}{4},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}25}5},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}36}{6},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}49}{7},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}64}{8}\vec\infty\end{Bmatrix} [/MATH]

Again, your sigma notation is awful and has yet another typo in it.

It appears that you aren't actually trying to sum anything. If you want to do what you are saying that you do then you simply define the set
[math]\begin{Bmatrix} {\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}1}{1},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}4}{2},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}9}{3} ,\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}16}{4},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}25}5},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}36}{6},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}49}{7},\frac{\vec\gamma_e^\mathfrak{e}64}{8}, ~{...} \end{Bmatrix}[/math]
I'm going to (have to) take a guess and say that you really don't know much of any Math higher than the High School level, or there-abouts. Which means your commentary on the PDEq solution you wrote down is simply copied not part of the Math that you know how to do. If you have done this then you are simply trying to impress someone and that's going to cause you many many problems. If you didn't do this then I can't explain how you can screw up the sigma notation so badly and claim that you know any Math. Which is going to cause you many many problems. In other words you are kidding yourself that you can even hope to understand something as complicated as QFT, even though that's what you think you have made an impression in.

Let's talk about the Math in QFT for a second.

Quantum Field Theory is the merging of SR and QM. It has a rather exacting amount of detail as to what can go into it and make sense. It relies heavily on Group Theory. There are two kinds of spaces: "real spaces" (ie. Minkowski space-time) and "Hilbert spaces" (where the internal properties live.) You can't do without both of them. The aether is not needed for any of this because material (or even massless) "particles" are neither waves nor actual particles: they have aspects of both but are neither. They don't actually need anything to "wave" in. We have no real-world macroscopic examples of any of them. All we know are their properties.

And we know them very well. QED is just about one of the best tested theories out there and it is the most accurate and precise of them. GWS electroweak is the second best. Your aether theory, which contains nothing of the complexities nor the necessary Mathematical equipment, must make the same predictions that these theories do. You aren't going to be able to do that, if for no other reason that the aether has been proven not to exist.

I don't know why you are holding on to the aether idea and I really don't care. You asked for Math help and you simply aren't up to the conversational level that you need. Your attempted notations are terrible and have no antecedents in any Physics that I have come across. And that's just your introductory statement.

I can't teach you Group Theory starting from High School algebra so there's really nothing more I can do here. I'm sorry, but I am done with this.

-Dan