I never said it was worthwhile. So is that what you have reduced to again, shoving things into my mouth? I warned you not to do that, and here you are again.
Either you think your posts are worth reading or you don't. If you admit your posts aren't worth reading then we're done. If you claim your original post was worth reading then my point stands.
If someone asked me, do I think the work is worthwhile, then I would be forced to reply no. I feel the picture is adiquate for me, not necesserily physics. Hence why I posted this in psueodscience. If anyone thinks it is a good idea, then that is merely a bonus.
You're just emailing PhDs to ask them your opinion because....?
It's clear alphanumeric, what Fotini Markopoulou is saying. Nothing you will say will deter the fact you denied it point blank for hours, days even.
I stand by what I said. Clearly you don't grasp what people are saying to you because the person elsewhere in the thread, who you mentioned agrees with you, talked about indices, about how '0' is often the index used to denote the time component of a tensor. That doesn't agree with you and it doesn't negate anything I've said because that person is mistaken, since the label used to denote the time component is arbitrary, a matter of convention. In some cases people use '4' to denote the time component. The equation is entirely different from that.
Indices on tensors is enough thing beyond you, along with the Schrodinger equation it seems.
A document nontheless I've read countless times.
That doesn't make you well or even decently read. You can't actually do any of the quantum mechanics so reading all the wordy explanations doesn't get you past 'interested layperson'. Doesn't even get you to 'competency of high school student'.
Yes, the first post I have made which I would consider an essay.
So what were the things like your bit on electromagnetism?
I believed I have solved a problem, verbally.
If you stopped reading wordy essays and looked at actual journals and papers you'd realise just how far short you fall of the level of detail expected in a science paper, even the more wordy ones.
Applying the theory to a practical use should be pretty much easy as I have explained.
And you're the one to evaluate the use of application of a quantitative concept when you can't do any quantitative physics relevant (or not) to your claims?
You'll need to learn I am not trying to self-glorify - all the ingredients I required to make my picture and myself happy with my picture, were already there.
No, you're just posting lengthy attempts at convincing people you can do physics here because you're so modest.
Then we need to listen to each other. I said the wave function describing the system, which may be a Hamiltonian description will indeed be encoded in the wave function. What do you think the wave function refers to in $$H|\psi>= 0$$? The Hamiltonian will not be seperate to that information encoded in $$\psi$$. That was the whole point of countless sources explaining that $$\psi$$ is the state vector in which encodes all the information on the system.
Firstly it would be important to properly define 'system'. A particle in a potential will be a 'system' but within that system you have the Hamiltonian associated to the particle and the particle's wave function, so 'system' needs to be specified.
Secondly, if someone says $$H|\Phi\rangle = 0$$ this doesn't give you enough information to completely and uniquely reconstruct the wave function. Nor, given a wave function with zero energy, can you uniquely reconstruct the Hamiltonian. This can be seen in simple 1d systems by viewing the Hamiltonian as a differential operator and the wave function as a function. Given $$\psi(x)$$ doesn't mean you can reconstruct a
unique linear differential operator H such that $$H\psi(x) = 0$$. Conversely given H you cannot reconstruct $$\psi(x)$$ uniquely. $$H\psi(x) = 0$$ says "$$\psi(x)$$ is a zero eigenvalue eigenfunction of the operator H". If H has more than one such eigenfunction then $$\psi(x)$$ is not uniquely defined by the equation. Hell, even if it has only one the equation is linear so if $$\psi(x)$$ is a solution then so is $$\lambda \psi(x)$$. This only gets worse when you wander into the realms of infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces.
Suffice to say, given neither uniquely defines the other they do
not encode all the information of the other within them, at least not in a way which can be extracted without additional information.
I understand it better than you. I have been reading up on it for a while now.
Yes but how much of that 'reading up' actually involves reading quantum mechanics, proper quantitative quantum mechanics? Little to none I'd wager, given your complete lack of grasp of it.
You've read
other people's explanations of physics you don't understand and you delude yourself into thinking that means you now understand the physics. Perhaps if you weren't utterly outside any actual physics education or work system you'd have enough experience with physics to know how naive that point of view is.
Alphanumeric, you tried to tell me there was no problem with time, I soon showed you were wrong.
I said in pure general relativity, ie that without quantum mechanics. This is not the first time I've corrected you on this point. What was that about you complaining I put words in your mouth.....?
You then tried to tell me it was not a problem of relativity, I showed you were wrong, it wasn't just a problem of GR but also QM.
Yes, your extensive hands on experience with both of those clearly puts you in an excellent position to evaluate the state of them. If only you knew what a tensor was and how to do basic Hilbert space algebra.....
You then tried to tell me the zero did not refer to time - I now have a source which disagrees with you.
A wordy essay which could quite easily be read as having dropped the word 'dependence'. My explanation of what it means squares exactly with the Schrodinger equation. It also squares with the actual definition of what the states in the Hilbert space in question could be. Given 'time' is not a state in the Hilbert space in question it wouldn't possibly literally be 'time'. It could be (and is) the relevant 0 of the Hilbert space, signifying that the state does not change under time changes, the 0 stands for time
independence.
If you understood Hilbert spaces, like you want people to believe, you'd realise that your view is incorrect and that source you provide includes a typo (ie drops a word). Instead all you can do is parrot wordy explanations crying "But I understand it!!" and throwing a hissy fit when someone who actually has done some quantum mechanics points out your misunderstanding.
