Deeper than primes

[jsfisher]

In other words, you have no case here, and this is my last reply to you about your "By the way, how are those corrections coming, or have you given up?" bla bla ...

So, you can't fix your own mistakes. You don't even know how big your 3X3 collection should be.

Why should we take you seriously?

 

[jsfisher]

No, I support Heisenberg because Non-locality and Locality complement each other.

So you allege, but that's not what Heisenberg had to say about momentum and position.

 

[doronshadmi]

So you allege, but that's not what Heisenberg had to say about momentum and position.

Yes he did.

The accurate knowledge of momentum (Non-locality) prevents the accurate knowledge of position (Locality) and vice versa.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, you can't fix your own mistakes. You don't even know how big your 3X3 collection should be.

Why should we take you seriously?

You can't provide the general formula that is based on your redundancy-only method.

Why should we take you seriously?

 

[jsfisher]

You can't provide the general formula that is based on your redundancy-only method.

I have provided the general method to determine the size of any of your kXk collections.

No, I will not reduce it to a level a kindergartener can follow. Sorry. The mathematical skills just aren't present then.

 

[jsfisher]

Yes he did.

The accurate knowledge of momentum (Non-locality) prevents the accurate knowledge of position (Locality) and vice versa.

That's a rather clumsy wording of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. It gives it a rather absolute and definitive character the Principle doesn't actually have. You have mischaracterized Heisenberg. Would that be because your "local" and "non-local" concepts are very definitive, either-or (your favorite exclusive-or, actually), with no continuum of measure.

The Principle is also symmetric, while your "locality" and "non-locality" concepts are not. At least they never have been before as your now-classic point-on-line, line-on-point mantra clearly illustrates.

 

[jsfisher]

By the way, here is what Heisenberg had to say:

[latex]$$$\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \displaystyle \frac{\hbar}{2}$$$[/latex]​

Succinct and elegant, don't you think? How would OM express this?

 

[The Man]

As I claim, your reasoning is limited to Local-only view of the observed.

A claim demonstrably proven wrong by the statements you just quoted.

But the fact is that momentum is the signature of Non-locality and Position is the signature of Locality, and both (Non-locality and Locality) are the qualitative foundations of the observed.

Hey, you want to assign momentum as your “signature” of your “Non-locality” and position as your “signature” of your “Locality”, that’s your problem. The models and data actually support the localization of one by the delocalization of the other, not your nonsense ‘signatures’.

In other words, you have no case to explain here.

Doron, we have plenty of things to explain to you, your simple refusal to accept anything but your own fantasies won’t make me or those explanations go away.

The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is derived from the complementation of the two qualities, known as Non-Locality and Locality, which are mutually independent w.r.t each other under a one phenomenon called wavicle.

No it’s not, it’s specifically derived from the dependent relationship of momentum (usually represented as “P”) to circular wave number (usually represented as “k”) for a given wave (P/k=h/2π).

The Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg is not the Uncertainty of ids under Superposition, which is something that your linear_serial view of the observed simply can't comprehend.

So what, who ever said it was? The “Uncertainty Principle of Heisenberg” is clearly established, well defined and based on the properties of waves. Your “Uncertainty of ids under Superposition” is undefined, based on your fantasies and does not even involve superposition (by your own assertion). No one could possibly ever confuse the two (except for you perhaps).

The Uncertainty of ids under Superposition is exactly the wave pattern (the signature of Non-locality) and the Certainty of ids under no Superposition is exactly the particle pattern (the signature of Non-locality).

Again since your “Superposition” doesn’t involve superposition (by your own assertions), so whatever you claim involves your “Superposition” is simply nonsense (by your own assertions).

The different energy levels are the serial transition from Non-locality (wave pattern and superposition) to Locality (particle pattern and non-superposition) and vice versa, such that Non-locality and Locality complement each other and therefore do not derived from each other.

Doron the “particle pattern” of the double slit experiment is a superposition of the patterns from each slit individually. Again you simply demonstrate that you do not understand the double slit experiment and simply prefer to make up nonsensical claims like your “Superposition” that you claim does not involve superposition.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/PVB/Harrison/DoubleSlit/DoubleSlit.html

Finally, we leave both slits open and measure the distribution of bullets arriving at the backstop from both slits. The result is the solid curve shown to the right. Also shown as dashed lines are the results we just got for bullets from the upper slit and bullets from the lower slit.

The result is just what you probably have predicted: the number of bullets arriving from both slits is just the sum of the bullets from the upper slit and the bullets from the lower slit.

Again, it is impossible to measure Total Non-locality or Total Locality because they are mutually independent and a wavicle is a consistent result of this mutual independency, which is the essence of any consistent axiomatic framework.

No Doron it is impossible to measure both momentum and position with any arbitrary degree of accuracy because they are specifically mutually dependent by the relation of wavelength to momentum or more specifically, as given before, the relation of circular wave number to momentum. There is also another related limit on the position of a particle often referred to as the Compton limit. Doron the only consistency of your purported “axiomatic framework” and your notions is that you just don’t know what you’re talking about.

 

[The Man]

Tell it to yourself, you are the one that is closed under this limitation.

It’s your label Doron thus only your limitation, but unfortunately are so closed under your own labels that you just can’t seem to bring yourself to tell that to yourself.

 

[The Man]

By the way, here is what Heisenberg had to say:

[latex]$$$\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \displaystyle \frac{\hbar}{2}$$$[/latex]​

Succinct and elegant, don't you think? How would OM express this?

Oops my mistake that momentum to circular wave number relation should be P/k=h/4p.

 

[jsfisher]

Oops my mistake that momentum to circular wave number relation should be P/k=h/4p.

Doesn't matter. Although correcting their mistakes is what honest people do, Doron won't comprehend its meaning in any of the forms presented.

 

[The Man]

Correct on both counts, although Doron will only “understand” it as, and insist it is, some local/non-local “complementation”. Looks like my only mistake was that I used the wrong font for the Pi symbol, that momentum to circular wave number relation is P/k=h/2p and the uncertainty limit is half of that. That’s what I get for posting just as I leave work.

 

[dafydd]

By the way, here is what Heisenberg had to say:

[latex]$$$\sigma_x \sigma_p \ge \displaystyle \frac{\hbar}{2}$$$[/latex]​

Succinct and elegant, don't you think? How would OM express this?

How dare you bring real maths into the Doroniverse!

 

[sympathic]

How dare you bring real maths into the Doroniverse!

Are you kidding? OM is the real math! What we call Math is only a limited sequential/local only projection of Math in all its real glory.

 

[dafydd]

Are you kidding? OM is the real math! What we call Math is only a limited sequential/local only projection of Math in all its real glory.

My unworthy eyes have been opened.All hail the mighty Doron!

 

[doronshadmi]

I have provided the general method to determine the size of any of your kXk collections.

No, you provided a method that uses the forms without id's uncertainty of a bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree in order to define the amount of the Distinct States of a smaller k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree.

There is nothing general here because also the bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree has Uncertainty, which you simply ignore, and ignorance does not lead to generality.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron the “particle pattern” of the double slit experiment is a superposition of the patterns from each slit individually.

The particle pattern (one silt is opened) is not a superposition.

The wave pattern (at least two silts are opened) is a superposition.

The models and data actually support the localization of one by the delocalization of the other,

In other words, we can't get both localization (Locality or particle pattern) and delocalization (Non-locality or wave pattern) on the screen detector exactly because Non-locality and Locality have complementary linkage.

 

[jsfisher]

No, you provided a method that uses the forms without id's uncertainty of a bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree in order to define the amount of the Distinct States of a smaller k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree.

There is nothing general here because also the bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree has Uncertainty, which you simply ignore, and ignorance does not lead to generality.

Your allegation that I use a "bigger k-Uncertainty x k-Redundancy tree" is a figment of your limited imagination, and it is totally irrelevant also.

The method I presented yields the correct count.

Your disapproval of the method because it fails to pay homage to an extraneous consideration is immaterial. The method works; that it offends you is pure bonus.

 

[doronshadmi]

The more localized the position the less localized the momentum and the more localized the momentum the less localized the position.

The Man "position" = "Locality"

So what you actually wrote is this:

"The more localized the local the less localized the non-local and the more localized the non-local the less localized the local"

This is simply nonsense.

 

[jsfisher]

The Man "position" = "Locality"

So what you actually wrote is this:

"The more localized the local the less localized the non-local and the more localized the non-local the less localized the local"

This is simply nonsense.

What The Man wrote is not nonsense. What you translated into, however, is. The problem is with the translation, not the original.