Re: QM formalist wanted

2005-07-05 Thread Eric Cavalcanti
On 7/5/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 hi all. I am posting a want ad for a QM formalist who is
 very conversant in the mathematical formalism. here is the proposal:
 
 over the last few years I have developed an ad hoc theory that
 I believe comes very close to the QM formalism. this theory is
 classical  local. it is very easily visualized  the mathematics

How do you overcome the fact that local realistic theories are shown
not to be able to reproduce the predictions of QM? Or is this what you 
mean by very close? Without entanglement, I'd say that it's not close
enough. In fact, it has been shown already that one can derive many
of the counterintuitive features of QM from a classical description.

Eric.



QM formalist wanted

2005-07-04 Thread vznuri

hi all. I am posting a want ad for a QM formalist who is
very conversant in the mathematical formalism. here is the proposal:

over the last few years I have developed an ad hoc theory that
I believe comes very close to the QM formalism. this theory is
classical  local. it is very easily visualized  the mathematics
is quite elementary yet its deeper implications are compelling  I believe,
beyond the scope of existing conventional thought. 

it is not widely appreciated/understood/realized/known
at all how close a classical theory can come to matching virtually ALL
the formaliism of QM.

an easy way to visualize it is as follows. it is similar to t'hoofts
new theory about SHOs (see quant-ph archives) although 
I initially developed it independently.

imagine a set of detectors and emitters for sound. the emitters
are just speakers that vary perfectly sinusoidally. the detectors
are simply DIGITIZERS. the theory arises completely 
naturally from considering the behavior  dynamics
of the most sensitive bit of the digitizers, the LSB. the emitters
are analogous to particles in QM.

much more elaboration on the specifics 
in the archives of my group, qm2 @ yahoogroups.com. Ive mostly focused
on interpretation, not so much the formalism.


the mission for the formalist mathematician, should you accept it:

I have written scientific papers before alone but would prefer a 
collaboration. I would like to work with someone who has written
a scientific paper. an online collaboration.

I will outline the full contents of the paper very carefully, 
all the conceptual level details. 
we will work thru it together. you will get all the
nitty gritty mathematics correct, and boil it down into something
extremely elegant but missing most of the mind-numbing complexity
of most existing QM papers-- something that can be readily understood
by a gifted undergraduate. 

you will function as the scribe, compiler
 secretary outside of the cases where I will be depending on your 
specific talent for getting the formalism precisely right.

the key requirement on your part is an excellent understanding of 
the wavefn as it operates uniquely 
in both classical and QM systems-- something
that is (imho) surprisingly lacking in existing literature  mass
physicist consciousness. 

also needed, the desire to advance scientific knowledge
to where no one has gone before  solve the intensely perplexing
problems that have defied a century's greatest minds. 

and, intense focus that can be carried over a long period of time.  
motivated by nothing else but curiosity  shere intellectual/scientific 
conquest.

finally, desire to communicate a critical discovery in the most
efficient and lucid way possible.

if you know anyone of this type, plz pass along this post  have
them contact me.

(otherwise I will just have to do it all myself in a bit more time, wink)

tx very much