Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
New member...loved the math style captcha verification question by the way! What a unique way to filter out your membership!
Anyway, I'm not a grad physics student, but an MBA one who's got a basic understanding of physics. More than the general layman for sure, but pretty basic compared to you guys/girls.
I'm actually working on a dissertation that considers the Heisenberg principle and I wanted to find some physicists I could talk to and quote in my paper.
Any volunteers? Or suggestions on who to contact?
Anyway, I'm not a grad physics student, but an MBA one who's got a basic understanding of physics. More than the general layman for sure, but pretty basic compared to you guys/girls.
I'm actually working on a dissertation that considers the Heisenberg principle and I wanted to find some physicists I could talk to and quote in my paper.
Any volunteers? Or suggestions on who to contact?
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with business or economics. The uncertainty principle describes a relationship between the standard deviation of a function and the standard deviation of its Fourier transform. It's trendy to talk about it in all kinds of areas where it doesn't really apply. My advice is to save yourself the embarrassment of writing a thesis on a topic you don't fully understand.
 HappyQuark
 Posts: 762
 Joined: Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:08 am
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
I'm not really sure what the standards are for references/citations in your field, but in physics it is generally frowned upon to reference quotes from anonymous sources on internet discussion boards or forums. I honestly can't think of how one would even begin to add an internet comment into a dissertation.
"1 ex@mple fr0m the interweBz that prooooves my point is this totaly @w35om3 quote by Twistor on PhysicsGRE.com. He sayz, 'The Heisenberg uncertainty princple has...to do with business or economics'. For realz yo! He speaks some mo' and said, 'It's trendy', 'you....understand' and 'standard deviation', all of which is nerds talk to mean I'm brilliant and that the uncertainty principle perfectly describes the aggregated cap and trade model! QED!"
Physics topics can be very complicated and intricate but this doesn't stop people from wanting to understand them. This ultimately results in the creation of a lot of popscience examples and explanations of different phenomena which, unfortunately, have a tendency to not capture the true meaning and essence of what it is meant to describe. The uncertainty principle is one of those and so I would have to agree with twistor's recommendation of not using information you likely don't understand in its context.
"1 ex@mple fr0m the interweBz that prooooves my point is this totaly @w35om3 quote by Twistor on PhysicsGRE.com. He sayz, 'The Heisenberg uncertainty princple has...to do with business or economics'. For realz yo! He speaks some mo' and said, 'It's trendy', 'you....understand' and 'standard deviation', all of which is nerds talk to mean I'm brilliant and that the uncertainty principle perfectly describes the aggregated cap and trade model! QED!"
Physics topics can be very complicated and intricate but this doesn't stop people from wanting to understand them. This ultimately results in the creation of a lot of popscience examples and explanations of different phenomena which, unfortunately, have a tendency to not capture the true meaning and essence of what it is meant to describe. The uncertainty principle is one of those and so I would have to agree with twistor's recommendation of not using information you likely don't understand in its context.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
Yea, I'm with HappyQuark. I'm wondering what exactly about the Uncertainty Principle you're trying to write about... ???
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
Hopefully, you are still on somewhat regularly so that this might be read.
(I became a member specifically due to this post.)
The Heisenbourg Uncertainty Principle from one perspective is the relation between the continuous standard deviation of an operator(s) or variable(s) and the continuous standard deviation of the Fourier Transform (more or less) results of the same operator(s) or variable(s). However, from another standpoint (the Heisenbourg understanding), the said principle is an inequallity relation on two operators and their corresponding commutator (or anticommutator as the situation demands) wherein the components are related by a constant, by the standard deviations (continuous seems to be examined more often than discrete) of said operators, and by the expectation of their commutator.
As for whether or not you should proceed with your idea for a thesis involving business and the said principle:
In my experience, the simplest solutions in physics and mathematics are typically wrong; that is, before a problem has been answered, that problem is not considered simple  and so is not simple. Once the problem has been solved, of course, many suddenly say and/or think that the answer was actually incredibly simple; many think "why couldn't i solve that problem" or that the solution is so simple as to be absurd. However, they neglect to consider the effort that was actually needed to solve the problem, and solve it correctly. (I am speaking (rather obviously) of the first correct solving of any physics problem.) In order to arrive at the correct solution, the first person to do it had to actually figure out what to do; he didn't use any standard technique, for those had been used before and had failed. He couldn't start with the solution and work backwards for, if he could, the problem would have already been solved (obviously). He might not even have been able to start out with the same information.
He had to do something that none had ever thought of before and, out of all of the possible techniques/methods, he had to choose the one that made the most sense when examined physically. It didn't have to "make sense" according to the logic prevalent at the time  it didn't even have to seem sane from the viewpoint taken under that logic's guidance; it just had to work and make some sort of sense. For those who have never accomplished something like this, it is far from simple  indeed, doing something like this, creating an entirely new perspective on something that was thought to be understood, or even never thought about at the time and getting fruitful results is actually far more difficult (typically) than what those (who later thought the result to be absurdly simple) were trying at the time.
Basically, I say go for it.
(I became a member specifically due to this post.)
The Heisenbourg Uncertainty Principle from one perspective is the relation between the continuous standard deviation of an operator(s) or variable(s) and the continuous standard deviation of the Fourier Transform (more or less) results of the same operator(s) or variable(s). However, from another standpoint (the Heisenbourg understanding), the said principle is an inequallity relation on two operators and their corresponding commutator (or anticommutator as the situation demands) wherein the components are related by a constant, by the standard deviations (continuous seems to be examined more often than discrete) of said operators, and by the expectation of their commutator.
As for whether or not you should proceed with your idea for a thesis involving business and the said principle:
In my experience, the simplest solutions in physics and mathematics are typically wrong; that is, before a problem has been answered, that problem is not considered simple  and so is not simple. Once the problem has been solved, of course, many suddenly say and/or think that the answer was actually incredibly simple; many think "why couldn't i solve that problem" or that the solution is so simple as to be absurd. However, they neglect to consider the effort that was actually needed to solve the problem, and solve it correctly. (I am speaking (rather obviously) of the first correct solving of any physics problem.) In order to arrive at the correct solution, the first person to do it had to actually figure out what to do; he didn't use any standard technique, for those had been used before and had failed. He couldn't start with the solution and work backwards for, if he could, the problem would have already been solved (obviously). He might not even have been able to start out with the same information.
He had to do something that none had ever thought of before and, out of all of the possible techniques/methods, he had to choose the one that made the most sense when examined physically. It didn't have to "make sense" according to the logic prevalent at the time  it didn't even have to seem sane from the viewpoint taken under that logic's guidance; it just had to work and make some sort of sense. For those who have never accomplished something like this, it is far from simple  indeed, doing something like this, creating an entirely new perspective on something that was thought to be understood, or even never thought about at the time and getting fruitful results is actually far more difficult (typically) than what those (who later thought the result to be absurdly simple) were trying at the time.
Basically, I say go for it.
Last edited by Bean on Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:56 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
As for worrying about whether or not you completely understand the principle, I wouldn't worry too much about that initially. My reason for this is also related to my personal experience:
I was first attracted to mathematics in my freshman year at college (before that, I later realised, I had rarely really cared about anything, especially anything meaningful). It was due to an arguement that I had in an elementary math class with the professor; the arguement was about what a function actually was. You see, while I knew the definition of a function, my mind was not closed to the possibility that the definition was not fully descriptive of a function (reality is not constrained to what humans or any sentient (or otherwise) entities want it to be); I considered seriously the possibility that a function need not be restricted to having one output value for a single input. I mention this because it was within a year that my obsession with this led me to an intuitive leap (by way of: [function may not need to follow its mathematical definition]>[function may not need to follow its mathematical definition in reality]>[functions physically present and/or existant in reality, albeit in an abstract manner, may not be constrained to the mathematical definition]>[basically: reality need not be as humans (or blah blah blah) currently understand it]>[result]): I realised that (more or less) if matter and/or energy could neither be created nor destroyed and if there had ever existed a point where matter had not existed, then something (matter) and nothing (not the manifold as that can count as matter) must be exactly the same; that is, 1=0 must be true in order for 1 (something) to exist where nothing (0) had before. This, in turn led me to realise that such a wierd, nonsensical, result could logically lead to the creation of the number system as a physically existing "thing" (1=0=0+0+...=1+1+...). I became obsessed with this insane sort of logic.
I mention this because 1) it led me to identify between meaningless constants and meaningful constants (in other words, I was actually able to ignore, completely, insignificant constants without changing units or measurement systems)
I was first attracted to mathematics in my freshman year at college (before that, I later realised, I had rarely really cared about anything, especially anything meaningful). It was due to an arguement that I had in an elementary math class with the professor; the arguement was about what a function actually was. You see, while I knew the definition of a function, my mind was not closed to the possibility that the definition was not fully descriptive of a function (reality is not constrained to what humans or any sentient (or otherwise) entities want it to be); I considered seriously the possibility that a function need not be restricted to having one output value for a single input. I mention this because it was within a year that my obsession with this led me to an intuitive leap (by way of: [function may not need to follow its mathematical definition]>[function may not need to follow its mathematical definition in reality]>[functions physically present and/or existant in reality, albeit in an abstract manner, may not be constrained to the mathematical definition]>[basically: reality need not be as humans (or blah blah blah) currently understand it]>[result]): I realised that (more or less) if matter and/or energy could neither be created nor destroyed and if there had ever existed a point where matter had not existed, then something (matter) and nothing (not the manifold as that can count as matter) must be exactly the same; that is, 1=0 must be true in order for 1 (something) to exist where nothing (0) had before. This, in turn led me to realise that such a wierd, nonsensical, result could logically lead to the creation of the number system as a physically existing "thing" (1=0=0+0+...=1+1+...). I became obsessed with this insane sort of logic.
I mention this because 1) it led me to identify between meaningless constants and meaningful constants (in other words, I was actually able to ignore, completely, insignificant constants without changing units or measurement systems)
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
and 2) this sort of thinking led me to viewing mathematics as physically present in the same manner as the manifold is physically present (Aside: for those many who scoff at me for being in such boring classes: the university I attend is small and does not offer many physics related math courses. I had to selflearn differential geometry, related tensor analysis, elementary topology, bits of Morse theory and "advanced" topology including differential topology, the mathematics dealing with category theory (elementary so far), stochastic processes and probability, partial differential equations  the boring classifications, bits of higherdimensional algebra, the mathematical field involving operators, and etcetera. Additionally, yes I am a physics and math (double) major, I have gone through the entire available set of courses offered by the miniscule physics department at said university, and I had to selfteach field theory, quantum field theory, fluid dynamics, General Relativity and small bits of string theory.).
This led me within months to the sudden intuitive idea that the mathematical operators and operations must be physically present. Now someone versed in quantum mechanics might read this and think that this idea had been done about a hundred years earlier. Not so, for the operators such a person is thinking of are in fact physical quantities (often observables but sometimes nonobservables would be considered as the "quantities") that are expressed as operators at the quantum level, whereas I am speaking of operators that were/are not considered as physical "quantities". An example: Quantum: p=(h/i)grad => take physical quantity and map over to operator; my idea: (d/dt)+=* and +=f(l) such that + is plus (or addition), * is multiplication, d is derivative, and +=f(l), so long as the plus is constrained to a vector space with vector multiplication defined, is independent of the operands (that is, +(l) cannot be solved for by way of +(A,B)>A+B) => take mathematical operators and map over to physical quantity. Note that this is not a "match the operator to the physical variable" game but a "treat operators as physically present/existant" kind of game.
This led me within months to the sudden intuitive idea that the mathematical operators and operations must be physically present. Now someone versed in quantum mechanics might read this and think that this idea had been done about a hundred years earlier. Not so, for the operators such a person is thinking of are in fact physical quantities (often observables but sometimes nonobservables would be considered as the "quantities") that are expressed as operators at the quantum level, whereas I am speaking of operators that were/are not considered as physical "quantities". An example: Quantum: p=(h/i)grad => take physical quantity and map over to operator; my idea: (d/dt)+=* and +=f(l) such that + is plus (or addition), * is multiplication, d is derivative, and +=f(l), so long as the plus is constrained to a vector space with vector multiplication defined, is independent of the operands (that is, +(l) cannot be solved for by way of +(A,B)>A+B) => take mathematical operators and map over to physical quantity. Note that this is not a "match the operator to the physical variable" game but a "treat operators as physically present/existant" kind of game.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
This meant that these physically meaningful operators which were somehow simultaneously operating and not operating, these "symbols" must affect and be affected by physical phenomenon. Now, as this would actually result in immensely interesting physical situations, such as a force being able to alter the very mathematics describing it, I set out to try and prove that such "symbols" mathematically existed. Here it must be understood that such symbols cannot be derived, and thus cannot be defined, from eigen values (as the eigenvalues are dependent upon the existance of eigenfunctions/eigenvectors/etcetera); nor may they be derived, and so defined, from the operation of an operator (the operation depends upon the existance of operands meaning that such operands would be present in the symbol's function). (Additionally, note that for small values (though they don't seem to be restricted to "values") of the symbols differentiation reduces to classic differentiation (which ignores the possible presence of "symbols"); that is, d(A+B)=(dA+B)+(Ad+B)+(A+dB)=(dA+dB)+(A+B)+(A*dtB)>(dA+dB) as +(0)>2+ with dt approximated as forward difference on t and d+ approximated as forward difference on +. [d(A+B)=(dA+B)+(Ad+B)+(A+dB)=(dA+dB)+(A+B)+(Ad+B)=(dA+dB)+(A+B)+(A*(dtB))=>"Limit as +(0)>2+"o(d(A+B)) approximately equals (dA+dB)+(A+B)+(A(+2+)B)=(dA+dB)+(A+B)+(A(+)B)=(dA+dB)+(A+B)(A+B)])
Anyways ... I was able to narrow down the possible derivations of the symbol to this: derive the properties (very vague because I am admittedly a bit paranoid about revealing derivations that took me months which haven't been done yet on the globe(they haven't been derived yet on the globe for good reason)). In order to derive the property that symbols be commutative regardless of the commutator state of their corresponding operator(s), I discovered that I would have to mathematically, with considerable rigour, derive 1=0. (Note that attempting to set this up by way of axioms would only result in the arguement by others that the seeming contradictions that the existance of symbols would lead to meant that symbols didn't physically exist, or that all physics equations used would have to be "translated" into class and/or category formalism (which would be annoying) in order to make the numerical results fit a more classical sort of mathematical logic. All of which means that the potentially shorter option would be to try and derive 1=0 from preexisting mathematics which is supposed to fit with the number system which tends to be used in most physics equations.)
Anyways ... I was able to narrow down the possible derivations of the symbol to this: derive the properties (very vague because I am admittedly a bit paranoid about revealing derivations that took me months which haven't been done yet on the globe(they haven't been derived yet on the globe for good reason)). In order to derive the property that symbols be commutative regardless of the commutator state of their corresponding operator(s), I discovered that I would have to mathematically, with considerable rigour, derive 1=0. (Note that attempting to set this up by way of axioms would only result in the arguement by others that the seeming contradictions that the existance of symbols would lead to meant that symbols didn't physically exist, or that all physics equations used would have to be "translated" into class and/or category formalism (which would be annoying) in order to make the numerical results fit a more classical sort of mathematical logic. All of which means that the potentially shorter option would be to try and derive 1=0 from preexisting mathematics which is supposed to fit with the number system which tends to be used in most physics equations.)
Last edited by Bean on Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
The presence of symbols within 23 years led me to discover that if one started with the Standard Model lagrangians, placed the constraint that each had to reduce to imaginary information (this is a) feasible as the presence of symbols allowed me to derive that imaginary by real values could come out in reality as completely real values (I thought of a way for this to work without symbols later via allowing the imaginary number to be considered as an operator with eigenvalues such that some eigenvalues were real and the imaginary operating on a real part of a complex number would switch the said real part to be the imaginary part via something along the lines of CramersChronig relations) and b) simply derived from the elementary definition of action combined with 2 symbol effect related equations and, of course, symbol effects), and allow for symbol effects, one would arrive at the conclusion that most, if not all, of the 2nd rank tensors in the said lagrangians were types of metric tensors. However, if they were described by the same geometry or even sufficiently similar geometries, then such should have been discovered long beforeI came along. So, they had to belong to sufficiently differing geometries as to be typically unidentifiable as metric tensors. Now, under the framework that I had discovered to be indicated by the symbol effects over the prior 23 years, reality as we know it has to consist of 64 dimensions  4 are spatial (space), 4 are temporal (time), 4 are informationlike, and so on. In fact, there was not one dimension that was not described in physics, albeit most were not described as dimensions. These 64 grouped together by 4s into 16 conceptually different groups or grouplike structures; each had its own sort of corresponding velocitylike physical quantity, and a corresponding accelerationlike physical quantity and, of course, 4 of these groups were composed entirely of symbols. Each grouping seemed to have 4 corresponding equations similar in pattern to the Poisson equation of Newtonian mechanics.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
Now for the kind of spooky part:
1) Each said metric tensor "type" corresponded to 1 (occasionally 2 possible) said grouping. (Typically indicated via the end result of a series of manipulations making use of symbol effects.)
2) When manipulations involving symbol effects were allowed/examined with the GR EinsteinHilbert action, HawkingName2Name3 action sum (can't presently recall the names), I found that, in combination with an equation resulting from the "playing around with" symbols in the preacceleratingexpansionchanged cosmological equation, the sum of the 2 actions was exactly equivalent to a single term action that (still ignoring the terms implied by the tensors; that is, a single term containing tensors is counted as 1 term) was equivalent to an equation remarkably similar in format to the Newtonian Poisson equation, but with the dot replaced by a tensor product, the Newtonian gravity constant replaced by Einstein's gravitational tensor, 4 replaced by 4^gamma, and the mass density replaced by "(integral of relativistic mass)/(4dimensional Volume)".
and 3) When I later decided to play around with the theory of quantized gravity as devised (and discarded) by Feynmann and reproposed by Tipler of Texas (if I recall correctly) (the equation used was identified by way of the description in one of Tipler's papers), I found that the equation exactly, or almost exactly (I worry that I accidentally neglected some of the equation without realizing), equaled the single term action spoken of in 2).
(This all is really quite frightening: my grades throughout those years suffered rather enormously, I may have accidentally identified a closed and/or finite form for quantum gravity [VERY worrisome  too much fame associated with that] (degrees of freedom is one of the coordinates and it is related to information like time is related to space such that from the relativistic equations relating Electric and Magnetic fields one may derive by integration the relativistic (not accounting for the possibility that gamma differs in the informationdegrees of freedom frame) relation between information and degrees of freedom and use that result to suggest that the "proper degrees of freedom" is sufficiently less than the degreesof freedom calculated for the said Feynmann's equation that might otherwise make the equation rather physically usless; this means that the singleterm action could actually equal the Feynmann's equation as a finite version), and I may have accidentally found a feasible unification of gravity with the electroweakstrong which of course means that if I were to seek publication as an undergrad I would be laughed out of the field, out of any field actually...)
Anyways ... I made a lot of errors along the way, but the errors were worth it as I gained understanding to remove those errors and those which may have been considered errors initially ended up propelling my ideas lateron.
1) Each said metric tensor "type" corresponded to 1 (occasionally 2 possible) said grouping. (Typically indicated via the end result of a series of manipulations making use of symbol effects.)
2) When manipulations involving symbol effects were allowed/examined with the GR EinsteinHilbert action, HawkingName2Name3 action sum (can't presently recall the names), I found that, in combination with an equation resulting from the "playing around with" symbols in the preacceleratingexpansionchanged cosmological equation, the sum of the 2 actions was exactly equivalent to a single term action that (still ignoring the terms implied by the tensors; that is, a single term containing tensors is counted as 1 term) was equivalent to an equation remarkably similar in format to the Newtonian Poisson equation, but with the dot replaced by a tensor product, the Newtonian gravity constant replaced by Einstein's gravitational tensor, 4 replaced by 4^gamma, and the mass density replaced by "(integral of relativistic mass)/(4dimensional Volume)".
and 3) When I later decided to play around with the theory of quantized gravity as devised (and discarded) by Feynmann and reproposed by Tipler of Texas (if I recall correctly) (the equation used was identified by way of the description in one of Tipler's papers), I found that the equation exactly, or almost exactly (I worry that I accidentally neglected some of the equation without realizing), equaled the single term action spoken of in 2).
(This all is really quite frightening: my grades throughout those years suffered rather enormously, I may have accidentally identified a closed and/or finite form for quantum gravity [VERY worrisome  too much fame associated with that] (degrees of freedom is one of the coordinates and it is related to information like time is related to space such that from the relativistic equations relating Electric and Magnetic fields one may derive by integration the relativistic (not accounting for the possibility that gamma differs in the informationdegrees of freedom frame) relation between information and degrees of freedom and use that result to suggest that the "proper degrees of freedom" is sufficiently less than the degreesof freedom calculated for the said Feynmann's equation that might otherwise make the equation rather physically usless; this means that the singleterm action could actually equal the Feynmann's equation as a finite version), and I may have accidentally found a feasible unification of gravity with the electroweakstrong which of course means that if I were to seek publication as an undergrad I would be laughed out of the field, out of any field actually...)
Anyways ... I made a lot of errors along the way, but the errors were worth it as I gained understanding to remove those errors and those which may have been considered errors initially ended up propelling my ideas lateron.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
By the way, it is true that you probably shouldn't get quotations from little known websites, blogs, or whatever official name you wish to call this topic. For all you know, I or anyone on here  maybe everyone on this site  is (are) crackpots. Or, perhaps I'm (we're) from a mental institution where there happens to be a site set up by someone from said institution (this site) such that the majority of posting members of the site are crazed individuals obsessed with Physics/mathematics. There are too many possible issues with trying to get quotations from a blog/topics site to really count on for dissertation work. Your best bet would probably be to go to the closest university library and check out books from both the mathematical view and the (purely) physics view and seek understanding of the mentioned principle from them.
P.S. I just looked through an article on here mentioning Gauge/Gravity duallity which reminded me that the symbol effected framework had some interesting takes on what gauge coefficients are and a possible, albeit wierd, explanation for why the gauge coefficents for the forces would go to (or seem to go to) the finestructure constant. However, as that is not pertinent, I shall not comment; just as that when symbol effects are examined in equations and "formats" of abstract algebra, the symmetry group (not sym on anything, just sym (generally speaking)) appears to be the/a generalization of time and how the special relativistic formula for time > t' then appears to list 4 symmetries with 1 spot occupied by 1 of 2 possible generalizations (SU(2)xSU(3)xU(1 or 2) [as is probably clear by now I've got a really bad memory so...] x{Symplectic(2n or 4n) or General linear(n, 2n, or 3n)}) when examined after a few symbol manipulations combined with possible generalizations of variables to group (may not necessarily be along the lines of which are elements of which) .... I do believe I've started babbling as it were ... though... since the chances that anyone would look at/read this and think it was worthwhile or sane or true or an accurate depiction of reallity or anything but the "musings of a crackpot" are probably wonderfully remote, not to mention that even if someone did "beat the chances", as it were, he still wouldn't know my name or anything about me I suppose it wouldn't matter if i rambled on for a bit. So... here goes:
The 4th space coordinate was such that its 2nd derivative with respect to space was mass, and its 2nd derivative with respect to proper time, without making use of technical equivalencies (wierd potentially nonsensical, well somewhat nonsensical from a spatially biased observer's standpoint anyway), was the special relativistic force. [I thought it hilarious at the time that symbols indicated that either the gravitational potential, or the Gravitational flux was the 4th spatial coordinate, but when I later identified that this could, with symbol effects of course, be generalized to the Euler characteristic of the spatial manifold, and thought about how a series of (2D) manifolds with a hole in each could be stacked and the holes might be described by a "function" that resulted in the hole size decreasing as the number of manifolds in series increased away from some specific (perhaps critical) manifold such that the "function" was dependent upon time and how the hole size might be restricted from decreasing beyond some certain point, which of course would mean that the number of holes might be counted as the total number of such manifolds if each manifold were restricted to a single hole per. Then if the size of each such hole were proportional to the relativistic mass present and one mapped each such 2D manifold to a 3D manifold by way of (pictorially) a reversal of the "flattening" (think of the 2D manifolds as flattened 3D manifolds), the total number of holes of the 4D manifold corresponding to the (ordered by time) union of the 3D manifolds would A) correspond to the "total of the relativistic mass" which may be identified with the "total of total mass", and B) correspond to a spatial version of time as long as the mass were "spatial mass", that is, the mass type of the manifold corresponding to the "conceptual group" (with symbols present it turned out that many physicaly different "quantities" were mathematically "exactly the same" (which most likely has something to do with choosing to derive everything from previously existant physics
P.S. I just looked through an article on here mentioning Gauge/Gravity duallity which reminded me that the symbol effected framework had some interesting takes on what gauge coefficients are and a possible, albeit wierd, explanation for why the gauge coefficents for the forces would go to (or seem to go to) the finestructure constant. However, as that is not pertinent, I shall not comment; just as that when symbol effects are examined in equations and "formats" of abstract algebra, the symmetry group (not sym on anything, just sym (generally speaking)) appears to be the/a generalization of time and how the special relativistic formula for time > t' then appears to list 4 symmetries with 1 spot occupied by 1 of 2 possible generalizations (SU(2)xSU(3)xU(1 or 2) [as is probably clear by now I've got a really bad memory so...] x{Symplectic(2n or 4n) or General linear(n, 2n, or 3n)}) when examined after a few symbol manipulations combined with possible generalizations of variables to group (may not necessarily be along the lines of which are elements of which) .... I do believe I've started babbling as it were ... though... since the chances that anyone would look at/read this and think it was worthwhile or sane or true or an accurate depiction of reallity or anything but the "musings of a crackpot" are probably wonderfully remote, not to mention that even if someone did "beat the chances", as it were, he still wouldn't know my name or anything about me I suppose it wouldn't matter if i rambled on for a bit. So... here goes:
The 4th space coordinate was such that its 2nd derivative with respect to space was mass, and its 2nd derivative with respect to proper time, without making use of technical equivalencies (wierd potentially nonsensical, well somewhat nonsensical from a spatially biased observer's standpoint anyway), was the special relativistic force. [I thought it hilarious at the time that symbols indicated that either the gravitational potential, or the Gravitational flux was the 4th spatial coordinate, but when I later identified that this could, with symbol effects of course, be generalized to the Euler characteristic of the spatial manifold, and thought about how a series of (2D) manifolds with a hole in each could be stacked and the holes might be described by a "function" that resulted in the hole size decreasing as the number of manifolds in series increased away from some specific (perhaps critical) manifold such that the "function" was dependent upon time and how the hole size might be restricted from decreasing beyond some certain point, which of course would mean that the number of holes might be counted as the total number of such manifolds if each manifold were restricted to a single hole per. Then if the size of each such hole were proportional to the relativistic mass present and one mapped each such 2D manifold to a 3D manifold by way of (pictorially) a reversal of the "flattening" (think of the 2D manifolds as flattened 3D manifolds), the total number of holes of the 4D manifold corresponding to the (ordered by time) union of the 3D manifolds would A) correspond to the "total of the relativistic mass" which may be identified with the "total of total mass", and B) correspond to a spatial version of time as long as the mass were "spatial mass", that is, the mass type of the manifold corresponding to the "conceptual group" (with symbols present it turned out that many physicaly different "quantities" were mathematically "exactly the same" (which most likely has something to do with choosing to derive everything from previously existant physics
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
as such would avoid some possible conflict between some symbol effect related deviations of versions of such equations and would also examine the effects that symbols would have even where their effects had been otherwise ignored), so one would have to examine the results from a more "realworld" standpoint with information already known and "understood" about the quantities. This is where the "conceptual" part comes into play as the only certain way to group was by examination of the patterns in the equations, compare with what was physically known and blah blah blah... Basically this was similar to the identification, upon realizing the scaryish metric tensors in Lagrangian, that the metric tensors could not be of the same or sufficiently similar geometries, except that the grouping was mentally linked to concepts, which velocity "type" and/or acceleration "type" appeared in a classical mechanic like manner in equations relating directly to it, which "conceptually grouped" element the possible group element being considered could be identified as being technically equivalent to in the fewest number of mathematical steps (taking advantage of the nutty technical equivalencies), and such. (In other words it wasn't random assignment.)Aside: note that these "technical equivalencies" may be thought of in a slightly similar manner as equations of Newtonian mechanics: they probably approximate reality in local, nonextreme, situations and may be used to imply more accurate models but also probably shouldn't be taken too literally.) being examined on the manifold Aside (yes again): note that, on the macroscale but somewhat more local than GR, if the manifolds for 2 different metric tensors were in fact the same manifold; if such metric tensors had corresponding acceleration "types"; and if the manifold were limited to a single geometry per chart, or even per manifold; then the 2 acceleration "types" would have to be the same, that is, they would physically have to come out as being either the same "thing" in all (applicable) local situations, or they would have to always come out as the same value. This would indirectly indicate that the metric tensors would have to be the same. As this is not the case according to experiment, the manifolds must be, at least locally (kind of), different. As such one may say that if current theory combined with "symbol effects" seems to indicate that 2 quantities are exactly the same when experiment indicates that they are not even similar in idea (such that the "idea" may be considered the nonmathematical side of the current theory where the said "current theory" is based upon experiment or has ("sufficient") experimental backing), then the 2 quantities are conceptually different. (That's what I mean by "conceptual".) which in this instance is spatial.]
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
Now, this idea is really rather close to a select few of the concepts seen in TQFT, albeit without examining it from a homology/cohomology perspective. In fact, several of the results and methods that i discovered the presence of symbols indicated are quite similar in concept to various results and "mannerisms" from TQFT, string theory, old (196070) derivations of gravity quantization according to 1st quantization principles (I don't literally have the proof that they failed so...) and derivations from 2nd quantization principles. However, I should state that my results were derived not by attempting quantization in any form, but solely by examining how "symbols" would effect the preexisting physics equations. For instance, in this framework (which should be testable via the equations that result) the physical or mathematical dimension of an object is itself a dimension (in other words while 64 coordinates (each different) are needed to describe a single particle, and each coordinate is dimensionally significant, the mathematical or physical dimension need not be 64; instead, dimension is the relativistic mass type of information) and (the example) one of the spatial poissonlike equations (when I mention a Poissonlike equation I mean of the pattern: 4*pi*acceleration(constant is preferable)*mass density=sign Operator*div o grad o potentiallike quantity so anything of the form in Maxwell's eqns are out) describes a relation between gravity and the divgrad of dimension such that the gravity is directed either tangentially or normally to that which Einstein's equations reduce under local approximations, another describes a similar relation between Gravity and Pressure. One of the Poissonlike equations of the conceptual grouping that covers the gauge coefficient as its relativistic mass "type" describes a nonlinear relation between the number of objects and the total magnification wherein there is a distinct lack of requirement that there exist an optical surface in relation to the magnification (the magnification exists solely because there exists a number of objects which have Pauli spin matrices). Furthermore, the examination of "symbol effects" results in 2 possible explanations of 1=0: a) 1=0 is a result acquired because mathematics, like Newtonian mechanics before Lorentz and Einstein and such, is frame dependent (this is not refering to vectore, tensors and the like transforming with frames but to entire sets, groups, spaces, shapes, etc transforming) such that the 1 and 0 in 1=0 are of 2 differing frames (mind that while scalars certainly do not transform within a frame, they may transform when mapped from 1 set to another, meaning that if the sets were changing the scalars could in fact transform)
Last edited by Bean on Fri Jul 30, 2010 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

 Posts: 59
 Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:51 pm
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
I plan on reading this.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
Heh, I know, way too long. It doesn't have anything to do with careers, or spewage by people repeating information that they have but a mild intellectual curiosity about, or about how to get into a fancy graduate school.
No, it's just become about me. A person with insane ideas that make others view him as a crackpot.
 Reply should have ended here, but... he is crazy ... sigh
Though... actually if one supposed that there existed an initial time instant before which matter did not exist one would have essentially supposed that a diety could not have existed. Yet if one supposed that there was no initial time instant, then if one wanted a diety to exist then no such being could have created the universe as religion tends to demand. ..... ..... ..... I dislike those religious arguements on here. They make me feel even crazier for reading them.
No, it's just become about me. A person with insane ideas that make others view him as a crackpot.
 Reply should have ended here, but... he is crazy ... sigh
Though... actually if one supposed that there existed an initial time instant before which matter did not exist one would have essentially supposed that a diety could not have existed. Yet if one supposed that there was no initial time instant, then if one wanted a diety to exist then no such being could have created the universe as religion tends to demand. ..... ..... ..... I dislike those religious arguements on here. They make me feel even crazier for reading them.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
.... Continuing with insanity: ( )
(the generalization mentioned considering the wierd result where the relativistic time transformation equation seemed to generalize to Sym=SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)x{symplectic(2n or 4n) or General Linear(n or 2n or 3n)} [where Sym=>Symmetry] was enabled because of this possible interpretation) ... which would imply that there existed tensorial transformations describing such frame transitions; and b) 1=0 was acquired because of a bifurcation in the equallity symbol's function where the bifurcation parameter was dependent upon the number of mathematical steps (in other words, if you repeat or "fiddle" with 1=0, 1=1, 0=0, 0=1 for so many mathematical steps then, once you reach and/or pass the critical number, the equallity bifurcates such that you now have either 1=0 and 1"not"o=0 or you have 1=0 or 1"not"o=0).
[the mathematically imaginary comes out physically as real, simple version: suppose there exists 'Im'b in/on a space in/on which "symbols" exist and/or are defined. Particularly, suppose 'Im'b is a member of the base field then b:=c+d=>'Im'b:='Im'(c+d)='Im'c+'Im'd=>(partial/"partial o t")('Im'b='Im'c+'Im'd)dt=('Im'b [approximately] ='Im'c*'Im'ddt=c*ddt approximately equals c*d (tfinaltinitial) ... I probably should have typed this in Dirac might have saved a few characters). I should note that this has a few possible errors (on purpose), as this was not the more rigorous and complicated derivation. Note that = is treated as a "symbol" which is needed for this faulty derivation to work least faultily. Otherwise, the partial would (as we all know) have to distribute to both "sides" of the equation (= as "symbol" means there aren't "sides" to an equation just as + as "symbol" means that A+B is 1 term as opposed to 2 terms when + is considered as a bioperator (again memory fails)) as would the dt.]
blah blah blah blah blah blah .... [Possibly the sanest way to end the (insert derogatory term here).]
(the generalization mentioned considering the wierd result where the relativistic time transformation equation seemed to generalize to Sym=SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1)x{symplectic(2n or 4n) or General Linear(n or 2n or 3n)} [where Sym=>Symmetry] was enabled because of this possible interpretation) ... which would imply that there existed tensorial transformations describing such frame transitions; and b) 1=0 was acquired because of a bifurcation in the equallity symbol's function where the bifurcation parameter was dependent upon the number of mathematical steps (in other words, if you repeat or "fiddle" with 1=0, 1=1, 0=0, 0=1 for so many mathematical steps then, once you reach and/or pass the critical number, the equallity bifurcates such that you now have either 1=0 and 1"not"o=0 or you have 1=0 or 1"not"o=0).
[the mathematically imaginary comes out physically as real, simple version: suppose there exists 'Im'b in/on a space in/on which "symbols" exist and/or are defined. Particularly, suppose 'Im'b is a member of the base field then b:=c+d=>'Im'b:='Im'(c+d)='Im'c+'Im'd=>(partial/"partial o t")('Im'b='Im'c+'Im'd)dt=('Im'b [approximately] ='Im'c*'Im'ddt=c*ddt approximately equals c*d (tfinaltinitial) ... I probably should have typed this in Dirac might have saved a few characters). I should note that this has a few possible errors (on purpose), as this was not the more rigorous and complicated derivation. Note that = is treated as a "symbol" which is needed for this faulty derivation to work least faultily. Otherwise, the partial would (as we all know) have to distribute to both "sides" of the equation (= as "symbol" means there aren't "sides" to an equation just as + as "symbol" means that A+B is 1 term as opposed to 2 terms when + is considered as a bioperator (again memory fails)) as would the dt.]
blah blah blah blah blah blah .... [Possibly the sanest way to end the (insert derogatory term here).]
Last edited by Bean on Sat Jul 31, 2010 3:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Heisenberg/Uncertainity Principle Dissertation
blah blah blah blah blah...