Deeper than primes

[doronshadmi]

Don't mind me. Just popping in to marvel that this thread is still going.

I propose we coin a new adjective, a 'doronshadmi', meaning a long-lived meme sustained by random noise.

Another adjective, a 'dahduh', meaning a long-lived meme sustained by asymmetric-only perception.

 

[zooterkin]

Don't mind me. Just popping in to marvel that this thread is still going.

I propose we coin a new adjective, a 'doronshadmi', meaning a long-lived meme sustained by random noise.

Just living up to my title, but wouldn't that be a noun?

 

[jsfisher]

Can we get back to Heisenberg, doron?

How does OM express his uncertainty principle? For your reference, this is how it can be expressed in standard Mathematics:

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

Got anything like that?

 

[Apathia]

Another adjective, a 'dahduh', meaning a long-lived meme sustained by asymmetric-only perception.

No end to the redundancy!

 

[The Man]

The bullets' pattern of two opened slits, has nothing to do with wavicle.

Who said it did have anything to do with the outdated term “wavicle”? Again the “bullets' pattern of two opened slits” is a superposition of the patterns from those slits individually.

You can use any twisted maneuver with language, but at the bottom line you deal with "localization" (Locality) and "delocalization" (Non-locality) as two complementary properties of a one phenomenon (known as wavicle).

Nope once again the “complementary properties” we are dealing with are position and momentum, Again that you simply want to assign momentum as your “signature” of your “Non-locality” and position as your “signature” of your “Locality”, is entirely your problem.

The models and data actually support the localization of one by the delocalization of the other, not your nonsense ‘signatures’.

Some quote from momentum space:


In other words, momenta (non-locality) is different than position (locality), and these two properties have a complementary relations between them under a given measured wavicle.

Of course momentum (Newton Second, in SI units) is different from distance (Meter, in SI units), they have different units of measure, their relationship has been given to you before and that relationship clearly shows the localization of one by the delocalization of the other. Your simple preference to try to ascribe “momenta” as your “(non-locality)” and “position” as your “(locality)” is entirely your problem.

Furthermore, Non-locality/Locality linkage is not limited to any particular space, mathematical or physical, exactly because it is non context-dependent framework.


Here is quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_(vector), taken from phase space:




In other words, by increasing the property of Non-locality "(increase the range, the length of the line and thus delocalize it even more)" as you phrase it, our uncertainty of the non-local property is reduced and we get more accurate measurement of the non-local property of the measured phenomenon.

Who ever claimed “Non-locality/Locality linkage” was “limited to any particular space”? The point you keep missing, apparently deliberately is that “Non-locality” is “not limited to” momentum and “Locality” is “not limited to” distance, the measure of what you call “position (locality)”. That you simply choose to so limit them is entirely just your own problem and just your own limitation, it encumbers no one but you.

 

[Apathia]

No end to the redundancy!

When made this pun reply to Doron, I didn't catch it that he was doing a number on poster "Dahduh," who had done a number on his name.
I regret being a part of this insulting chain.

 

[doronshadmi]

Who said it did have anything to do with the outdated term “wavicle”? Again the “bullets' pattern of two opened slits” is a superposition of the patterns from those slits individually.

You are talking about adding certain (individual) id A to another certain (individual) id B and get a certain (individual) result C.

By OM it is notated as (A,B),(C).

But (AB) (superposition of ids) ≠ (A,B) (non superposition of ids).

 

[doronshadmi]

distance, the measure of what you call “position (locality)”

Distance is not less than Non-locality (line)/Locality (point) linkage.

Again you show that you miss the qualitative foundation of the measured, and in this case, Distance.

 

[The Man]

You are talking about adding certain (individual) id A to another certain (individual) id B and get a certain (individual) result C.

Well, that is superposition.

By OM it is notated as (A,B),(C).

But (AB) (superposition of ids) ≠ (A,B) (non superposition of ids).

You have already been quite clear before that your "superposition of ids" does not involve any superposition.

 

[The Man]

Distance is not less than Non-locality (line)/Locality (point) linkage.

Wait, just before it was a “momenta (non-locality)” and “position (locality)” “linkage”? You do understand that momentum is not inherently a “(line)”, don‘t you? Technically it is a vector having both magnitude and direction. The length of that vector representing that magnitude. However, as I stated before on a line representing just a particular range of magnitudes of momentum a particular magnitude of momentum would be just a point on that line.


A quote from the momentum space link I gave before, in case you missed it in that link.

In quantum physics, a particle is described by a quantum state. This quantum state can be represented as a superposition (weighted sum) of basis states. In principle one is free to choose the set of basis states, as long as they span state space. If one chooses the eigenfunctions of the position operator as a set of basis functions, one speaks of a state as wave function in position space (normal space as we know it). The familiar Schrödinger equation in terms of the position is an example of quantum mechanics in the position representation. One can however choose the eigenfunctions of a different operator as a set of basis functions, one can arrive at a number of different representations of the same state. If one picks the eigenfunctions of the momentum operator as a set of basis functions, the resulting wave function is said to be the wave function in momentum space.

Your “Non-locality (line)” or “momenta (non-locality)” “/Locality (point)” or “position (locality)” “linkage” is in fact a “momentum space” / “position space” (sorry, but it is space/space not your limited “(line)” / “(point)”) “linkage” and that “linkage” has already been given to you before as the uncertainty principle.

Again you show that you miss the qualitative foundation of the measured, and in this case, Distance.

Again you show that your “qualitative foundation” is just nonsense.

 

[jsfisher]

Doron, have you abandoned trying to shoe-horn the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to fit you local/non-local notions? You've deserted its discussion with me. Does that mean you have also deserted your suspicious claims?

Remember? You tried to characterize the uncertainty principle as an either-or sort of thing. Either you could know something's position or its momentum, but not both.

You were wrong.

You tried to align your "local" with position and "non-local" with momentum. However, the uncertainty principle is fully symmetric while your local/non-local notions are not. So...

You were wrong.

Are these more mistakes from you you refuse to correct? Is it another case like the 3X3 tree thing where you simply can't correct them because you don't know how?

Still, if your so-called organic mathematics is capable of expressing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, you have been invited to do so. You were even given the standard Mathematics expression for it as a starting point.

So far, nothing. Should I abandon any hope?

 

[doronshadmi]

Remember? You tried to characterize the uncertainty principle as an either-or sort of thing. Either you could know something's position or its momentum, but not both.

You are wrong.

Non-locality and Locality are complementary qualitative properties and therefore their simultaneous precise quantitative measurement is impossible, as can be seen at the quantum level.

You tried to align your "local" with position and "non-local" with momentum. However, the uncertainty principle is fully symmetric while your local/non-local notions are not. So...

You are wrong.

Non-locality/Locality linkage is the general qualitative foundation for both symmetric or asymmetric quantitative measurements.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wait, just before it was a “momenta (non-locality)” and “position (locality)” “linkage”? You do understand that momentum is not inherently a “(line)”, don‘t you? Technically it is a vector having both magnitude and direction. The length of that vector representing that magnitude. However, as I stated before on a line representing just a particular range of magnitudes of momentum a particular magnitude of momentum would be just a point on that line.


A quote from the momentum space link I gave before, in case you missed it in that link.



Your “Non-locality (line)” or “momenta (non-locality)” “/Locality (point)” or “position (locality)” “linkage” is in fact a “momentum space” / “position space” (sorry, but it is space/space not your limited “(line)” / “(point)”) “linkage” and that “linkage” has already been given to you before as the uncertainty principle.





Again you show that your “qualitative foundation” is just nonsense.

Call it "space/space" "momentum space” / “position space”, "localization of one by the delocalization of the other" or whatever you like, but it does not change the fact the foundation of your quantitative measurement is derived from the complementary linkage of Non-locality/Locality qualitative properties.

You have already been quite clear before that your "superposition of ids" does not involve any superposition.

You have already been quite clear before that your "superposition" does not involve any superposition of ids.

Nope once again the “complementary properties” we are dealing with are position and momentum, Again that you simply want to assign momentum as your “signature” of your “Non-locality” and position as your “signature” of your “Locality”, is entirely your problem.

That you simply can't get that momentum is a “signature” of Non-locality and position is a “signature” of Locality, is entirely your problem.

 

[jsfisher]

You are wrong.

Non-locality and Locality are complementary qualitative properties and therefore their simultaneous precise quantitative measurement is impossible, as can be seen at the quantum level.

So, you have changed your statement from the original. You have backed away from the either-or.

Still, though, now you are alleging new properties for your local and non-local realms. Apparently, now, you claim (in your OM), we cannot know the measure of a line segment (notably non-local) if we know the position of any point along it. This is news.

Apparently, too, if we do know the measure of a line segment, then we can know the position of a point along it only approximately. This is news.

How, exactly, does this newly announced property of a point work? On a [0,1] line segment, we can only sort-of know where the point for 0.5 goes?

You are wrong.

Non-locality/Locality linkage is the general qualitative foundation for both symmetric or asymmetric quantitative measurements.

Not according to what you have presented in the past. There was nothing symmetric about your point/line dissertations.


I notice, too, you completely skipped my invitation to tell us how you'd express the uncertainty principle in OM. I see, now, that you cannot. OM is not capable of such.

 

[doronshadmi]

So, you have changed your statement from the original. You have backed away from the either-or.

Still, though, now you are alleging new properties for your local and non-local realms. Apparently, now, you claim (in your OM), we cannot know the measure of a line segment (notably non-local) if we know the position of any point along it. This is news.

Apparently, too, if we do know the measure of a line segment, then we can know the position of a point along it only approximately. This is news.

How, exactly, does this newly announced property of a point work? On a [0,1] line segment, we can only sort-of know where the point for 0.5 goes?



Not according to what you have presented in the past. There was nothing symmetric about your point/line dissertations.


I notice, too, you completely skipped my invitation to tell us how you'd express the uncertainty principle in OM. I see, now, that you cannot. OM is not capable of such.

Nothing is new here.

The accurate quantitative measurement that is derived from the non-local quality has a reasoning of being NXOR not being in a particular location.

The accurate quantitative measurement that is derived from the local quality has a reasoning of being XOR not being in a particular location.

In terms of Logics, NXOR/XOR reasoning has a complementary property, such that if we are focused on the id of the measured, we discover that from the NXOR view we have a superposition of ids ( for example: (ABCDE) ) , and from the XOR view we have strict ids ( for example: (A,B,C,D,E) ) , as illustrated in the following diagram:

How, exactly, does this newly announced property of a point work? On a [0,1] line segment,...

Here you get Non-locality in terms of Locality because you are using [0,1] ( (A,B) ) in order to define a line.

In that case your "line" is actually a collection of localities, and 0.5 is one of these localities, exactly as 0 or 1 are some localities of this collection.

EDIT:

Without direct perception of Non-locality (where a line is its minimal representation) you have no choice but get things only in terms of a collection of localities, as you and The Man are doing all along this thread.

As a result, you are missing again and again the qualitative difference of Non-locality and Locality and can't get their complementary linkage (parallel/serial bridging) as expressed by Organic Numbers.

There was nothing symmetric about your point/line dissertations.

Parallel bridging is the symmetric aspect of Organic Numbers.

I notice, too, you completely skipped my invitation to tell us how you'd express the uncertainty principle in OM.

According to The Uncertainty Principle (ABC…) and (A,B,C…) complement each other, such that if the system is measured in terms of (ABC…) it can't be also be measured in terms (A,B,C…) and vice versa.

Yet these measurements are done on the same medium (photon, electron, etc...).

 

[jsfisher]

Nothing is new here.......

Exactly. And that's the problem. Your discrete little bit of contradictory notions does not include the continuous nature of the uncertainty principle.

Your post hoc shoe-horning doesn't work.

Here you get Non-locality in terms of Locality because you are using [0,1] ( (A,B) ) in order to define a line.

In that case your "line" is actually a collection of localities, and 0.5 is one of these localities, exactly as 0 or 1 are some localities of this collection.

This is new. So, a line can be local or non-local. How flexible of you.



Still, how do you express the uncertainty principle in OM? All this hand-waving isn't doing it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Exactly. And that's the problem. Your discrete little bit of contradictory notions does not include the continuous nature of the uncertainty principle.

Your post hoc shoe-horning doesn't work.



This is new. So, a line can be local or non-local. How flexible of you.



Still, how do you express the uncertainty principle in OM? All this hand-waving isn't doing it.

Please see also the EDIT: part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6045590&postcount=10175 .

This is new. So, a line can be local or non-local. How flexible of you.

No, because a line is not a collection of localities.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is a mathematical attempt to show that Certainty Principle is more fundamental than Uncertainty Principle ( http://daarb.narod.ru/tcpr-eng.html by D. A. Arbatsky ).

A quote from this article (page 8):

So, we will not choose here one from the infinite set of operators of angle, but will imply that we talk about the whole infinite set. For this infinite set we will use symbolic notation Ф .

Since there is no such a thing like a complete infinite set, then any use of Ф in some formula, does not provide any meaningful result.

The real thing is that Uncertainty and Certainty are complementary properties of the same measured system, no matter what scale level is measured.

 

[The Man]

Call it "space/space" "momentum space” / “position space”, "localization of one by the delocalization of the other" or whatever you like, but it does not change the fact the foundation of your quantitative measurement is derived from the complementary linkage of Non-locality/Locality qualitative properties.

No, again it is specifically derived from the mutual dependence of momentum and position for a given wave packet. It is you Doron calling it “whatever you like” (including “mutually independent“) and that does not change the facts of that mutual dependence nor the obvious fallacies of your notions.

You have already been quite clear before that your "superposition" does not involve any superposition of ids.

Who cares? It’s your fantasy “superposition”, the involvement with it and your fantasies is entirely yours.

That you simply can't get that momentum is a “signature” of Non-locality and position is a “signature” of Locality, is entirely your problem.

Again since it is demonstrably the "localization of one by the delocalization of the other" your purported ‘signatures’ are just nonsense.

 

[jsfisher]

Please see also the EDIT: part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6045590&postcount=10175 .

More hand-waving. What a surprise. No actual expression of the uncertainty principle. What a surprise.

No, because a line is not a collection of localities.

So, you are back to lines being non-local. Is this another patented Doron contradiction, or are you retracting your previous statement?