studiot Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, John Henke said: 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? Here is a thought. There are many mathematical ways of representing or describing any particular physical phenomenon. But there is only one chain of physical reasoning that leads to it and the one physical phenomenon of interest. All valid mathematical representations should end in (predict) the same physical result. Since you want a test physical phenomenon to predict, please predict the value of the Lamb shift. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Henke Posted May 13, 2020 Author Share Posted May 13, 2020 4 minutes ago, Strange said: 10 minutes ago, John Henke said: Can you tell me what physical phenomena my equations are incapable of expressing 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. 9 minutes ago, swansont said: you need to show the time-independent solution 4 minutes ago, swansont said: I don’t know what they are capable or incapable of expressing. You have not mapped your variables to observables, nor have you worked a problem that can be compared to experiment. You do realize the above thought experiment was a metaphor. What observable does n represent in e^i(kx-wt)? 6 minutes ago, swansont said: At the moment, it looks like the answer is “all of them” 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. 9 minutes ago, swansont said: How is “you need to explain what your variables mean” not constructive? Same for “you need to show the time-independent solution” and “this needs to be shown as a function of position” 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, John Henke said: If you have any specific criticisms that show they don't match up with reality, I would love to hear them. As you won't do the calculations of anything to compare with reality, how can we know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Henke Posted May 13, 2020 Author Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Strange said: 5 minutes ago, John Henke said: If you have any specific criticisms that show they don't match up with reality, I would love to hear them. 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? Edited May 13, 2020 by John Henke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 1 minute ago, John Henke said: 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. You haven’t compared anything with an experiment. 1 minute ago, John Henke said: You do realize the above thought experiment was a metaphor. What observable does n represent in e^i(kx-wt)? n isn’t in that equation, so.... k is the wave number (2 pi/wavelength) and omega is frequency. x is position and t is time. See? all variables map to something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Henke Posted May 13, 2020 Author Share Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, swansont said: n isn’t in that equation, so.... k is the wave number (2 pi/wavelength) and omega is frequency. x is position and t is time. See? all variables map to something What is e? What is i? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 Just now, John Henke said: What is e? What is i? e and i are mathematical constants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 2 minutes ago, John Henke said: 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. Calculate something real: energy levels in hydrogen or something Saying "these waveforms look just like these other ones" is not evidence of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Henke Posted May 13, 2020 Author Share Posted May 13, 2020 (edited) 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. 15 minutes ago, Strange said: Saying "these waveforms look just like these other ones" is not evidence of anything. 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. 24 minutes ago, studiot said: Since you want a test physical phenomenon to predict, please predict the value of the Lamb shift. That could be interesting. I will look into that. 15 minutes ago, Strange said: Calculate something real: energy levels in hydrogen or something 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. 44 minutes ago, studiot said: Here is a thought. +1 for something constructive. Thank you, honestly. That's what I'm looking for. Edited May 13, 2020 by John Henke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 13, 2020 Share Posted May 13, 2020 3 hours ago, John Henke said: 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. ! Moderator Note The problem is not from those reading. The problem is that you can't explain what makes so much sense in your head. This is mostly because a) you made up your own definitions for lots of mainstream terms, b) you've allowed a great deal of guesswork to fill the gaps in your knowledge, and c) you keep leaping to conclusions before making sure your last steps were sound. Please, try to understand why people are posting the things they are. NOBODY IS SKIMMING. They're stumbling on science snags, picking out the flaws, hopefully the very thing that made you post your idea here. They're finding misunderstanding and misinformation and vagueness in areas where clarity and trustworthy methodology are paramount, and they're trying to let you know about it. But you claim they aren't reading, which means you really aren't listening. Eight pages of this! Imagine if someone came to you with an idea for (picking something at random) cleaning residential carpets, and right away they start talking about taking them to a facility. You start shaking your head. You know that won't work because most people have wall-to-wall, it would cost a fortune to remove it for cleaning and then replace it. They accuse you of not hearing them out, of skimming over their idea, as they continue to tell you about how many people work at their facility, and show you pictures of tropical fish, and insist they don't need any of the special tools other carpet cleaners rely on. Is the problem with you, or with them? We see a great deal of this. When someone keeps preaching an idea without listening and incorporating input from others (IOW, discussion), it's called Soapboxing. Very frustrating in a discussion, so we made it against the rules. It works better for a blog, though, so I'm going to suggest you start one somewhere. THIS is a science discussion forum. Thread closed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts