John Henke

I've covered most of both of your concerns in the article, though not always directly. I've always been a bit confused how superposition worked within the context of boundary conditions, and that same confusion might persist for my model of superposition more generally. The only truly daunting obstacle is superposition. Perhaps I do need to have a more robust second side to the equation of it. If it is not Lorentz invariant, that should be easy to fix or might be. It's actually a bit of a nightmare to get the definitions of k and w and the eigenfunctions, relativity, etc to all match up. I did my best. I'll continue to think about your concerns, and again thank you for them. I noticed a few obvious errors and artifacts, so I've included a slightly altered second draft if interested. Alternate Equations for the Wavefunction and its Eigenfunctions (Second Draft).pdf I've always ignored Schrodinger's in favor of Dirac's, but I'm starting to see your points. Perhaps a few derivatives could solve the problems with my equation for boundary conditions/superposition. Yeah, what about a substitution of lamba underbar/A into the Schrodinger equation? Where lambda underbar and A are waveparticles with and without spin respectively. Something like that. Basically just keep the derivatives, Laplacian and the potential energy.

As to why this equation is preferable, I’ve made an extensive argument for that in the introduction of the attached article. But note the article is a rough draft. My sincere apologies. I'm going to continue working on it. Mordred, I haven’t yet learned quantum field theory, so I have to ask, is its model of force descriptive or does it embody what force is at a fundamental level? For example, the theory of general relativity describes how gravity works, but provides no explanation of what curvature is at a fundamental level. Is QFT’s explanation similar to Einstein’s in that respect or is it more conclusive? Because the equation has right and left handed chiralities, and each of these has two versions, one with a positive curvature and one with a negative. This curvature scales by the inverse square of the length the x eigenfunction represents (at high values in t). So I’m not sure what that means because this equation has a natural complexity to it that’s beyond my understanding, but these are mathematically verifiable attributes of the equation and they do evoke electromagnetism as described by the standard model. Studiodot, gamma is not the wavefunction. Gamma multiplied by omega is what I call a waveparticle (or a lambda) which is like an x eigenfunction assuming it has spin (it can have zero spin). Gammas and omegas can be one of many different subtypes as I’ve described in the conditional equations below them. These are collectively what I’ve referred to as gamma and omega components respectively. And all of the graphs in the videos are of eigenfunctions. It contains no graphs of the wavefunction which are gone over briefly in part 2, which, according to my youtube account, has not yet been watched. You can look up the equation for the "Natural Wavefunction" in the section with the same title. I apologize for not posting the paper first. And I’ll admit I’m a more or less a hardcore hobbyist, but I would argue Faraday needed Maxwell’s help as much as Maxwell did Faraday’s. The equation stands separate from my ignorance or inability to describe them correctly and has parallels to quantum mechanics that defy coincidence. It is something I discovered. I didn’t invent it. Thank you for your replies Mordred and studiot—and, Mordrid, I will look into putting gamma and omega into tensor format. I’m looking forward to more input as the theory still needs a lot of work, and I’m very much looking forward to someone really taking the time to thoroughly understand it and respond. At the very least I’ve discovered a very rich and unique mathematical phenomena and at most, an equation of everything. Oh and I'll also throw in the Mathematica code in the video. They are graphs of omega components, gamma components and momenum and energy eigenfunctions. Alternate Equations for the Wavefunction and its Eigenfunctions (rough draft).pdf Mathematica_Code.nb

Correction:

Are they going to remove the video? I'd love to post all the math but I'm not sure how. Can you post images? To answer your question, half of it is around 3:30 and the other half around 22, equations for gamma and omega respectively. The two multiply. I've attached pictures of the two equations. Keep in mind they multiply.

An alternative equation for the wavefunction and its eigenfunctions is provided in the linked video. These alternative equations result in graphs that look the same as those of the wavefunction and its eigenfunctions despite the fact the mathematics are unrecognizably different. This new equation is, in its simplest form, what looks like an x eigenfunction but with spins 1/2, 1 or 0. This single equation is divided by copies of itself to form the energy and momentum eigenfunctions. The zero spin x eigenfunction is argued to be the equation for a particle and an expression of an x axis that is relativistic and the change in the location of x=0 over time traces the path of the t axis, both of these rotating based on the rate of growth of this x eigenfunction, which is a function of time. This theory can be rigorously tested as it provides a model of force based on a naturally occuring curvature in the x eigenfunctions over time. It has easily calculable curvatures matching gravity or electromagnetism, but it is less clear whether it works for the strong and weak forces. If the variables were altered such that the forces scaled correctly, it would canonize this equation.