Recent content by jbergman

I have said similarly before. Barandes' formulation appears to not guarantee properties like continuity and localism.

I don't understand. Why can't you just post your work on a blog or github or YouTube? I have done this before and have good results. What specifically are you looking for?

One other interesting point was that Barandes disputes the idea of a universal wave function for the entire universe. He also views his formalism as describing smaller systems so it seems like he is far from endorsing this as a fundamental ontology as many want to understand QM.

Some of your points are valid, but, he introduces an entirely new set of problems. - Violation of locality. Particle paths are not necessarily continuous. - As Carroll points out, particle behaviors violate expectations of theories like E&M. At this point, there are so many contradictions...

Yes. From the interview he still says he doesn't have much intuition for the theory or have a fundamental ontology. At this point it's just an alternative mathematical formulation of QM which is interesting in and of itself. But it's still a long ways from being an interpretation but maybe this...

Thought this might be of interest for those following Barandes nee interpretation. Carroll always has pretty good interviews. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2025/07/28/323-jacob-barandes-on-indivisible-stochastic-quantum-mechanics/

BTW, I found an old thread that mentions your Lie Derivative approach. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/unraveling-diracs-general-relativity-equation.734239/ That's an interesting idea and seems correct. Still trying to wrap my head around it since we are dealing with a density induced...

Maybe, maybe not. I was aware of this part. Ok, this part, I was wondering whether ##b^r## was constant or not. I haven't read the book other than this section. Thanks for the clarification. That definitely renders my derivation invalid. I will see if I can salvage it. Look forward to it.

I read the passage around 27.4 and didn't understand Dirac's derivation either. I came up with the following. First we have an active transformation where we move each particle in the dust from $$z^{\mu} \rightarrow z^{\mu} + b^{\mu}$$ Then given this active transformation...

Can you say something about the key differences and benefits of the algebraic approach to quantum physics?

I don't think this is an easy question in general. Yhere is no magic answer. Every smooth manifold can be described as a quotient of patches of ##\mathbb R^n##. If this problem was mechanical then problems like the Poincare conjecture would be simple. Now if you just want to embed the quotient...

Nitpick, but a subspace for a module is called a submodule. Also, if you take a subspace of a vector space, that set will not be a sub-module and so you would need to take the span of that set as a module. But in general modules are tricky to work with so it isn't obvious to me that it even has...

I should dig into this paper but don't have the time. I did want to say that Bayesian networks have very strong markovian properties which his unistochastic processes don't have, so I am not sure what the analogy is here.

##f(ax+b)=(a,b)## and ##g(ax+b)=(b,a)## for example. When we think of polynomials there isn't really a natural sense in which coefficient should map to the 1st coordinate or the 2nd. Of course these choices don't matter. We could even choose something like ##h(ax+b) = (3a,b)##. Now if we have an...

If we are being pedantic a vector space is just a set with the additional structure that satisfies the axioms of a vector space. So we just need an abelian group structure on that set and a distributive multiplication of a field. The polynomials of max degree 1 with complex coefficients...