Science > Physics > Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable influence
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"OsherD" |
| Date: |
13 Feb 2006 04:19:04 PM |
| Object: |
Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable influence |
From Osher Doctorow
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable
influence
Copyright By Owner Osher Doctorow Ph.D.
First Published 2006
Look up Green's function, Green's functions, Causality, Causation,
Confinement, Causal as keywords in Front for the Mathematics ArXiv,
arXiv and The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
A good textbook on PDEs, Richard Haberman's (Southern Methodist U.)
Elementary Applied Partial Differential Equations," Second Edition,
Prentice-Hall: New Jersey 1987, 1983 has an interesting discussion of
more elementary uses of Green's function in PDEs in general.
Green's function behaves similarly to the kernel of the convolution
Volterra integral and integrodifferential equations which latter
equations are especially useful in studying materials with memory among
plastics/polymers and so on, an interesting direction of Knowledge as
Causation. That is to say, memory arguably involved Knowledge through
time, and the most effective Knowledge through time is Causal Knowledge
or Knowledge of Cause-Effect. Moreover, Knowledge in psychology for
example itself acts Causally as for example in intentions, goals, etc.
The Green's function and the kernel of the convolution Volterra
equations are factors of integrands which usually involve time and are
integrated at least once through time and often involve dependencies on
time differences t - s or t - to, etc. They also involve Dirac delta
functions, which I'll discuss later hopefully.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable influence |
13 Feb 2006 04:35:05 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
Dirac's delta function is:
1) delta(x - xi) = 0 if x does not equal xi, infinity if x = xi
For any continuous function f(x), we have:
2) f(x) = I[f(xi)delta(x - xi)]dxi
where I[...]dxi is the integral from negative infinity to infinity with
respect to xi or dxi.
Like probability density functions (pdfs) of continuous random
variables and sums of discrete probability mass functions, the Dirac
Delta function has:
3) I[delta(x - xi)]dxi = 1
Also, delta is he derivative with respect to x of the Heaviside unit
step function H(x - xi):
3) H(x - xi) = 0 if x < xi, 1 if x > xi
The Heaviside unit step function H(x - xi) and the Dirac Delta function
have some properties similar to those of Probable Influence/Causation
P(X-->Y)(x, y) = 1 + F(x,y) - FX(x) and P(A-->B) = 1 + P(AB) - P(A). =
1 + y - x where y = P(AB), x = P(A) in the latter expression. For
example, when y = x, then we get P(A-->B) = 1, while when x = 1 and y =
0, we get P(A-->B) = 0 uniquely.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable influence |
15 Feb 2006 01:42:03 AM |
|
|
Did you save all the garbage you copyrighted at the Superstringtheory
forum?
James
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable influence |
15 Feb 2006 06:28:30 PM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
v...@cox.net (who signs himself "James") who has no previous posts
listed under options and nothing under profile, typed:
Did you save all the garbage you copyrighted at the Superstringtheory
forum?
Why don't you try to figure that out, James? Since I didn't have
garbage, I would have had to save 0 garbage to answer that question in
the affirmative. However, if you think that as a newbie here you have
no garbage, you've just contributed garbage here, and I'm not planning
to save your garbage.
As for why I copyright, read my posts in sci.physics from about 2 years
or so back until now. That should improve your vocabulary in English
though obviously not how you use your vocabulary, and you'll learn more
probability-statistics and even logic related to physics and
engineering than you ever have in your life, I think. If you have
something against copyright, do you also oppose differences of opinion,
differences of action, differences of decision, laws under specified
conditions, the Individual who constitutes every Plurality, and the
safeguarding of that Individual? Do you even have a picture in your
mind of the "Unknown Individual", that "faceless" person who isn't
necessarily you or the boss or the supervisor or the department but who
is far more real than the Plurality that you either never see or only
see under distorted conditions of "making impressions" and Conformity?
(I think I've lost you. That's also good.)
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable influence |
16 Feb 2006 10:01:31 AM |
|
|
Osher
You are a spam machine. You might want to review the response to two
years of your posting to sci.physics. Nobody is interested because you
babble on about nothing remotely interesting. You did the same thing at
the superstring theory site.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OsherD" |
|
| Title: Re: Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable influence |
18 Feb 2006 02:36:51 AM |
|
|
From Osher Doctorow
, whose name alternates with "Bruce Pew" under "show
options" (subtype: review author's postings), typed:
Osher
You are a spam machine. You might want to review the response to two
years of your posting to sci.physics. Nobody is interested because you
babble on about nothing remotely interesting. You did the same thing at
the superstring theory site.
Bruce Pew or "unsigned", how can I be more of a spam
machine than your unsigned reply and unheaded-reply? I notice that
you stick around the sci.physics.relativity forum, whose reputation is
almost as bad as that of sci.physics.research for elitist exclusivity
and narrow-mindedness. Your last sentence, "You did the same thing at
the superstring theory site," assumes among other things that I haven't
improved my writing ability and my thinking since the superstring
theory site, which is quite false. I don't think that most of my
www.superstring.com posts were anywhere near as good as my sci.physics
posts. It took me a long time to get used to the internet (I'm 67
years old now), having not grown up in an internet world.
You've made a common mistake of "young lions" who do their "best"
research when young and then become ossified and narrow-minded
bureaucrats or just run out of ideas. That happened to Einstein, but
not to Erwin Schrodinger in physics and Riess/Reiss in mathematics and
quite a few Nobel Laureates who developed their ideas over many, many
years. Even classical music Creative Geniuses like Mozart and
Beethoven showed enormous gains in maturity after their first
compositions - in the case of Beethoven, for example, over several
decades interrupted by many years of non-productivity. Maybe heavy
metal rock-and-rollers are your guideposts and juvenile tales about old
people being stupid. Actually, young people are generally far more
stupid, especially in the USA.
As for "nobody is interested because you babble on about nothing
remotely interesting," that's a nonsensical statement - A can't be
caused by B because of A. That's more worthy of propaganda
organizations like MoveOn.org and of billionaire Soros who devotes
himself to lambasting the leader of the nation that took him in from
Hungary. But it reveals a lot about you - your judging quality by
"nobody is interested" and "nothing remotely interesting" like the
Numbers Game people in Las Vegas or politicians who decide that 1.5
billion Moslems can't be wrong even in the case of Violence.
In fact, you're not only your own claim of a spam machine, but you
remind me of Peace-At-Any-Pricers who can't argue without attacking
verbally the character of whoever disagrees with them. "Justified
rage?" What happened to all the "beautiful ideas" like tranquility,
yoga, meditation? I'll tell you what happened - the San Francisco and
New York people who claim to adopt those as ways of life immediately
drop them when it comes to things that interest them like politics.
That's called passive aggressive behavior, which together with
aggressive behavior describes negative thinkers like you.
Osher Doctorow
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Causality: Green's Function in GR, QM, QFT, etc., and Probable influence |
18 Feb 2006 02:42:39 AM |
|
|
Screw all you fucks.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
