RE: I am not sure that QT is the ultimate theory of all things, but I think the effort is worth doing it, since we hardly have anything else to step on now.I invite all those interested in this endeavor to join hands!
ME: Speaking as a theoretical physicist with 45 years experience and deep interests in the foundations of physics and the origins of quantum theory, I should like to comment that to really understand quantum theory so as to see how to patch up its faults is not easy, and requires many years study in many different subfields. It requires deep knowledge and understanding of all of the following subfields; 1. The Copenhagen interpretation as fully expressed by Henry Stapp. 2. John Von Neumann's formulation, together with its limitations. 3. The Many Worlds (Princeton) interpretation as most recently promoted by Tegmark. 4. Einstein's objections as expressed in the EPR paradox, and 5. David Bohm's program of hidden variables to support Einstein, and 6. Bell's Theorem to experimentally distinguish Bohr;s and Bohm's approaches. 7. Aspect's experiments (and Clauser's preceding it) showing that Bohr was right. 8. Bernard D'Espagnat's important contributions, especially the Theorem for which he received the Templeton prize - physical reality is not 'strongly objective' on either macroscopic or microscopic levels. 9. All the debate initiated by Gell-Man and others on how wave-functions collapse. and what happens to quantum correlations that are generated. 10. David Deutsch's theory of quantum information. 11. Anton Zeilinger's use of quantum fluctuations for 'quantum teleportation' 12. The quantum theory of open systems by ECG (George) Sudarshan and others, the inherent limitations of their approach and its possible resolution. 13. The debates on the relationship between quantum theory and classical physics, the shortcomings of Bohr's Correspondence Principle and how to overcome them. I should hate to say that this is a field for specialists, because I truly believe that non-experts can often cut through the Gordian knot in the middle of a field, simply because they have not adopted the world view of the experts in following the debates for decades up to that point, and are therefore not indoctrinated with a paradigm that in fact needs updating - often not obvious to those in the field itself. But like most advanced scientific fields there is a lot to digest! (And my own views are radical, and almost as violent as the victor's approach to the Gordian Knot itself!) -- Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.) Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science, SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 ____________________________________________________________ 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
