John Henke

Yes, and so are n and s. And j_i is also part of the mathematical infrastructure of the equation. It's a series of inputs into the equation I have. And j_e 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.

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?

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?

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.

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

That’s a math question.

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?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I don’t see the utility of going into depth when there are obvious errors and omissions. When you present a variable but don’t explain what it is, I’m not going to understand the equation that includes it. And you’ve introduced multiple unexplained variables.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Components of what?

You multiply and/or divide the components, and you get x eigenfunctions, wavefunctions, momentum eigenfunctions and energy eigenfunctions.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

1. This is QM, not GR.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

2. The curvature of spacetime in GR is caused by energy-momentum. It’s not an arbitrary effect. There are equations that relate the curvature to its cause.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Gravity is a tiny effect. If your model doesn’t predict the behavior of particles we already deal with on the atomic/nuclear scale, it’s not going to matter if it gets gravity right.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Do you mean momentum as a function of position, or the wave function in momentum space? Have you graphed this and presented it?

Can you apply an operator to get the position wave function?

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Mathematica is doing math. We’re allegedly doing physics. That means connecting the math to behavior seen in nature

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

7 hours ago, John Henke said:

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

!

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

At about two and a half minutes the video introduces an equation which includes a Ψ.

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I also said your posting graphs on a 'sheet of paper' along with the stament that the blue squiggles are real and the gold imaginary (ie a single plane) amounts to saying that you are claiming the imaginary and real  axes are one and the same thing.

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Thank you for posting this information and the video. +1

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.

9 hours ago, Mordred said:

How can you possibly believe e=px+py+pz+m

And please don't try and tell me that is according to Diracs equation.

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 p_x 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 p_x=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

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Key images, item 1. (I can't easily quote you because you posted images) You say you allow particles to measure each other's relative positions.

Then I apologize for the oversight. I meant to say the components can measure one another.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Curvature of what? Caused by what?

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Why are you worrying about curvature in spacetime?  

Gravity at the least

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What is the equation that relates kbar to momentum? Why is this an input rather than an output? The equation often tells you what the momentum will be, though I suppose in some problems it would be a boundary condition. What you should do is work a problem like that.

hbar is not one. 

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?

1 hour ago, swansont said:

I don't know the correct term, because I don't know what it's supposed to represent. This is your model. When you say it starts at a negative number, what does that mean? It's going to be negative regardless of the problem you are trying to solve? Independent of the boundary conditions or particle properties? That it's going to vary and become positive, again independent of the boundary conditions or particle properties? With repect to what variable is it varying? Position? Time? (Physics time, not the abomination you've come up with)

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 j_i and j_e basically do the work that t_i and t_e had done before. It is difficult for me to explain. I think I'll write a longer post on this some time soon.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

By x eigenfunction, I would interpret this as saying you are getting the wave function as a function of position for a 1-D system

Is that correct?

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 j_i to get every possible output. From that point j_e 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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

We were talking about a particle in a potential well, rather than a free particle. I want the time-independent solution as a function of position, as well as the energy eigenvalues.

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

And you respond with a personal insult about my mathematics skills.

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.

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

And why did you not post the correct Dirac Equation?

As I said in the post, I'm still working on a more philosophical representation of the Dirac equation.

14 minutes ago, studiot said:

How on Earth can you put bars over missing terms and variables?

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.

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

But then this is from the stable that made the astounding claim that the imaginary axis coincides with a real one.

Please find a quote of me saying that. I have no idea what you're referring to.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

What is the point of having one particle measure another one? A particle in a well has only one particle.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's not an explanation of what s actually is.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Physically what is different between these two cases? Please answer without referring to the variable s. We know that s is different. What is it about the system that is different, that would give rise to a different value of s.

Now, do the same for n and theta.

The point I was trying to make above is that nothing changes with these except the curvature in spacetime, which is very slight.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And k bar.

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Time is a gamma component without spin? Well, good, I guess, since time does not have spin, but otherwise this makes no sense.

Yes, let's stick to the fundamentals for now.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

And now we have j, which is both positive and negative and almost infinite? Simultaneously?

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

You're calling it the mass eigenfunction but it's not mass, and not something that exists in nature. You don't think that's confusing?

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

By solve, I mean give us the time-independent wave function (as a function of position) and the energy eigenvalues?

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.

3 minutes ago, studiot said:

Not exactly, no.

You have missed out some very important terms and variables.

And since you once again can't be bothered to acknowledge my offer of help (as in my last post), I don't feel very inclined to do so.

Oh, I see, I just forgot to put the bars over those. My shorthand for eigenfunctions is to put bars over them.

9 minutes ago, studiot said:

since you once again can't be bothered to acknowledge my offer of help (as in my last post)

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Why would you believe 

E=px+py+pz+m

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. 

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.