I just looked at *Theory of Nothing* on
Amazonhttp://www.amazon.com/Theory-Nothing-Russell-Standish/dp/1921019638.
Two very nice reviews. Amazon's Look Inside doesn't show much, but the
book looks very much worth reading. The Introduction talks
about Schrodinger's cat. It had never occurred to me
And speaking of multiverses, this was just published on the Scientific
American
websitehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe
.
*In the August issue of*Scientific American,* cosmologist George Ellis
describes why he's skeptical about the
Russ,
That was actually a very good article! I remain amongst those skeptical that
one can really test the theory, but it is nice to see the theory explained such
a straightforward way, and to know there are people making solid attempts to
test it.
One major cop-out / overtly-overstated-claim
I expected this to have more of an impact than it seems to be having. What
am I missing?
*-- Russ Abbott*
*_*
*** Professor, Computer Science*
* California State University, Los Angeles*
* Google voice: 747-*999-5105
* blog:
Russ,
I had the same feeling about my recent missive - entitled Uncertainty
vs Information - redux and resolution - in which I too make various
claims about information theory. I believe I had only one response -
from Eric. I expected more, maybe from Owen and Frank and yourself.
The APS
As a universal layman, with a BS in physics and history from MIT in
1964, I have always been keenly interested as to the actual deep
meaning of quantum theory.
Can someone give a simple dynamic geometrical model which can embody
these axioms, fleshing out their abstract meanings in a simple way,
Of course, I published a paper in 2004 (Why Occams Razor) doing
essentially the same thing (I expanded on this somewhat in my 2006
book, Theory of Nothing).
I would also say, that Lucien Hardy did something similar in 2001
(Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms). Also, there have been
other
Exciting, Russ. I've downloaded your 2004 paper
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0001020v6, and will take a look.
Thanks,
Grant
On 7/26/11 3:16 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Of course, I published a paper in 2004 (Why Occams Razor) doing
essentially the same thing (I expanded on this somewhat in my
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/332557/title/Quantum_theory_gets_physical
Quantum theory gets physical
New work finds physical basis for quantum mechanics
By Devin Powell
Web edition : Tuesday, July 19th, 2011
Physicists in Canada and Italy have derived quantum mechanics from
