Page **4** of **8**

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 26th, 2006, 11:59 pm**

by **TraderJoe**

QuoteOriginally posted by: NQuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: N>> I'm losing faith in physicistsI guess your prayer session for me last week didn't helpwe'll keep trying.pp,While we're on this off-topic of an off-topic... There are many beautiful old churches for sale. If I buy one, install automated trading infrastructure, and trade FX there, how many pips a day do you think that would be worth to me. I ask this because athletes pray before games to improve their chance of winning. I suspect the same should apply to financial trading. No?NYou may as well. It's random anyways.LTCM and other 22 sigma events - lest we forget (the Black Swans). Hey, good name for a band .

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 12:00 am**

by **TraderJoe**

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuotethat is what makes pure math the coolest thing on the earth : you dont have to deal with earthy things Indeed. The closest to maths is theology. Both work with a small number of immutable axioms. They have much in common.God = Math (Carl F. Gauss).

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 9:45 am**

by **RealIllusion**

There seems to be a lack of understanding of the Uncertainty Principle on this thread. The Uncertainty Principle is based on practical considerations - have a look at Heisenberg's original paper, which makes no mention of Hilbert Space. If the Uncertainty Principle is crap, why do you think that commercial organisations, including banks, are investing money in quantum cryptography systems, which depend for their efficacy on the U.P.?The U.P. actually provides a profound insight into the fundamental limitations about what we can know and predict about reality. In a classical world, if we have maximum possible knowledge about the initial conditions, then the outcomes of all subsequent measurements are in principle completely predictable. In a quantum world (such as ours, according to a vast amount of experimental evidence to staggerring levels of accuracy), even if we have the maximum possible knowledge about the state of a physical system, the outcomes of most of the possible measurements on that system will be unpredictable to some degree.

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 1:39 pm**

by **ppauper**

QuoteOriginally posted by: NThere are many beautiful old churches for sale. If I buy one, install automated trading infrastructure, and trade FX there, how many pips a day do you think that would be worth to me. He's more likely to smite you down for descecrating His house.Still, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 1:57 pm**

by **N**

QuoteOriginally posted by: RealIllusionThere seems to be a lack of understanding of the Uncertainty Principle on this thread. The Uncertainty Principle is based on practical considerations - have a look at Heisenberg's original paper, which makes no mention of Hilbert Space. If the Uncertainty Principle is crap, why do you think that commercial organisations, including banks, are investing money in quantum cryptography systems, which depend for their efficacy on the U.P.?The U.P. actually provides a profound insight into the fundamental limitations about what we can know and predict about reality. In a classical world, if we have maximum possible knowledge about the initial conditions, then the outcomes of all subsequent measurements are in principle completely predictable. In a quantum world (such as ours, according to a vast amount of experimental evidence to staggerring levels of accuracy), even if we have the maximum possible knowledge about the state of a physical system, the outcomes of most of the possible measurements on that system will be unpredictable to some degree.RealIllusion,First, the U.P. is seen in both the classical world and quantum world because it's simply an artifact of viewing a Hamiltonian system (classical or quantum). It isn't profound, it's just a singularity. If you average about the singularity, the problem is transformed from deterministic to a random problem, and one can then get measurements of ensembles with staggerring accuracy. As a classical problem, Navier-Stokes exhibits the U.P. But... It's a math limitation/error, there is no profound insight.Quantum computing uses four eigenvalues on the unit complex circle for a transform that generates prime numbers (actually, the four eigenvalues map by rotations to alternate primes and alternate evens) and they live on a 'Kahler' manifold. This implies quantum cryptography adds no value to existing cryptography techniques since the two are isomorphic to the primes.Let's get with it, it's the 21st Century.N

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 2:01 pm**

by **N**

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperQuoteOriginally posted by: NThere are many beautiful old churches for sale. If I buy one, install automated trading infrastructure, and trade FX there, how many pips a day do you think that would be worth to me. He's more likely to smite you down for descecrating His house.Still, "Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"Hey... I run a clean trading operation. No 4-letter words allowed.I guess 'smite down' means I should reverse long/short. Right?

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 3:38 pm**

by **RealIllusion**

N,FYI, quantum cryptography has got nothing to do with quantum computation. They are completely separate and independent processes. Quantum computation uses the resource of entanglement to provide an exponential speed-up for solving certain specific problems, in particular the factoring of large numbers. Quantum cryptography, in its original form, uses nonorthogonal quantum states, rather than entanglement, to guarantee detectability of eavesdroppers, via the uncertainity principle.In quantum cryptography, passive eavesdropping is impossible, which means that detection of any eavesdroppers is guaranteed. There is no classical cryptography scheme that can achieve this guarantee. That is why there is so much commercial interest in quantum cryptography.The uncertainty principle isn't an artifact, it's a fact. And it's practical application in quantum cryptography shows that it is very relevant in the 21st century.

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 7:53 pm**

by **N**

QuoteOriginally posted by: RealIllusionN,FYI, quantum cryptography has got nothing to do with quantum computation. They are completely separate and independent processes. Quantum computation uses the resource of entanglement to provide an exponential speed-up for solving certain specific problems, in particular the factoring of large numbers. Quantum cryptography, in its original form, uses nonorthogonal quantum states, rather than entanglement, to guarantee detectability of eavesdroppers, via the uncertainity principle.In quantum cryptography, passive eavesdropping is impossible, which means that detection of any eavesdroppers is guaranteed. There is no classical cryptography scheme that can achieve this guarantee. That is why there is so much commercial interest in quantum cryptography.The uncertainty principle isn't an artifact, it's a fact. And it's practical application in quantum cryptography shows that it is very relevant in the 21st century.RealIllusion,All this jazz is related applications for the mathematics of supersymmetry transformations. As far as quantum cryptography goes, it's not safe from Echelon, Muhahahaha...N

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 10:07 pm**

by **TraderJoe**

QuoteN: I'm losing faith in physicistsI wouldn't just yet .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Trader Monthly 100: The Top 10The highest-earning traders of 2005. By: Rich Blake , A.D. Barber , Robert LaFranco Issue: April/May 2006 , Page 69 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------RANK: 3 James SimonsCITY: East Setauket, New York FIRM: Renaissance Technologies Corp. AGE: 67 Jim Simons is a Euclid for our times: He has a Ph.D. in math from Berkeley, has won the prestigious Veblen Prize in geometry, taught at MIT and founded Math for America. Well, here are some numbers: $6 billion, as in Simon's assets under management at year end. Or how about 5-and-44, his notoriously stiff fee arrangement? Then, of course, there's $100 billion, the lofty target Simons has set for a net-long vehicle his firm recently started. Finally, there's the 28 percent return produced by his Medallion fund, which employs scientific models to predict price movements in commodities, currencies and equities. "Certain price patterns are non-random," the former code-breaker cryptically told The New York Times in a rare interview last November. He could be on to something: After all, Medallion has averaged more than 30 percent, net of fees, every year over the past decade and a half -- or three times as much as the S&P 500 index over the same period. Simons's hundreds of millions of dollars in charitable donations support everything from autism research to augmenting inner-city math teachers' salaries to atom-smashing Big Bang replication experiments at the Brookhaven National Lab. ESTIMATED INCOME: $900 MILLION $1 BILLION --------------------------------------------------------------------------------RANK: 8 David ShawCITY: New York FIRM: D.E. Shaw & Co. AGE: 55 Now one of the biggest hedge funds on the planet, D.E. Shaw, with assets of around $20 billion, used its quantitative approach to churn out returns of roughly 20 percent in 2005. With 3-and-30 fees, this revenue stream boggles the mind. It doesn't all go to chairman Shaw, but enough does to put him in elite company. In the months ahead, we expect Shaw will be grappling with the tricky task of meeting regulatory obligations while keeping his computer-driven statistical arbitrage techniques from falling into the wrong hands. ESTIMATED INCOME: $400 $500 MILLIONTraderdaily.com.

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 10:29 pm**

by **N**

TJ,Okay, Jim ain't bad, and he knows financial series aren't random, but he was only a full professor at MIT, and not a janitor. N

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 27th, 2006, 10:38 pm**

by **TraderJoe**

QuoteOriginally posted by: NTJ,Okay, Jim ain't bad, and he knows financial series aren't random, but he was only a full professor at MIT, and not a janitor. NI go for the underdog every time.

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 28th, 2006, 10:54 pm**

by **GrenvilleCroll**

QuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeI go for the underdog every time.Woof, Woof...."Chapter 1. Galois Field, Multidimensional Space and Differential Geometry[]1.2.3 Statistical basis for the reconciliation and the quantum conditionA practical approach to the reconciliation is provided by the statistical standpoint of practical observations. It is impossible within human capacity to distinguish between two incidents represented by consecutive natural numbers close to each other when they are sufficiently large, even if finite. By statistical smearing, the intervals where Galois field elements are described can appear as if continuously filled.Thus we have reached anASTOUNDING COINCIDENCE. Differential geometry is a product of reconciliation with uncertainty in Goedels sense on account of the statistical standpoint of practical observations.IN spite of the statistics, the uncertainty needs to be latent and revealed at any rate, how elaborately the description is made of epistemology of nature in terms of differential geometry. Above all, the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, involving Planck's constant h, is a natural consequence."Woof! Edit: added quotes, Ref [Anon] November 1997

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 29th, 2006, 9:10 pm**

by **TraderJoe**

QuoteOriginally posted by: GrenvilleCrollQuoteOriginally posted by: TraderJoeI go for the underdog every time.Woof, Woof...."Chapter 1. Galois Field, Multidimensional Space and Differential Geometry[]1.2.3 Statistical basis for the reconciliation and the quantum conditionA practical approach to the reconciliation is provided by the statistical standpoint of practical observations. It is impossible within human capacity to distinguish between two incidents represented by consecutive natural numbers close to each other when they are sufficiently large, even if finite. By statistical smearing, the intervals where Galois field elements are described can appear as if continuously filled.Thus we have reached anASTOUNDING COINCIDENCE. Differential geometry is a product of reconciliation with uncertainty in Goedels sense on account of the statistical standpoint of practical observations.IN spite of the statistics, the uncertainty needs to be latent and revealed at any rate, how elaborately the description is made of epistemology of nature in terms of differential geometry. Above all, the Uncertainty Principle in quantum mechanics, involving Planck's constant h, is a natural consequence."Woof! Edit: added quotes, Ref [Anon] November 1997Diff goemetry and Geodel's theorem used to derive the uncertainty principle. Where's the unified field theory Grenville? You oughta try your hand at M theory.

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 30th, 2006, 8:28 am**

by **MikeCrowe**

QuoteOriginally 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).

### I'm losing faith in physicists

Posted: **March 30th, 2006, 10:51 am**

by **phenomenologist**

I guess you are going to hear all this old crap about hidden parameters, the de Broglie-Bohm pilot-wave model etcThe Two-Slit Experiment