An Alternative Equation for the Wavefunction and its Eigenfunctions

**Strange** · May 11, 2020

22 minutes ago, John Henke said:

Made of energy is an abstraction.

Maybe. But it is less of an abstraction that "made of math". At least we can measure and quantify energy, and understand its role in physics.

As someone else said, math is just a language we use to (attempt to) describe the universe. Imperfectly. Although we have been quite surprisingly successful at approximating the universe using math, I see no reason to expect that math can perfectly describe the universe (which would be the case if it were "made of math").

But there are people much smarter than me who appear to agree with you. For example Max Tegmark and Stephen Wolfram. So I'm not really going to labour the point.

It may be an interesting philosophical idea, but it doesn't seem as if it can be made scientific. For example, what would prove this hypothesis wrong?

22 minutes ago, John Henke said:

You seem to assume that I mean that the universe had a central location of zero

I don't know why you think that. I don't even know what that means.

22 minutes ago, John Henke said:

Well, if you're first comment wasn't a critique, this definitely is. I'm not sure I understand the logic of it, but I think you're saying that you think in my mind the equation is the universe and so changing it would make me wrong.

No. Of course not.

What I mean is that relativity theory accurately describes the universe. In other words, the results of the theory match observations.

If your theory produces different results, then they can't match observations. Therefore it is wrong. That's how science works.

But I'll wait to see your theory.

John Henke · May 11, 2020

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

43 minutes ago, John Henke said:

Made of energy is an abstraction.

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."

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

If your theory produces different results, then they can't match observations. Therefore it is wrong. That's how science works.

Ah I misunderstood you. Yes, I agree with that.

Edited May 11, 2020 by John Henke

Mordred · May 11, 2020

I can describe the same state or system in a half dozen different mathematical techniques.

All would be equally accurate.

Just as a coordinate system is an arbitrary choice. So is a mathematical formalism.

So it really doesn't make sense to state math has causation. It is literally a means of representation.

If you don't believe me how many different number systems can you use to describe a bag of apples ? (Different number systems will often result in different equations)

Edited May 11, 2020 by Mordred

John Henke · May 11, 2020

24 minutes ago, Mordred said:

So it really doesn't make sense to state math has causation. It is literally a means of representation.

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.

Edited May 11, 2020 by John Henke

**Strange** · May 11, 2020

59 minutes ago, John Henke said:

Ah I misunderstood you. Yes, I agree with that.

You agree that your theory is wrong? Well, that's progress.

Mordred · May 11, 2020

18 minutes ago, John Henke said:

but 2+3=5

Now do that in Binary or any other number system from base 10.

Base ten is an arbitrary choice.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Mordred

John Henke · May 11, 2020

35 minutes ago, Strange said:

1 hour ago, John Henke said:

Ah I misunderstood you. Yes, I agree with that.

You agree that your theory is wrong? Well, that's progress.

Haha. I knew you were critiquing my theory all along.

29 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Now do that in Binary or any other number system from base 10.

Base ten is an arbitrary choice.

Yes but again you are not seperating the logic from the language. The logic of 2+3=5 is immutable.

Edited May 11, 2020 by John Henke

**Strange** · May 11, 2020

9 minutes ago, John Henke said:

Haha. I knew you were critiquing my theory all along.

Isn’t that what you came here for?

Are you going to abandon your alternative to relativity as it is now acknowledged to be wrong?

1 hour ago, John Henke said:

Well yes you have to differentiate the logic of math from the language of math

Logic is just a branch of mathematics.

I find most arguments based on “logic” very troubling. Unless they take the form of a formal argument (ie. one that can be written in mathematical notation) it usually seems to mean “something that makes sense to me”, which is not logic.

John Henke · May 11, 2020

28 minutes ago, Strange said:

Isn’t that what you came here for?

Yes it is so please tell me, what else is wrong with the theory I haven't posted yet?

30 minutes ago, Strange said:

I find most arguments based on “logic” very troubling. Unless they take the form of a formal argument (ie. one that can be written in mathematical notation) it usually seems to mean “something that makes sense to me”, which is not logic.

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?

Mordred · May 11, 2020

1 hour ago, John Henke said:

Yes but again you are not seperating the logic from the language. The logic of 2+3=5 is immutable.

Language is flexible and mathematics is a form of language...

The language I choose to describe any object or system is a choice.

Neither language nor mathematical representation has causation. I can arbitrarily choose any set of mathematics to represent any object or system state.

As a professional physicist for example I can choose to describe the dynamics of the Universe in the following list of theories..

LCDM/FLRW metric

GR

QFT.

Lattice gauge

Quantum information theory

String Theory

ADS/CFT.

Conformal gauge group.

Canonical gauge

MOND.

TeVeS.

Classical

The list goes on each has its pros and cons.

You might believe I am joking but each of the above models I can equally describe the universe and how it evolves.

Mathematics is a choice of representation when you study enough you will learn they all employ similar methodologies.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Mordred

**Strange** · May 11, 2020

12 minutes ago, John Henke said:

Yes it is so please tell me, what else is wrong with the theory I haven't posted yet?

I can't possibly know. But you have already said that it gives the wrong results, so I am just asking if you are still going to pursue it. And, if you are, why.

14 minutes ago, John Henke said:

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?

That is arithmetic, not logic. (And, being mathematics, it can be proved based on a few axioms.)

Mordred · May 12, 2020

I have yet to see any mathematical representation of geometry.

Might be important

StringJunky · May 12, 2020

A viable new theory agrees with current theory to the point where the current theory loses viability or where it has nothing to say, then extends beyond it.

Edited May 12, 2020 by StringJunky

John Henke · May 12, 2020

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

But you have already said that it gives the wrong results, so I am just asking if you are still going to pursue it. And, if you are, why.

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.

25 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is arithmetic, not logic.

Yes, so what are we arguing about?

4 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I have yet to see any mathematical representation of geometry.

Might be important

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.

Mordred · May 12, 2020

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

A viable new theory agrees with current theory to the point where the current theory loses viability or where it has nothing to say, then extends beyond it.

Good expression I may have to borrow that one

John Henke · May 12, 2020

6 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

A viable new theory agrees with current theory to the point where the current theory loses viability or where it has nothing to say, then extends beyond it.

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

Mordred · May 12, 2020

Ok so working in GR you are working in 4D. Yet every waveform you have shown can be described in a Hilbert SU(2) which only requires 2D.

In GR the Poincare group is SO(3.1)

Special orthogonal.

Yet this is a double cover of [math]SU(2)\otimes SU(2)\mathbb/{Z}^2[/math] SU(2) is a special unitary group. Yet the following theories use this symmetry group as their fundamental basis. Where the Z acts as a parity operator group

Let me ask you a question.

Where is your logitudional and transverse components of your waveforms ?

Every waveform in nature has both longitudinal and transverse components.

The problem is you need to learn mainstream physics such as GR and relativity. (Both require calculus and differential geometry) though for the Langrangian an excellent tool is calculus of variations.

So far all you have done is shown two dimensional waveforms....you haven't even employed a three dimensional waveform let alone a 4d.

If you want a good example of a three dimensional equation then look at the Helmholtz equation. (Key note understanding the seperation of variables is critical)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_equation

Edited May 12, 2020 by Mordred

John Henke · May 12, 2020

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.

Mordred · May 12, 2020

Looking forward to it.

John Henke · May 12, 2020

Alright, I'll try not to disappoint.

Mordred · May 12, 2020

You may want to look over the post I did on QFT. It will give you a good start.

**Strange** · May 12, 2020

11 hours ago, John Henke said:

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.

So yo have just been wasting my time? That is very annoying.

Let me try again:

17 hours ago, John Henke said:

My new model of relativity pretty massively revises the theory.

Are you saying that you have a different mathematical model that produces the same results as relativity?

Have you proved that they are mathematically equivalent? Or just tried a few test cases?

And are you referring to special relativity or general relativity?

(Maybe I should just wait until you post your new model)

studiot · May 12, 2020

14 hours ago, John Henke said:

I would argue that the only philosophically feasible option for a universe being created from nothing is one where 0=U where U is the universe. If that’s true, then the universe is purely mathematical in structure and the sum of its positive and negative parts equates to zero. I would hold that it’s impossible to explain a viable alternative to this without resorting to something abstract and/or mystical. If you have one, then you can prove me wrong.

Otherwise let’s assume the universe is purely mathematical in structure, and if it were to be based on the current mathematics, it would have to know what a derivative is and how to take it and then decide to multiply it by -i(hbar).

11 hours ago, John Henke said:

If you gave me a specific example, I'm willing to bet there would be a lot of assumptions and abstractions used. My explanation requires as few assumptions and abstractions as math itself. You seem to assume that I mean that the universe had a central location of zero, but I don't even assume that. I assume that 0=U and that the universe is mathematical in structure, and that's it--a bare minimum of assumptions and choice and abstraction, this minimum being the key to explaining how the universe could be created without consciousness.

Yes I note that you have assumed not claimed a mathematical structure for the universe the Universe , and further proposed a mathematical equality to base you analysis on.

But you do seem to claim yours is the only rational explanation.

Then you also give us an example of competing rational explanations for another phenomenon.

14 hours ago, John Henke said:

When I was a kid, I went to a magic show in Las Vegas with my family. The magician disappeared and then reappeared instantly a distance away. It seemed to be clearly the same person. Afterward my family was talking about how it happened and I suggested he had a twin. This was a perfectly reasonable and viable option, but they laughed it off and seemed to think that there must be some more complicated perhaps even more mystical answer. You assume the universe is physical, but I've provided what seems to be a completely feasible explanation to a very difficult question. Can you provide a better alternative?

So let us look at your equality dispassionately.

0=U.

Different (but not incompatible) things can be deduced (rationally) from this statement in Mathematics and in Physics.

In Physics the equality could suggest a conservation Law; indeed you want to use it in that way.

But here is the story of another very fundamental conservation Law, which can also be modelled by equating something to zero.

Conservation of momentum.

[math]\sum {{m_h}} = 0[/math]

Consider directing the stream of water from a fire hose horizontally at a wall.
As the stream travels through the intervening air it has a horizontal momentum.
When it strikes the wall the horizontal momentum disappears.

What happened to conservation? Is it violated, it seems to be?
Further the stream spreads out vertically over the wall, generating vertical momentum form zero!

Physics supplies the rational answer.
It is not magic, there is another agent missing from the conservation law in this case.