Deriving Schrödinger's Equation from my Fundamental Equation

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

If your integral naturally mimics Schroedinger's 'probability flux' integral then wouldn't you expect equivalence?

I simply do not follow the purpose of your post. The issue here is that I am talking about derivation, not equivalence. I have provided a derivation of a required relationships from first principals which is not at all what was behind the original proposition of Schroedinger's equation. Neither Schroedinger nor the physics community has ever suggested that there was no possibility his equation was wrong. My presentation is a pure logical deduction and, without error in the logic, there can not be an error in the conclusion.

The fact that Schroedinger's equation is an approximate solution to my equation should be taken as rather astounding observation as it means that Schroedinger's equation is correct so long as the approximations presumed are correct. As such, it is true by definition and I doubt that you will find anyone in the physics community who will accede to that fact. They all consider it to be verified by experiment, not by definition.

Have fun -- Dick

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

The fact that Schroedinger's equation is an approximate solution to my equation should be taken as rather astounding observation as it means that Schroedinger's equation is correct so long as the approximations presumed are correct. As such, it is true by definition and I doubt that you will find anyone in the physics community who will accede to that fact. They all consider it to be verified by experiment, not by definition.

Hi Doctordick,

I am not questioning Schroedingers equation I am questioning the hidden determinism behind your proof.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

At this point, it is important to realize that set #2 consists of invalid ontological elements created for the purpose of constraining set #1 to what they actually were.
...
Under this picture, set #2 is certainly context as since they are invalid ontological elements, they can be anything so long as they are consistent with the explanation: i.e., the only requirement here is that they need to obey the fundamental equation.

BTW, to put things another way, if your set #2 is equivalent to Heisenbergs 'uncertainty' distribution then the set #1 you discard must be the deterministic equivalent of a 'certainty' distribution.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

I am not questioning Schroedingers equation I am questioning the hidden determinism behind your proof.

There is no determinism behind my proof. The determinism is entirely in the epistemological construct.

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

BTW, to put things another way, if your set #2 is equivalent to Heisenbergs 'uncertainty' distribution then the set #1 you discard must be the deterministic equivalent of a 'certainty' distribution.

Neither set #1 nor set #2 is "discarded". I don;t believe you have any idea as to what I am doing.

Have fun -- Dick

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

There is no determinism behind my proof. The determinism is entirely in the epistemological construct.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

Under this picture, set #2 is certainly context as since they are invalid ontological elements, they can be anything so long as they are consistent with the explanation: i.e., the only requirement here is that they need to obey the fundamental equation.

Deterministic
adjective
an inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

Deterministic
adjective
an inevitable consequence of antecedent sufficient causes

As I said, you are apparently utterly blind to what I am doing. Do you understand this sentence,"the determinism is entirely in the epistemological construct"? Please don;t bother me until you at least have some understanding of the constraints on the proof.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

No one seems to comprehend that what I have done is to set up a logical structure designed to provide a representation of any and all epistemological constructs such that they are guaranteed to be flaw free with regard to what is known (what is known being undefined).

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by Doctordick

As I said, you are apparently utterly blind to what I am doing. Do you understand this sentence,"the determinism is entirely in the epistemological construct"?

Hi Doctordick,

When one half of your proof is based on a constrained deterministic epistemological construct then the remainder of your proof is deterministic because you can never get to your stated conclusions with any other set.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

they can be anything so long as they are consistent with the explanation: i.e., the only requirement here is that they need to obey the fundamental equation.

If you could make your proof work without the above 'constraints' then you might have something, otherwise you are just proving that 1=1.

[Doctordick]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

... you are just proving that 1=1.

That is exactly what I have been saying from the word go! Maybe you have managed to figured it out; but somehow I doubt it.

Have a ball -- Dick

[Rade]

Originally Posted by LaurieAG... you are just proving that 1=1.

Originally Posted by Doctordick

That is exactly what I have been saying from the word go! Maybe you have managed to figured it out; but somehow I doubt it.

Yes, another way to look at what DD has done here, from a philosophic bent, is to understand that he has "derived" mathematically what was called by Aristotle the "Law of Identity", sometimes stated as A=A. Now, is this of interest ? ---well, it seems to me very nice to have a law of philosophy derived from pure logic using mathematics, for more commonly we derive laws from observation and experiment and theory (explanation). But, of course DD does not derive the "A" itself, only that once we accept that "A" exists, then A=A. I'll let DD respond if I have not correctly stated his case.

[AnssiH]

Originally Posted by Rade

Originally Posted by LaurieAG... you are just proving that 1=1.


Yes, another way to look at what DD has done here, from a philosophic bent, is to understand that he has "derived" mathematically what was called by Aristotle the "Law of Identity", sometimes stated as A=A.

Well not exactly. It means Schrödinger's equation is a tautology from "not making undefendable assumptions about the meaning of any raw data".

I.e. you remember those symmetries that were discussed at the early stages of the deduction? Shift symmetry to the assignment of labels etc? Those symmetries are the source of Schrödinger's equation being valid. Your worldview doesn't actually need to make those symmetry assumptions, but in exchange there would always exist some undefendable assumptions (much like assuming an ontological "center point" for the universe). Modern physical models do make those symmetry assumptions (for the most part anyway), and that is why they look alike with DD's deductions.

Sorry that I've been away for some time. I was ill and then I was away from home. Hopefully I'll have proper time soon...

-Anssi

[Rade]

Originally Posted by AnssiH

Well not exactly. It means Schrödinger's equation is a tautology from "not making undefendable assumptions about the meaning of any raw data". I.e. you remember those symmetries that were discussed at the early stages of the deduction? Shift symmetry to the assignment of labels etc? Those symmetries are the source of Schrödinger's equation being valid. Your worldview doesn't actually need to make those symmetry assumptions, but in exchange there would always exist some undefendable assumptions (much like assuming an ontological "center point" for the universe). Modern physical models do make those symmetry assumptions (for the most part anyway), and that is why they look alike with DD's deductions.
-Anssi

Thanks, but what DD also clearly seems to be saying is that "his" equation is a tautology, thus of course since Schrödinger's equation is derived from DD equation, simply it also is a tautology. As DD states concerning Law of Identity (1=1, A=A, etc)...That is exactly what I have been saying from the word go!

Now, perhaps DD never linked concept of Law of Identity with his equation--but I do. So, taking your comments to heart, as I see it, the concept from DD of "shift symmetries" (as you say, not making undefendable assumptions about the meaning of ontological elements) provides the underlying mathematics that makes valid the 'Law of Identity" of Aristotle. Thus, Aristotle logically first shows that the "Law of Identity" is the philosophic formula that unites the concepts of existence and knowledge--that is that ["existence=identity" and "consciousness=identification"]--then 2300+ years latter along comes DD and gives the mathematical basis for the validity of unification--that it derives from shift symmetry of ontological elements--and takes the ultimate form of the DD equation. So, again as I see it, the DD equation provides most likely for the first time in human history the mathematical basis that unites existence (metaphysics) and consciousness (epistemology) via the Law of Identity. Now, perhaps this is not at all the understanding of DD ? So, here then I think we find understanding why physicists claim the DD equation is philosophy, philosophers claim it is mathematics, and mathematicians claim it is physics--all are correct.