The method of wave analysis that is used commonly seems to be very prone to error and misinterpretation as well as lacking predictive power. By applying greater and greater computer power and techniques like variable Navier-Stokes space partitions it can resolve only a certain extent of temporal displacement. To be truly predictive it must have a better foundation. I have made a general survey and using discrete math to approach infinities is less than cunning. IMHO

So I will create my own math and hardware. Some hardware is better suited for wave analysis than digital machines. Analog devices like early analog computers could model events that no digital computer can achieve. In the case of a vacuum tube or similar device, the ratio of integer action to overall effect is much lower in scale as it uses the electron as its integer scale. Extreme precision math can do the same thing, however it gets into computation per bit or effect per bit. A physical system *does* model itself. It seems that several extensions to the math in the form of transforms can serve to give better precision and time extension and also be applied as programmatic models.

At first glance, the techniques would seem to pop the value "h" from atomic vibrations in the same way that "c" pops out of the Maxwell Equations. I think I have seen as much of the current art that I can tolerate and though I enjoy solving partial differentials and matrices or graphing the results, it seems ineffective in the large.

The methods occurred to me while determining what information was needed from the equations. It seems that much of the science of waves is purely anecdotal in form and not continuous. I serves to model simple systems, but what is simple anymore?

If the techniques work, I will attempt to explain them, if the don't work I will pretend I never said this. Doh!, darn blog remembers every thing I say.

## 0 comments:

Post a Comment