HOME | NEXT E-MAIL | E-MAIL INDEX | REPORT| ILLUSTRATIONS


Subject: harmonic potential
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 00:51:11 -0400
From: Flash Light
Organization: Solid State Light, Inc.
To: Bob Sturm

Bob,

This last e-mail makes it much clearer what's involved. I've posted everything on the web site, as you wish. Cynthia tells me the ASCI site gets 10,000 hits a day, but probably few will trickle down to us.

>I think before we can apply this graph of a harmonic potential to
>the universe, we need evidence that it can even be applied in the first
>place.

Why? If we could use SE to predict quantum redshifts, wouldn't that be sufficient evidence that our approach has value? Seems to me if it works, evidence that it can be applied will turn up eventually.

Meanwhile let me try this approach: I assume your harmonic potential plot is useful to physicists because it tells us something about how electrons behave. Even though it's a two dimensional representation of N dimensional electrons, it tells us something about the periodicities of the probability of finding electrons.

If it's true that it tells us something useful about electron periodicities, why would we not think that it might also tell us something useful about quantum redshift periodicities?

Since the harmonic potential is posited as being "infinite," why do you feel we need evidence that it would also exist at cosmic distances? Doesn't that follow from it being infinite?

>What makes the universe a harmonic potential of
>N-dimensions? You have seen the solution to only the 1-dimensional harmonic
>potential.

I still want to see N dimensional solutions, but why do you see the universe as the harmonic potential? Whatever causes the harmonic potential to be relevant when we're looking at the electron, also causes it to be relevant when we're looking at the photon, whether we're looking at a 1 or N dimensional representation. We can assume the harmonic potential is also out there in the universe because we've already assumed it's infinite.

>Next, why can we say that the galaxies Tift is observing can be treated
>like a particle in a harmonic potential?

Seems to me it's not the galaxies that are behaving like particles, but the particle nature of the photons Tifft is observing which causes the phenomenon. That's not a complete explanation because we don't expect a photon to respond to charge like an electron. On the other hand, if the graph suggests it, I will consider the possibility that electrons do also existing out at cosmic distances from their center, and collisions with those electrons account for the quantum losses of energy in the photons which, in turn, is seen in the redshifts. If the electron were capable of that, it would help explain "strange action at a distance."

This is not evidence, merely a few of many possible explanations. But I hope it's enough for you that we can continue plotting solutions over the cosmic domain. As we see more, I hope more pieces of this puzzle will fall into place. Perhaps that's a difference between the approach of an artist viz. a physicist.

Bohr famously said, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about nature." And the task at hand seems to concern what we can say about SE and quantum redshifts.

Cheers,

Flash

HOME | NEXT E-MAIL | E-MAIL INDEX | REPORT| ILLUSTRATIONS