[Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 4, Issue 11

[Hans van Leunen]

Carl,
The Hilbert Book Model (HBM) offers a double view. One view is a storage view. Since it offers access to all data irrespective of their time stamp, the view is also called the creator's view. It covers the past, the now and the future. The second view is the observer's view. Observers only get information from the past and it is transferred to them by the field that embeds them. Storage occurs in eigenspaces of operators that reside in Hilbert spaces. These structures can only cope with division rings. Thus the most complicated containers of discrete data are quaternions. The transfer via fields convert the Euclidean quaternionic format into a spacetime format that features a Minkowski signature. Thus, observers get their information in this format. It is well known how point-like artifacts interact with fields. The Green's function of the field plays an essential role in this interaction. What is wrong with traditional physics is that it stops at the wave function. The HBM dives deeper and must stop at the characteristic function of the stochastic process that produces the subsequent locations of the elementary particles. It is the Fourier transform of the squared modulus of the wave function. The process produces a hopping path and this forms a hop landing location swarm. It is a discrete distribution and it is certainly no state function.
My advice: ban the state function interpretation of the wave function and see where the location density distribution really stand for.
Hans
----Origineel Bericht----
Van : cj at mb-soft.com
Datum : 18/01/2017 18:25
Aan : physics at tuks.nl
Onderwerp : Re: [Physics] Physics Digest, Vol 4, Issue 11
 To Hans, regarding gravitation:
  
 Yes, in those hundreds of conversations in the 1960s at UC, many opinions were presented about Quantum and Gravitation.  Nearly all of those converssations ended with a logical issue.  We all agreed that gravitation was a "continuous function" while all Quantum concepts included a "time dependence" in order to produce the many Wave functions.  Nearly all of the conversations, including those which included Nobel Laureates ended with that issue which we felt was insoluble.
  
 On a possibly related matter, we all regularly did lab experiments.  In contemplating the early decades of Quantum thinking, and many other issues, we often discussed that our equipment generally took millionths of a second to produce a photographic image.  We often laughed that most of our experiments took so long to occur that at the speed that electrons orbited their nuclei, they certainly always did billions of orbits before we could ever get any image.  A common concern was that if electrons mutually (electrically) interacted, we would never see any results except for "final results".  after billions of orbits of mutual perturbations.  So all of our experiments always showed "fixed parameters" uch a Pauli and the rest always found.  THEY concluded that Quantum arguments necesarily applied.  Later in my life, I wonder if  we just had "slow eyes" and mutual perturbation was occurring every orbit.  In our solar system, the asteroids have orbited billions of times during the lifetime of the solar system, and we see Kirkwood Gaps.  The Galilean moons have orbited billions of times and we see interesting effects which seem to be due to mutual perturbations.  The question might be, if we could only observe the solar system every billion years or so, would we not be aware of mutual perturbations and we might believe in Bode's Law regarding the planets (current) locations?  My question is that maybe Quantum arguments might not actually be valid for this sort of reasoning.
  
 We students all dreamed of creating experimental apparatus which was a billion times fasster than we have.  None so far.
  
 Carl Johnson
  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.tuks.nl/pipermail/physics/attachments/20170118/ed249c8d/attachment.html>