Arnold Neumaier
Aug31-04, 07:07 AM
<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nUrs Schreiber wrote:\n> "Arnold Neumaier" <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag\n> news:4131A59C.6050706@univie.ac.at...\n>\n> Moreover, as you quote Nelson on your p. 16,\n>\n>> \'\'Quantum mechanics can treat much more general Hamiltonians\n>> for which there is no stochastic theory.\'\'\n>>\n>>Thus it is unlikely to be useful as a \'fundamental\' description\n>>of nature.\n>\n>\n> Yes, for this and other reasons one must be very careful with any\n> interpretation. I just mention it for curiosity reasons. Did you ever have a\n> look at the very similar ideas by Stephen Adler:\n>\n> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000400.html#c001495 ?\n\nI didn\'t know this, and just looked at it. Interestingly, and in contrast\nto Nelson\'s stochastic quantum mechanics, Adler\'s theory is\na _modification_ of quantum theory, since the classical theory Adler\nis proposing has quantum mechanics only as thermodynamic limit.\n\nThus it would be interesting to see computations of the leading corrections\nto QM for simple system like the hydrogen atom, to be able to check\nwhether the theory is tenable.\n\nAlso, if he has a good classical theory (and apparently Lorentz\ninvariance causes no problems according to him), he\'d be able to provide\ninsight into the divergences of relativistic QFT.\n\nUnless there are a number of such down to earth comparisons with\nreal physics, I don\'t consider it a serious candidate for the\nfoundations of QM.\n\n\nArnold Neumaier\n\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form"> View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Urs Schreiber wrote:
> "Arnold Neumaier" <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4131A59C.6050706@univie.ac.at...
>
> Moreover, as you quote Nelson on your p. 16,
>
>> ''Quantum mechanics can treat much more general Hamiltonians
>> for which there is no stochastic theory.''
>>
>>Thus it is unlikely to be useful as a 'fundamental' description
>>of nature.
>
>
> Yes, for this and other reasons one must be very careful with any
> interpretation. I just mention it for curiosity reasons. Did you ever have a
> look at the very similar ideas by Stephen Adler:
>
> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000400.html#c001495 ?
I didn't know this, and just looked at it. Interestingly, and in contrast
to Nelson's stochastic quantum mechanics, Adler's theory is
a _modification_ of quantum theory, since the classical theory Adler
is proposing has quantum mechanics only as thermodynamic limit.
Thus it would be interesting to see computations of the leading corrections
to QM for simple system like the hydrogen atom, to be able to check
whether the theory is tenable.
Also, if he has a good classical theory (and apparently Lorentz
invariance causes no problems according to him), he'd be able to provide
insight into the divergences of relativistic QFT.
Unless there are a number of such down to earth comparisons with
real physics, I don't consider it a serious candidate for the
foundations of QM.
Arnold Neumaier
> "Arnold Neumaier" <Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:4131A59C.6050706@univie.ac.at...
>
> Moreover, as you quote Nelson on your p. 16,
>
>> ''Quantum mechanics can treat much more general Hamiltonians
>> for which there is no stochastic theory.''
>>
>>Thus it is unlikely to be useful as a 'fundamental' description
>>of nature.
>
>
> Yes, for this and other reasons one must be very careful with any
> interpretation. I just mention it for curiosity reasons. Did you ever have a
> look at the very similar ideas by Stephen Adler:
>
> http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/string/archives/000400.html#c001495 ?
I didn't know this, and just looked at it. Interestingly, and in contrast
to Nelson's stochastic quantum mechanics, Adler's theory is
a _modification_ of quantum theory, since the classical theory Adler
is proposing has quantum mechanics only as thermodynamic limit.
Thus it would be interesting to see computations of the leading corrections
to QM for simple system like the hydrogen atom, to be able to check
whether the theory is tenable.
Also, if he has a good classical theory (and apparently Lorentz
invariance causes no problems according to him), he'd be able to provide
insight into the divergences of relativistic QFT.
Unless there are a number of such down to earth comparisons with
real physics, I don't consider it a serious candidate for the
foundations of QM.
Arnold Neumaier