- Cuchulainn
**Posts:**60457**Joined:****Location:**Amsterdam-
**Contact:**

removed

Last edited by Cuchulainn on March 29th, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

http://www.datasimfinancial.com

http://www.datasim.nl

Approach your problem from the right end and begin with the answers. Then one day, perhaps you will find the final question..

R. van Gulik

http://www.datasim.nl

Approach your problem from the right end and begin with the answers. Then one day, perhaps you will find the final question..

R. van Gulik

QuoteOriginally posted by: MikeCroweQuoteOriginally posted by: NThe bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap. It's just an artifact of math-challenged physicists doing their work in Hilbert space.Jan Dash (or any physics dude), try to prove me wrong!I say those trained as quants are better at physics than physicists...Just supposing that you have managed to develop a new theory to replace quantum mechanics. Let's start small and ask for your explanation of the two slit experiment, without using de Broglie (which is a part of the uncertainty principle).Mike,That's the perfect question. It seems like a small question, and it is! The answer is string theory, and the math is fairly easy. I solved the problem using at least five different methods. In fact, I was even able to show how uncertaintly emerges when quantum mechanical transforms were used. BUT... right now the explaination gives away a little too much math (including the solution to the Riemann conjecture).Perhaps someday,N

- phenomenologist
**Posts:**97**Joined:**

QuoteOriginally posted by: NQuote ...explanation of the two slit experiment: The answer is string theory, and the math is fairly easy. I solved the problem using at least five different methods. In fact, I was even able to show how uncertaintly emerges when quantum mechanical transforms were used. BUT... right now the explaination gives away a little too much math (including the solution to the Riemann conjecture).Perhaps someday,NROTFLMAO

QuoteOriginally posted by: zetanot bloody likely, Nz,RC... It was a chip shot. A cake walk. All l-functions are like that. I just love polynomials. N

- GrenvilleCroll
**Posts:**357**Joined:**

QuoteOriginally posted by: NQuoteOriginally posted by: zetanot bloody likely, Nz,RC... It was a chip shot. A cake walk. All l-functions are like that. I just love polynomials. NHe's blagging about it being easy, but I wouldnt put it past him.N reminds me of Ramanujan (but without the modesty). Whereas Andrew Wiles had to work his ass off for seven years, I think N just sees it, much as Ramanujan did.I just hope he doesnt get run over by a bus before spilling the beans on the RH and the other puzzles to which he has inside info.If you are up for it N (and anyone else interested of course), you are welcome to submit a paper for presentation at the next (28th) annual meeting of the Alternative Natural Philosophy Association at Wesley College, Cambridge in August this year. PM me for submission details.

Last edited by GrenvilleCroll on March 30th, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

QuoteOriginally posted by: phenomenologistI guess you are going to hear all this old crap about hidden parameters, the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave model etcThe Two-Slit ExperimentNot to mention Bell's inequality and quantum entanglement. The quote by Tolstoy is good though:Quote[I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the highest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their livesNow there's a man who really knows a thing or two.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NThe answer is string theory, and the math is fairly easy. So let me get the straight - you are saying that UP is incorrect, but String Theory is? I thought String Theory still had UP?!? Am I wrong?If you resort to String Theory (and it does not have UP), aren't you trying to eliminate one problem, but bringing up a load of others (e.g. number of dimensions, the absolute frame of reference etc).I have yet to see experimental evidence for String Theory model of the world, where QM is pretty conclusive.

QuoteOriginally posted by: NQuoteOriginally posted by: MikeCroweQuoteOriginally posted by: NThe bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap. It's just an artifact of math-challenged physicists doing their work in Hilbert space.Jan Dash (or any physics dude), try to prove me wrong!I say those trained as quants are better at physics than physicists...Just supposing that you have managed to develop a new theory to replace quantum mechanics. Let's start small and ask for your explanation of the two slit experiment, without using de Broglie (which is a part of the uncertainty principle).Mike,That's the perfect question. It seems like a small question, and it is! The answer is string theory, and the math is fairly easy. I solved the problem using at least five different methods. In fact, I was even able to show how uncertaintly emerges when quantum mechanical transforms were used. BUT... right now the explaination gives away a little too much math (including the solution to the Riemann conjecture).Perhaps someday,NOk, fair enough, if I had a solution like that a forum is the last place I'd publish, and anyway most journals wouldn't allow it. But as you did start the thread, could we have a little insight into this thought experiment? The uncertainty principle, in this case, is simply manifest as the result that we cannot state which slit the particle went through. Does this mean that you are asserting that you can state with certainty which slit the particle went through, without effecting the interference pattern?

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxQuoteOriginally posted by: NThe answer is string theory, and the math is fairly easy. So let me get the straight - you are saying that UP is incorrect, but String Theory is? I thought String Theory still had UP?!? Am I wrong?If you resort to String Theory (and it does not have UP), aren't you trying to eliminate one problem, but bringing up a load of others (e.g. number of dimensions, the absolute frame of reference etc).I have yet to see experimental evidence for String Theory model of the world, where QM is pretty conclusive.String theory is correct and is deterministic, no UP. Generalized dimensions and frames are not problems, but the math is fairly robust. Again as I mentioned before there is a transform from strings to QM that requires time averaging; that's why QM looks pretty conclusive.

QuoteOriginally posted by: MikeCroweQuoteOriginally posted by: NQuoteOriginally posted by: MikeCroweQuoteOriginally posted by: NThe bedrock physics uncertainty principle is a bunch of crap. It's just an artifact of math-challenged physicists doing their work in Hilbert space.Jan Dash (or any physics dude), try to prove me wrong!I say those trained as quants are better at physics than physicists...Just supposing that you have managed to develop a new theory to replace quantum mechanics. Let's start small and ask for your explanation of the two slit experiment, without using de Broglie (which is a part of the uncertainty principle).Mike,That's the perfect question. It seems like a small question, and it is! The answer is string theory, and the math is fairly easy. I solved the problem using at least five different methods. In fact, I was even able to show how uncertaintly emerges when quantum mechanical transforms were used. BUT... right now the explaination gives away a little too much math (including the solution to the Riemann conjecture).Perhaps someday,NOk, fair enough, if I had a solution like that a forum is the last place I'd publish, and anyway most journals wouldn't allow it. But as you did start the thread, could we have a little insight into this thought experiment? The uncertainty principle, in this case, is simply manifest as the result that we cannot state which slit the particle went through. Does this mean that you are asserting that you can state with certainty which slit the particle went through, without effecting the interference pattern?Well yes, the particle always goes through both! There is no such thing as a point particle...

QuoteString theory is correct and is deterministic, no UP. Generalized dimensions and frames are not problems, but the math is fairly robust. Again as I mentioned before there is a transform from strings to QM that requires time averaging; that's why QM looks pretty conclusive.What do you mean by "Generalised Dimensions" - I thought M theory quest was trying to deceide on this number? Still thought that frame of ref. was an issue... but you are obviously closer to the detail (and maths) than myself.QuoteWell yes, the particle always goes through both! There is no such thing as a point particle...So string theory still doesn't get round the problem of observability? If I measure which slit the particle goes through, why do I only get one result under String theory?

QuoteOriginally posted by: rmaxQuoteString theory is correct and is deterministic, no UP. Generalized dimensions and frames are not problems, but the math is fairly robust. Again as I mentioned before there is a transform from strings to QM that requires time averaging; that's why QM looks pretty conclusive.What do you mean by "Generalised Dimensions" - I thought M theory quest was trying to deceide on this number? Still thought that frame of ref. was an issue... but you are obviously closer to the detail (and maths) than myself.QuoteWell yes, the particle always goes through both! There is no such thing as a point particle...So string theory still doesn't get round the problem of observability? If I measure which slit the particle goes through, why do I only get one result under String theory?The particle is a type of (fancy) wave and as a wave it goes through both slits. To observe it, you need to time-average or take the absolute value.

What do you mean by "Generalised Dimensions" - I thought M theory quest was trying to deceide on this number? Still thought that frame of ref. was an issue... but you are obviously closer to the detail (and maths) than myself.Strings describe the dynamics of Hamiltonian flows, no more - no less. I can't imagine what those M theory boys are doing.N reminds me of Ramanujan (but without the modesty).I was quite modest until I changed careers and became a wild and crazy quant!

QuoteOriginally posted by: NThe particle is a type of (fancy) wave and as a wave it goes through both slits. To observe it, you need to time-average or take the absolute value.But when I place my detector at a slit, I measure a single discrete event at one slit, and no on the other. I also no longer get a diffraction pattern on my screen, but get two spikes...

GZIP: On