zoki85
- 1,198
- 231
"I've never made a mistake, I've only learned from experience."
-T.A.Edison
Demystifier said:All non-ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics are alike; each ontological interpretation is ontological in its own way.
- Hrvoje Nikolić (paraphrasing Tolstoy)
Nice quote! Here are some quotes from Paul Lockhart on a similar theme.Auto-Didact said:Algebra is the offer made by the devil to the mathematician. The devil says: 'I will give you this powerful machine, it will answer any question you like. All you need to do is give me your soul: give up geometry and you will have this marvellous machine.'
- Sir Michael Atiyah
Can you give the reference? I would like to see the technical details.Auto-Didact said:Thus the combination Hamiltonian formalism, complex structure and projective structure is sufficient to deduce the Schr¨odinger dynamics, for all possible phase space dimensions. Unlike the usual axiomatization of QM, Hilbert space is now a consequence.
- K.R.W. Jones
Just google "The Schrödinger equation from three postulates, Jones"Demystifier said:Can you give the reference? I would like to see the technical details.
It seems that the paper has been submitted to MPLA, but has never been published in a journal.DanielMB said:Just google "The Schrödinger equation from three postulates, Jones"
You are right, it could be traced to the proceedings of a 1994 conference in Adelaide, Australia, but I couldn't find its publication in a journalDemystifier said:It seems that the paper has been submitted to MPLA, but has never been published in a journal.
But some of those results he published as a part of another paper:DanielMB said:You are right, it could be traced to the proceedings of a 1994 conference in Adelaide, Australia, but I couldn't find its publication in a journal
Here is Jones' list of publications:Demystifier said:But some of those results he published as a part of another paper:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003491684710700?via=ihub
Can you please explain it.BillTre said:So is biological taxonomy.
There used to be few named species and the naming was not very organized (or systematized).Hemant said:Can you please explain it.
I think it is because every organism is interrelated.
Plot twist:- he got Nobel prize in chemistry.Auto-Didact said:All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
-- Rutherford
Demystifier said:All non-ontological interpretations of quantum mechanics are alike; each ontological interpretation is ontological in its own way.
- Hrvoje Nikolić (paraphrasing Tolstoy)
.TEP-1 does not deserve to be called a paradox (and certainly not an unresolved paradox, as many writers in philosophy still insist on claiming): it is merely an example of a screwed-up probability calculation
A far out super smart guy but that quote is pure DeepakAlexCaledin said:
I'd like to know more. Any help?Ivan Seeking said:I thought I was at PF. But after reading the posts here I'm thinking I've stumbled into a Tao of Physics forum.
The last guest lecture I attended in college was given by a visiting professor who proved that useful [structured] information can do work. I have always suspected this is the new frontier.
I need to be careful. I don't know the state of this school of thought. But the claim was that this explains the Maxwell's Demon paradox.Hornbein said:I'd like to know more. Any help?
Ivan Seeking said:I thought I was at PF. But after reading the posts here I'm thinking I've stumbled into a Tao of Physics forum.![]()
Yes but it sends most physicists into fits.arivero said:Wait, does such thing exist?
See alsoHornbein said:I'd like to know more. Any help?
arivero said:Wait, does such thing exist? The author was very disappointed, I think, after an interview with Chew.
There was also a movie... in fact two movies.Ivan Seeking said:
Do they actually read it? It is mostly a divulgative text on strong force as understood in the sixties, lot of flavour but not colours. The title is an obvious reference to the original theory of strings, which at that time was named "dual theory of hadrons". The chapter about "hinduism" is an attempt to support Chew's "nuclear democracy", one of the arguments of the bootstrap.Ivan Seeking said:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
― Max Planck
BillTre,BillTre said:The idea was elaborated upon by Thomas Kuhn, a science historian/philosopher, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
His major premise was that paradigms were concepts underlying a current understanding of a scientific field.
They provided a standard way to look at things and evaluate results in times of normal science.
However, during times of "crisis" when explanations, for some people, were not up to explaining things in the field, alternative paradigms would arise to explain that which was not being explained satisfactorily.
Since not everyone was in agreement, there will be disagreements.
Some of the people holding to the ideas might not change their minds, but not be convincing to those with the newer way of thinking of things. Their views would vanish from active science when they died off.
Many scientists like this because history and much of their scientific experience seems to support his basic idea.