[deleted]
Ken,
I do NOT think that the quantum potential is "unmatter". (Although, I must admit that sometimes I am tempted to think that it might have something to do with it.)
Ken,
I do NOT think that the quantum potential is "unmatter". (Although, I must admit that sometimes I am tempted to think that it might have something to do with it.)
T H Ray,
I already had a private discussion with Ken on my arXiv paper. I think he liked Eq. (6), but let him say it for himself.
Pime and time distinction appears fine but it still leaves the physical time with problems if 'c' is not a constant. Its linearity and scaling comes into question, as also the interpretations / attempts made from the cosmological data from distant objects! There is still we need to work on to solve such mysteries of reality too!
Dear Hrvoje,
if understand, the distinction between pime and time you provide remains unresolved. What is your conclusive statement on that?
John
Dear J. Smith,
In my essay, I argue that the distinction between time and pime is resolved, but that the relation between them is unresolved.
This is a question to all those who understood the notions pime and time:
I agree that we need two different notions of time.
Our ordinary abstract time relates to an arbitrarily chosen common point of reference and is thought to extend from minus infinity to plus infinity.
Regardless whether or not one is aware of it, any observable physical or mental process can only be influenced by what already happened. If we consider future events to influence earlier processes in advance, then we are cheating ourselves.
May I therefore identify pime with elapsed time, i.e. with growing rather than flowing time?
My question relates to attached files
Eckard BlumscheinAttachment #1: 8_Microsoft_Word__How_do_negative_and_imaginary.pdfAttachment #2: 9_Microsoft_Word__How_do_part_2.pdf
Eckard Blumschein wrote (Dec. 25, 2008 @ 01:22 GMT): "...any observable physical or mental process can only be influenced by what already happened. If we consider future events to influence earlier processes in advance, then we are cheating ourselves."
The tricky issue is whether "what already happened" is enough to determine, even statistically, what we observe: please check out Conway-Kochen Strong Free Will Theorem in my essay on QM here.
D. Chakalov
Dear Dimi Chakalov,
Thank you for pointing me to Conway-Kochen. They are mathematicians. While I was not yet able to carefully read their reasoning, I nonetheless got the impression that they took Hilbert space and what they called EPR phenomenon for granted.
In this case, I just suspect that the conclusion of EPR might be due to an inappropriate mathematical point of view. This suspicion of mine relates to
- apparent symmetries
- evidently careless use of complex quantities by Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, etc.
- Weyl's confession in 1931
- v. Neumann's confession in 1935,
- obviously unrealistic single photon counting by Gompf et al. in PRL 1997
- lacking ability of Nimtz to explain his measured superluminal propagation of signals
- so far unfulfilled promise for a quantum computer
- so far missing evidence for Higgs bosons
- non-convincing arguments by Schulman
- further murky matter
Of course, I am not familiar with quantum mechanics, and I do not exclude being wrong. However, what I looked at reminded me of Ewald's sphere of redundant complex wave numbers.
I reckon myself to those who do not doubt that lady moon is to be seen even if nobody looks at her. I do not even believe in Cantor's naive set theory. I used MATLAB as to demonstrate how uncertainty also affects real-valued time-frequency representations, see my M284, M285.
E. Blumschein