I have a sister who is a fan of Jiddu Krishnamurti. I glaze over when she gives him plaudits. She despairs at my refusal to give him the credits she thinks he deserves. She even sent me a calendar which contains one of his inane statements under a pretty picture of nature for each month. It's in a drawer somewhere.
I personally put him with characters like the Maharishi, the mystic that managed to fog the brains of the Beatles or L Ron Hubbard of Scientology fame.
I just see such characters as engaging in pure sophistry as a means of earning a living.

Yeah, Capra (Tao of physics) and Pirsig (Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance), and more of them. I can't see a connection between QM and eastern philosophy though, and Bohm's implicate order presents a different reality. I'm not sure what his friendship with K means for hidden variables. These were already thought up by Louis Victor Pierre Raymond, 7th Duc de Broglie. They give exactly the same measurable stuff but the ontology is more satisfying. At least, to me. I can't imagine particles taking all paths at once with unfounded probabilities. Probabilities must have an underlying mechanism. 't Hooft is one of the few defenders. Luckily. He has no career to loose. Can express his mind freely. Many physicists don't have the guts, afraid of not being accepted.

Ron L. Hubbard plays in a totally different league than Bohm plays in

I could be wrong, but doesn't . . . — EugeneW

Wave from circle

or, another interpretation

$F(t)=t+iCos\left( \left( \frac{{\hat{H}}}{h} \right)t \right)$

Just some rough analogies between elementary math and QP.

I think for wavebehavior you need the space part of the wavefunction. A Gaussian wavepacket is a wavelike structure (composition of different momenta and omega exponentials: $u(x,t)=e^{i(kx-\omega t)}$, from which momenta/position and energy/time connections can be discerned). It's also a complex vector varying in space. If t evolves, the shape propagates.


From Wiki:

"In the coordinate representation of the wave (such as the Cartesian coordinate system), the position of the physical object's localized probability is specified by the position of the packet solution. Moreover, the narrower the spatial wave packet, and therefore the better localized the position of the wave packet, the larger the spread in the momentum of the wave. This trade-off between spread in position and spread in momentum is a characteristic feature of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle"



The product of complex time and position vectors gives the dispersing Gaussian wavepacket of a free particle (due to a momentum spectrum). The square gives the probability density, which is a density of probability traveling through space, in a wavelike shape. Not all wavefunction solutions have a wavelike nature though. But free particles always have.

I haven seen F(t) before. Nice one.

It seems rather strange though that F(t) equals real time plus a fluctuating imaginary part.

I was asked to relate a bit of QP to (elementary) math, and the Schrodinger equation in a simple version resembles a fundamental relationship in elementary calculus. In this way the SE is related to continuous compounding. Weird, huh?

You've given more info on the physics part, which is admirable. I don't attempt to add physics I'm not familiar with.

In F(t)=t+icosHt, is the unit time?

Yes

It's not Bohm who says a particle hops from one path to another. It's me. An electron travels on parts of all possible paths, directed by non-local variables. This actually happens. — EugeneW

OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. I don't think you're the best for trying to educate another.

Hidden variables give almost exactly the same predictions as the standard. But not totally. — EugeneW

By definition, all quantum interpretation must make the same predictions as quantum theory. If it doesn't, it isn't an interpretation of that theory. So by saying this, you're asserting that all quantum physicists are wrong, and you alone have sole access to some kind of special truth, and not just a deluded belief.

Kind of arrogant, no? I'm just saying that your claims are unbacked and waaay over the top.

I think we have three. The RComplex(me), The Limbic system(myself), and the Cerebral Cortex (I). — universeness

Well, I don't label them me, myself, and I, but sure. I notice that the authority hierarchy goes left to right in that list. The cortex is the slowest and least in charge, but that's where the rational part of us is. Not being in charge, I don't think humans are rational beings (rationalizing yes, rational no), simply animals with a rational tool at their disposal. I suspect an actual rational being would be unfit, and perhaps there lies an explanation for the Fermi paradox.

Kind of arrogant, no? I'm just saying that your claims are unbacked and waaay over the top. — noAxioms

One physicist to another, eh? The peanut gallery awaits eagerly. :chin:

Ù

One physicist to another, eh? The peanut gallery awaits eagerly — jgill

Haha! All physicists are monkeys at the base. But monkeys know what gravity is better than Einstein... :wink:

Kind of arrogant, no? I'm just saying that your claims are unbacked and waaay over the top. — noAxioms

With what should I back them up?

OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. — noAxioms

So?

Does F(t) have a physical interpretation? It's a remarkable formula!

From Wiki:

A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest and ostensibly rowdiest seats in the theater, the occupants of which were often known to heckle the performers. The least expensive snack served at the theatre would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw at the performers on stage to convey their disapproval. Phrases such as "no comments from the peanut gallery" or "quiet in the peanut gallery" are extensions of the name.

Does F(t) have a physical interpretation? It's a remarkable formula! — EugeneW

Go back and click on that second math note about extending the diagonal paradox. It occurs there. As far as something physical I don't know.

OK, you're asserting your own private physics now. I don't think you're the best for trying to educate another. — noAxioms

I think this is ill-judged commentary and sounds rather bitter and somewhat presumptuous.
You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse? Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse?
Hopefully @EgeneW remembers the DIMP guys theory that I posted for him to peruse. That guy certainly had his own private physics, but based on accepted physics. He like many others are convinced they know exactly what the basic workings of the Universe are and they know what its basic structure is. Most of them feel that the currently established cosmology hierarchy will not (rightly or wrongly) give them an adequate public hearing.
If you want to encourage new thinking, you need to welcome any attempt at new physics.
As a teacher of 30 years, I fully endorse all 'true seekers.' Encouraging Original thinking is a very
sound approach when 'trying to educate another.'
A software engineer, who I am sure, is often tasked with creating ever more efficient algorithms should know that.

Well, I don't label them me, myself, and I — noAxioms

We all need our own little forms of personal whimsy!

I don't think humans are rational beings (rationalizing yes, rational no), simply animals with a rational tool at their disposal. I suspect an actual rational being would be unfit, and perhaps there lies an explanation for the Fermi paradox. — noAxioms

This is a more negative view of a human than the one I hold myself but I do respect your right to hold 'your own private humanism viewpoint now.'

By definition, all quantum interpretation must make the same predictions as quantum theory. If it doesn't, it isn't an interpretation of that theory. So by saying this, you're asserting that all quantum physicists are wrong, and you alone have sole access to some kind of special truth, and not just a deluded belief. — noAxioms

Considering your name, noAxioms, I'm surprised you dislike an interpretation that goes against the basic axioms. I don't say quantum physists are wrong. Newton was not wrong either, in the domain of application. It's just that hidden variables make the same predictions as standard QM, except in a domain that's difficult to access experimentally (but it is in principle).

You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse? Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse? — universeness

:up:

I just watched Rovelli talking to a big public. I like how he says "consequences": consequences.

I think Italians always sound quite 'cool' when speaking their version of English.
But I feel the same about Spaniards, French, Americans, Africans, Australians, Scots(so me!) .......everyone who is not actually English....and even some of them who are....Liverpudlians, Mancunians, Geordies etc

I might have a unique take on the subject if you're interested. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12098/a-first-cause-is-logically-necessary/p1

You were in communication with Mr Tegmark, did you accuse him of 'asserting his own private physics' regarding his level I to level IV multiverse? — universeness

That isn't physics since it makes no empirical predictions. It's just a system of categorization of different kinds of multiverse that falls out of standard physics theories and interpretations, with the fourth level being his own philosophical addition, but again, nothing that was asserted as any kind of necessary truth.

To quote Tegmark: "I don’t think it’s my job as a scientist to “believe” in particular theories, and prefer being quantitive and discussing the probability p I’d estimate for something being correct."

Do you think Roger Penrose is doing the same with his 'bouncing' Universe? or Carlo Rovelli with his 'localised' wave function collapse?

No I don't. They're more professional than that.

He like many others are convinced they know exactly what the basic workings of the Universe are and they know what its basic structure is.

If you 'know' something for which the evidence is yet to be found, then it's blind faith, which I find unprofessional.

If you want to encourage new thinking, you need to welcome any attempt at new physics.

I never said I didn't. But new ideas (especially ones that are contradicted by empirical evidence) shouldn't be asserted as truth, just 'because I know'. Proper new thinking is presented in the form of hypothesis. That's how the scientific method works.

I don't think humans are rational beings (rationalizing yes, rational no), simply animals with a rational tool at their disposal. I suspect an actual rational being would be unfit, and perhaps there lies an explanation for the Fermi paradox.
— noAxioms

This is a more negative view of a human than the one I hold myself but I do respect your right to hold 'your own private humanism viewpoint now.'

I don't find that comment negative at all, just my best assessment. Declaring something fit (or at least more fit than the alternative) seems a positive trait, not a negative one.

It's just that hidden variables make the same predictions as standard QM, except in a domain that's difficult to access experimentally (but it is in principle). — EugeneW

But no such experiment has been identified, even an impractical one. If the experiment has not taken place, how is this assertion known?

I might have a unique take on the subject if you're interested. — Philosophim

I thought it was abandoned. So I posted something to it, given the invite.