John Henke

Yes, and so are n and s. And ji is also part of the mathematical infrastructure of the equation. It's a series of inputs into the equation I have. And je is that thing that makes everything progress through time together as it evolves. You have to allow me to have some mathematical infrastructure, just as e^i(kx-wt) has some mathematical infrastructure. Otherwise that's a double standard. I'm not just simply saying they look the same. I'm saying their physical measurements would be the same, and that's all that really matters. Can it be measured as physical reality is measured? You have not provided any evidence it can't. That could be interesting. I will look into that. I'll remind you of the title of this thread "An Alternative Equation for the Wavefunction and its Eigenfunctions." Somehow, this thread has become about me having to show a lot more than that, and that's fine and that can be interesting, but if the original goal was for you guys to show me why my equations could not replace the wavefunction and its eigenfunctions, well, that's not been done. I hope we can agree on that because math is math, and I'm not speaking another language although sometimes it seems so. +1 for something constructive. Thank you, honestly. That's what I'm looking for.

What is e? What is i?

As you won't do the calculations of anything to compare with reality, how can we know. I have no idea what you're talking about when you say that. If I counted the number of graphs I've posted it would have to be in the ballpark of 40. I've given all my barebones mathematics. Literally no idea what you're talking about. Please be specific so I can have some clue. Can you copy and paste one of my graphs and show why it doesn't equate to the graph of the same thing in QM?

As suggested, why not show us that they can calculate physical. You have just avoided doing this again. I have already posted all my mathematics and their graphs. If you have any specific criticisms that show they don't match up with reality, I would love to hear them. Honestly that's what I'm here for. Not this denialism. That said, I will of course post that and a lot more in due time, but these 16 page posts I've been putting up do take time. You do realize the above thought experiment was a metaphor. What observable does n represent in e^i(kx-wt)? Mathematica has given me zero reason to believe my mathematics don't match up one to one with what is described in this video. If you can find something specific that they don't, please let me know. Some things are constructive. The time-independent solution I haven't got around to yet, but that could be yielding and interesting. But sometimes it seems like you close your eyes and cover your ears and then blame me.

That's exactly my point. Can you tell me what physical phenomena my equations are incapable of expressing and give me some constructive criticism for a change?

Imagine you're on a distant planet where they use my equations to describe the wavefunction and its eigenfunctions and haven't yet discovered the equations used on Earth. You discover the equations we use on Earth and present them with e^i(kx-wt). One of them asks what e is. It's (1+1/n)^n as n approaches infinity, you explain. Well, what physical property does that express and what is n, they say. You explain that it doesn't express a physical property and that n doesn't either, so they are dismissive of your theory and claim it's incalculable. Do you have access to mathematica? If you're seriously going to pretend you can't do my calculations, I will do them for you.

Are you going to bother to deny that you've only been skimming my posts because there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. I don't mind people skimming my posts. People are busy and they don't want to take the time to sit down and study someone else's speculative theory. I get it. But you being so cynical if that's the case--that's what bothers me.

Just closely read my May 5 post on pg 4, and then run the mathematics yourself, and that will answer virtually all questions not having to do with relativity.

You multiply and/or divide the components, and you get x eigenfunctions, wavefunctions, momentum eigenfunctions and energy eigenfunctions. The goal of my mathematics is not only to describe physical phenomena but to give the equations that the universe uses to exist. This is because I argue the universe is completely mathematical in structure. Yes, but it's not yet known why there is curvature. I'm providing an answer to that question in a way that ties the micro and macro together seamlessly. I'm a bit baffled as to why you'd say that. My model does predict the behavior or particles and no one has provided evidence to suggest otherwise. Run the numbers yourself if you doubt anything, or just download one of the Mathematica notebooks I've uploaded. Momentum space. Yes. And yes although my mathematics don't exactly involve operators. I'm surprised and confused why none of this has registered before. I would encourage you to run through the mathematics yourself. They work. Again, you should read the second half of the May 5th post on page 4 of the thread as it explains what seems to be confusing you. This statement underlies one of two approaches to explaining physical phenomena. The one that has predominantly been used up to this point is yours. You start by looking at observable phenomena and then describe it using mathematics. By this approach, the only virtue a theory can have is that it correctly describes physical phenomena. My approach is actually more rigorous. I don't only demand that it describe physical phenomena but I also demand that it fit a complete narrative of how the universe could have come from nothing. By these higher demands, I find the current theories to be insufficient because they provide no explanation of how the universe came from nothing that is free enough from abstraction and some sense of mysticism. My approach started not by looking at physical phenomena, but by asking the question, how could the universe come from nothing? My answer was that 0=U where U is a universe completely mathematical in structure. Therefore, it required mathematics that were simple enough that the universe could have used them without consciousness to create itself. I believe I may have found such mathematics in the equations I've given. One downside to starting with philosophy and working my way up to the observable is that I don't know how exactly the universe used some of my mathematics to create itself. So I don't know the exact values used as j, n, or s, although I do know what they do and why it causes my graphs to equate to the QM graphs of the wavefunction, the x eigenfunction, the momentum eigenfunction and the energy eigenfunction, and now I've also argued that I have an equation for Dirac's. I'm very confused as to why none of this seems to be registering with you. Again as far as I can tell, a universe could have been created with the two equations I originally posted, each of which is quite short and simple. And you may disagree, but I would appreciate the evidence as to why. ! Moderator Note It had better not be. You are not complying with our rules, and forging ahead without satisfying our rule about being able to test your model would be a mistake, and may result in locking the thread. You have gotten a lot of leeway thus far, but we need you to be more responsive before you start lecturing further, and we are discussing physics rather than philosophy After going over the second half of my May 5 post on initial time, and my May 7 post on eigenfunctions, both of which are on page 4 of this thread, what would you like to see me go over next? I'm endeavoring to be totally transparent in my mathematics. Partly I'll admit I'm posting things on this thread to get my foot in the door for certain equations, and so if I seem to be jumping ahead, that's the motive. But what else seems problematic? My eigenfunctions have been redefined, but the mechanics are the same. Anyway, I get the impression you've just been skimming my posts at best, and so I do have to admit there's a certain sense of boredom to repeating myself constantly. But I will continue to do it, not that it's kept me out of trouble. I respect your knowledge and intelligence both of which are greater than mine in many respects. But when it comes to this particular mathematical phenomena, I'd hope you'll admit, I'm the world's leading expert and until your expertise on these mathematics rivals mine I would hope your sarcasm and aggression would be minimalized. I'm hoping the expertise of those contributing to this post in conjunction with mine can get this model more accurately describing physical phenomena than it already is. I hope you allow that to happen.

Though the mathematics vary from QM, my graphs do not, and I haven't seen anyone provide evidence otherwise. The graphs of the wavefunction, the x eigenfunction, p eigenfunction and E eigenfunction all seem to look precisely the same. My goal is not to get an equation that equates to Dirac's because there's only one equation that does that, and that's Dirac's. My goal is to get an equation that physicla phenomena could be based on, and if my mathematics lead to all the measurably same results as Diracs (i.e. the graphs of the two equate), then I see no problems with any discrepancies between the equations. You've misread the graphs. This wasn't my choice, I would have preferred a 3D model as well, but this is just the way Mathematica graphs complex functions. You just have to take the graph at a particular point in the function and look at its blue value which tells you the real part and the gold value which tells you the imaginary part and then you can write that on a piece of paper if it helps, but that's the value you would get if you put that particular input into the equation. I'm glad you enjoyed the video. His explanation is very clear.

I should add, that I believe this equation should apply to both confined and free particles. You would just need to apply boundary conditions and use V overbar and underbar and its energy, momentum and mass eigenfunctions.

Why I say it's from the Dirac equation should become clear in this video starting at 12:30. But a summary is that E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 in natural units is E^2=p^2+m^2. Dirac used the gamma matrices to get E=p+m. And then at 12:50 it says that Dirac substituted in the momentum and energy operators in for the equation E=p+m. Note that I used a bar over my E, p and m and that is my shorthand for my energy eigenfunction, momentum eigenfunction and the theoretical mass eigenfunction (although, again, these are not actually functions). Now the mass eigenfunction is an obvious weak point as it doesn't seem to occur in nature (but then again, if it did it might be hard to measure because there's no movement through the 4th dimension). At any rate, I only have a vague understanding of QFT and so if I make a mistake, correct me, but it's my understanding the mass is the minimum frequency of a particle. My interpretation of this is that the particle is moving through the fourth dimension and the rate it's moving determines this minimum frequency as omega overbar4=mu overbar where omega overbar4 determines the minimum frequency and mu overbar determines the rate through the fourth dimension. But my model is not simply based on copying and pasting the mathematics of others. I also have my own intuitions on why it makes sense. Momentum in a particular spatial dimension is determined by the rate the particle is moving through that dimension, and I've shown why that is. I've also shown why mass is almost the same but is movement through the fourth dimension. I've argued that the resultant vector of these is energy. The x and 4th dimension are at a right angle where the rate of each is determined by px overbar and m overbar respectively. If the rates through the y and z dimensions are zero, then energy for this particle reduces to the resultant vector of these two. This forms a right triangle with energy on the hypotenuse and mass and momentum on the adjacent and opposite sides. If m=E, then the particle is moving through the fourth dimension at the speed of light. If px=E, then the particle is only moving through the x dimension at the speed of light. More generally, v=p/m. I believe this will get the correct rotations in the x' and t' axes such that this will be Lorentz invariant, and if that's not clearly the case, let me know. So momentum and mass determine a ratio that gets the speed while the hypotenuse, the energy, represents the overall scale of the triangle and therefore the scale of the ability of p and m to affect the momentum and mass of other particles. My next long post will be on a model of the Dirac matrices that is more philosophical, but until then the equation that can be used is

Then I apologize for the oversight. I meant to say the components can measure one another. So if you look at some of my graphs where they just look like lines. They look like lines but there's actually an incredibly small curvature. This curvature, I would argue, is the same curvature Einstein described in spacetime. The cause has to do with the definition of e: (1+1/n)^n. If we were to put in the a value of 1 for n, we would get 2. Then if we put in 2, we would get 2.25. If we put in 3, we get 2.37, etc. Now at the high values of n, you saw that it was linear, but here it was not linear. If it were linear we would expect n=3 to have a value of 2.5. This is because the lower the value of n, the higher the curvature and at these extremely low values in n, the curvature is extreme, but at the extremely high values in n that are actually used, the curvature is imperceptible. Gravity at the least Well I do have the momentum eigenfunction which is scaled by k bar. Do you have any recommendations, hopefully something relatively easy that might fit with my work? Well, Mathematica knows exactly what I mean, so it has to be well defined in the sense that it can be read programmatically. But in my new relativistic model ji and je basically do the work that ti and te had done before. It is difficult for me to explain. I think I'll write a longer post on this some time soon. I think the problem we're having is in equivocation of the term "function." I've talked about this before, but function is a word I've been meaning to avoid (although I'll admit I've forgotten to do so). What these are is a series of inputs and their outputs. You first input ever possible value of ji to get every possible output. From that point je evolves as a discrete value that is added to every single one of the inputs. The outputs are any of the equations. And this is complicated but time is an ouput given in the paper I just posted and it essentially works the same as j, serving as initial and evolving inputs for the other equations. I talked a lot about this at the end of my May 5 post on page 4 although that was before I introduced j. Just look at any of my graphs involving varying frames of evolving time, and if you can figure out why the axis is shifting over time, then you probably understand what I mean. I think you're sensing there's a problem with me using equations that have position outputs rather than inputs. This is not the case and I will illustrate that in an example soon. I'm sorry if I insulted you. I know to a certainty that you're better at math than I am. But you've been a bit insulting yourself. What goes around comes around.

As I said in the post, I'm still working on a more philosophical representation of the Dirac equation. I'm pretty sure you just skim through my posts at best and don't know the first thing about my mathematics, but I can calculate eigenfunctions, and by definition those are p overbar, E overbar etc. Please find a quote of me saying that. I have no idea what you're referring to.

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but if you're referring to the "components," they are just that. They are "components" of a particle, of one particle. No, it's not. The value of s is just what nature uses to control curvature. As I don't know anything more about curvature, I don't know more about s. I just found a way of getting rid of charge and thought the universe might use it, so I threw it in the equation. The point I was trying to make above is that nothing changes with these except the curvature in spacetime, which is very slight. For particles in a quantum state, k determines the angular frequency. For point particles, k bar determines the momentum. If k bar is one and you put the particle into its momentum eigenfunction form, then the wavefunction would not scale. This is because both h bar and k bar are one. If k bar is 2 then the momentum eigenfunction is scaled by 2, etc. Yes, let's stick to the fundamentals for now. What's the correct term? It is continuous and it starts at a negative number the absolute value of which is large and ends at a high positive value. Yes, I did have a bad feeling when I wrote that in, but I promised I'd post that today, and I haven't yet gotten around to revising that out. I will. So my mathematics are in their simplest forms x eigenfunctions. Do you think it's unreasonable to say, therefore, that if we are to use these equations as the basis of explaining nature, that it's unreasonable to say that the output determines the position and the input is time? The solution I already gave you was time independent because initial time is not time. Evolving time is what we would consider time. The energy eigenfunctions I've calculated many times for free particle on this thread, but if you want the calculation for the confined version, that's not difficult, and I will post it tomorrow. Oh, I see, I just forgot to put the bars over those. My shorthand for eigenfunctions is to put bars over them. I'm not sure what you're talking about.

That's exactly what the Dirac equation uses.

Making the Model Relativistic pt 2.docx

Alright, I'll try not to disappoint.

It's going to be 4D and I have a better understanding of relativity and the fundamentals of QM than you seem to think I have although I will admit most stuff above that level is vague or opaque to me.

That's definitely what I'm trying to do.

Oh I misunderstood again. I thought we were joking. I'm not aware of any discrepencies between my model and relativity or the fundamentals of QM. Yes, so what are we arguing about? Yes I will go over that in my upcoming post but probably won't go into great depth until the post after as I'm still working out details.

Yes it is so please tell me, what else is wrong with the theory I haven't posted yet? Well that's an interesting observation but I don't see how it applies here. Do you really find it troubling if the universe had something of 2 in magnitude that was added to something 3 in magnitude that it would equate to something 5 in magnitude regardless of the language used to express it?

You agree that your theory is wrong? Well, that's progress. Haha. I knew you were critiquing my theory all along. Yes but again you are not seperating the logic from the language. The logic of 2+3=5 is immutable.

Well yes you have to differentiate the logic of math from the language of math but 2+3=5 is still true no matter what language you use and that more inescapable logic is what I think the universe is made of and not the language of math.

Maybe. But it is less of an abstraction that "made of math". It may seem abstract to us but the virtue of mathematics is that it requires zero decision making and yet can yield great complexity. Can the same be said of "made of energy." Ah I misunderstood you. Yes, I agree with that.