Science Forums 2

[Doctordick]

Bombadil, I just don't know how to reach you. I get the feeling you either didn't read post #23 or you didn't understand what I meant.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Any explanation of anything can be interpreted in a manner which makes it a solution to my fundamental equation. A fact of little real use!

Schrödinger's equation (and thus Newtonian mechanics) constitutes an approximate solution to that equation. Perhaps this is of some use; it sure justifies Newtonian mechanics.

The fact that the fundamental equation is essentially a wave equation with fixed velocity demands SR transformations. That is interesting; it implies there cannot be an explanation which violates SR. That is worth knowing.

And more will be developed here.

You keep trying to use the fundamental equation to deduce something about the explanation. That is absolutely impossible because any explanation of anything can be interpreted in a manner which makes it a solution to my fundamental equation. That fact contains no information of any kind!

Originally Posted by Bombadil

Isn’t it also possible though that they could just use explanations that require that elements exist that would place them at the rest frame of the universe?

No! They are trained scientists who are well aware of the supposed explanation of whatever phenomena they are investigating: i.e., they are both using exactly the same explanation. If they are not, then there is no reason to even dream there is any association between their experiments. If they are using exactly the same explanation then both their valid elements and their hypothesized elements are the same. I repeat, there is “NO” information in the fundamental equation; all information is in their explanation!

Originally Posted by Bombadil

So are these the quantum mechanical transformations and so still not the relativistic transformations, so that if we considered a Newtonian universe that is one in which the Lorenz transformation would not be needed (which is not a possibility considering that all explanations must obey the Lorenz transformation) then these transforms would correspond to the corresponding acceleration, but in using these transformation there will be an error that will only be noticeable at relativistic speeds. In which case is it now possible to correct the transformations for relativistic speeds?

You don't seem to understand what relativity is all about. The central issue of relativity is that physics (the laws, equation and such) apply independent of your frame of reference. If you have the physics correctly specified and do all your calculations in one specified inertial frame then the issue of relativity does not even come up! You can use whatever frame you wish. In fact, that is the very central issue of relativity.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

But won’t they only be seen differently by the two observers because they won’t agree on the mass, momentum and energy of the objects? If they agreed on these then they would agree on the measurements of the objects that they are explaining. And so, will agree on what they see.

You are talking about the consequences of the necessity of the relativistic transformations, not the basis of the relativistic transformations. You are confused about the issues under examination. The central issue is, “will they agree on the physics calculations!” You are taking the results of that conundrum and seeing them as reasons for the problem. You have it dead backwards.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

... and that is that we must be able to ignore influences from the rest of the universe which happens when the Dirac delta function has no effect on the equation for the elements we are ignoring?

We are not ignoring the Dirac delta function. If you followed the proof that Schrödinger's equation is an approximation to my fundamental equation you would be well aware of that fact. One cannot obtain Schrödinger's equation if you omit the impact of the Dirac delta function.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

... but it seems that they will have some kind of effect, it is just a question of how big of an effect.

The effect is exactly as important as the probability that x_i=x_j. If that is not true, the impact of the Dirac delta function vanishes exactly. In our explanation of reality, our world view (which is the explanation we are working with), the probability that x_i=x_j for most of the elements making up our universe is so insignificant as to be non existent! So that two body relationship (Schrödinger's equation) is a very reasonable approximation. We are talking about that specific explanation and not the general implications of my equations (you should be well aware that there are none associated with my equation).

Originally Posted by Bombadil

But don’t we still need to either define a measure of t ...

The t is an interaction parameter; as such it is not directly measurable (no device exists which will provide a specific answer to the question “what time is it”); however, it none the less describes evolution of mechanical devices. Everyone uses clocks as the standard for physics evolution. So, saying “clocks measure time” does nothing except define the velocity to be used in the fundamental equation.

Originally Posted by Bombadil

But won’t they appear to have different properties when observed from a different frame? ... For instance, if a object is defined to be a unit rod in its rest frame and measured in a moving frame then observers in both frames won’t agree on the length of the rod.

Again, you are confusing the fundamental equation with your explanation of reality. It is the physics (your explanation of reality) which must agree with the measures of both observers. Now, what does your world view say about a ruler you have in your office compared to that same ruler when you take it with you on a drive in your car. You want to get relativistic? If you get on a star cruiser and head for Alpha Centauri at 99% the speed of light and pull that same ruler out of your pocket. Does your world view suggest that you will find that ruler has changed its length? Or will it weigh down your pocket? Gee, if it did, you could use that fact to tell how fast you were moving (but that's a violation of relativity, the physics would be different). The observer on earth (who is using his Galilean inertial frame for his measurements) will look through the telescope and deduce the weight and length of the ruler. What will he say? My god, look how short that ruler has gotten and gee, it must weigh twenty pounds. Think about these things a little.

Have fun -- Dick