Davy

Proving quantum mechanics wrong

Recommended Posts

Dennis,

I see now what the major issue is here. It is in the interpretation of "probability." In the classical sense, probability implies hidden knowledge -- information that the observer lacks, but could collect if they spent enough time at it. The underlying metaphysical assumption here is that the process is deterministic and the observer just doesn't have all the facts (but could). In the Born sense, there is no hidden knowledge...at least not in the sense of anything knowable. The probability is inherent in the metaphysics. The observer has all the facts, but can't avoid the probability because it is essential.

In both cases, the probability looks the same to the observer, since it is either essential or the observer doesn't have all the facts. That is what I meant by "fundamental probabilistic behavior" and it was careless on my part. Check out his video to see the experimental proof that things at least look probabilistic --

The uncertainty principles prevent us from ever reaching an experimental precision which would allow us to refute the essential probability view, so the only recourse for settling the question is rigorous analysis of the metaphysics. (*Note: the uncertainty principle comes from the mathematics and has nothing to do with calling a particular mathematical object a "probability").

Since you think the deterministic approach is right, would you care to offer a metaphysical counter-example to the essential probability view? Perhaps we can work it out here (or in a new Metaphysics thread). I'd be more than willing to play devil's advocate and take the essential probability view, for argument's sake.

--Andrew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flaw in von Neumann's proof had been previously discovered by Grete Hermann in 1935, but did not become common knowledge until rediscovered by Bell.

A tragedy of the first magnitude that von Neumann's error was not widely discussed starting in 1935. Many people continue to this day to mistakenly believe that there is some proof that quantum mechanics is probablistic or indeterministic. People who should know better repeat the error continually - reinforcing 3 generations of error compounded upon error.

Dennis May

Even so, quantum physics brings home the results. Predictions which have not yet been falsified. The touchstone of good science is two fold (1) internal consistency - Hilbert Space is internally consistent mathemtics and (2) correct predictions --- in the case of the Standard Model of Fields and Particles predictions good to 12 decimal places. No rival theory has come even close.

A theory that so so right that often cannot be very wrong.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The good results of quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the issue of a probablistic or indeterministic interpretation of those results. I can't count how many times I have seen that implication made.

As to internal consistency - several interpretations of QM are internally consistent and produce the same results. A probablistic or indeterministic interpretation cannot in principle be internally consistent with deterministic theories such as General or Special Relativity. It is my view that a new QM, new gravitational theory, and a replacement for Special Relativity are all required. It is also my view that a new deterministic QM will form the foundation of all three.

Compartmentalization of internal consistency prevents progress - internal consistency across disciplines is required.

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I see now what the major issue is here. It is in the interpretation of "probability." In the classical sense, probability implies hidden knowledge -- information that the observer lacks, but could collect if they spent enough time at it. The underlying metaphysical assumption here is that the process is deterministic and the observer just doesn't have all the facts (but could). In the Born sense, there is no hidden knowledge...at least not in the sense of anything knowable. The probability is inherent in the metaphysics. The observer has all the facts, but can't avoid the probability because it is essential.

In both cases, the probability looks the same to the observer, since it is either essential or the observer doesn't have all the facts. That is what I meant by "fundamental probabilistic behavior" and it was careless on my part. Check out his video to see the experimental proof that things at least look probabilistic --

The uncertainty principles prevent us from ever reaching an experimental precision which would allow us to refute the essential probability view, so the only recourse for settling the question is rigorous analysis of the metaphysics. (*Note: the uncertainty principle comes from the mathematics and has nothing to do with calling a particular mathematical object a "probability").

Since you think the deterministic approach is right, would you care to offer a metaphysical counter-example to the essential probability view? Perhaps we can work it out here (or in a new Metaphysics thread). I'd be more than willing to play devil's advocate and take the essential probability view, for argument's sake.

--Andrew

Probability is any mathematical function defined on sets that satisfies the axioms for probability. It is a mathematical notion. It has been given a physical interpretation. The squares of eigenvalues of Hermite Operators satisfy the axioms for probabilities.

Schroedinger tried to given the actions of quanta a wave interpretation. It did not quite work. Max Born gave the probabilistic interpretation. That one stuck.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good results of quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the issue of a probablistic or indeterministic interpretation of those results. I can't count how many times I have seen that implication made.

Who gives a damn? The predictions are correct. Richard Feynman didn't give a damn and he said so on many occasions. Interpretations are Dreck. Empirical results are Golden. Anything that produces computers and modern technology is not to be denigrated or despised. Very few Real Physicists do philosophy. Do you know why? Their productive lifetime is short and they do not wish to waste their time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I see now what the major issue is here. It is in the interpretation of "probability." In the classical sense, probability implies hidden knowledge -- information that the observer lacks, but could collect if they spent enough time at it. The underlying metaphysical assumption here is that the process is deterministic and the observer just doesn't have all the facts (but could). In the Born sense, there is no hidden knowledge...at least not in the sense of anything knowable. The probability is inherent in the metaphysics. The observer has all the facts, but can't avoid the probability because it is essential.

In both cases, the probability looks the same to the observer, since it is either essential or the observer doesn't have all the facts. That is what I meant by "fundamental probabilistic behavior" and it was careless on my part. Check out his video to see the experimental proof that things at least look probabilistic --

The uncertainty principles prevent us from ever reaching an experimental precision which would allow us to refute the essential probability view, so the only recourse for settling the question is rigorous analysis of the metaphysics. (*Note: the uncertainty principle comes from the mathematics and has nothing to do with calling a particular mathematical object a "probability").

Since you think the deterministic approach is right, would you care to offer a metaphysical counter-example to the essential probability view? Perhaps we can work it out here (or in a new Metaphysics thread). I'd be more than willing to play devil's advocate and take the essential probability view, for argument's sake.

--Andrew

The Uncertainty Principle is not as clear cut as stated in the classroom. Beginning in 1987 and several times since I have read of or known of other people doing work in this area including one of my friends in graduate school and myself. Here are a few recent links:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/1170

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110602143159.htm

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46284

Previous work dating back to the 80's showed that earlier views of the uncertainty principle were unnecessarily restrictive and often incorrectly applied. Some astronomical applications and propogation of E&M fields in sub-wavelength cavities have lead to useful applications previously thought impossible because of incorrect application of the uncertainty principle.

Deterministic QM embraces classical probability theory as do many branches of physics - such as classical thermodynamics. There is no basis for assuming there is any acausal probablity involved.

It would be very important for you to understand the fundamental nature of the work of Gregory S. Duane which proved that classical mechanics can form the foundation of QM - much against the wrong assumptions set in motion since the mistakes of von Neumann so long ago [and philtophical assumptions of most early QM workers].

Duane, G.S., 2001: Violation of Bell’s inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353.

Duane, G.S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor.

Phys., 44, 1917-1932.

Duane does not address the issue directly but his work also forms the foundation of the mechanical explanation of "guiding waves" in de Broglie - Bohm mechanics.

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Stephen.

Ba'al, do you think that philosophy and physics should be competing with each other? That they are mutually exclusive?

They intersect on certain mathematical issues. Philosophy is a waste of time because of its non-empirical character. Philosophy is about the a priori. Do you really think we can up up with the Cosmos by merely picking our brains? I don't. If it ain't empirical it is either nonsense or word games.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The good results of quantum mechanics has nothing to say about the issue of a probablistic or indeterministic interpretation of those results. I can't count how many times I have seen that implication made.

Who gives a damn? The predictions are correct. Richard Feynman didn't give a damn and he said so on many occasions. Interpretations are Dreck. Empirical results are Golden. Anything that produces computers and modern technology is not to be denigrated or despised. Very few Real Physicists do philosophy. Do you know why? Their productive lifetime is short and they do not wish to waste their time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Richard Feynman was a big supporter of the indeterministic interpretation and like Bohr made a very big issue of it. His lectures on the issue were the undergraduate teaching standard on the issue and even tainted my undergraduate education when I was forced to publicaly argue with one of my main professors over the issue. The same problem appeared again twice in graduate school with the wrong but commonly assumed proof of von Neumann still alive long after it was logically dead. If only the Orthodoxy were not still pushing an incorrect philosophical interpretation based on dead proofs. I don't see well known researcher repeating the lie any more [stopped a few years after Bell died] but clearly it is still being repeated in the classroom to this day.

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew, your perspectives are right-on and fresh air.

Indeed, “Baal” (Bob Kolker) changed the subject from von Neumann’s Spectral Theorem to von Neumann’s attempt to prove the impossibility of hidden-variable explanations.

I was wondering if the YouTube video you show in #76 is a simulation or a display of a physical demonstration. I recall a similar report of watching the emerging pattern of X-ray photons on a photographic plate in Messiah’s QM book decades ago. I always have that picture in mind when I think of Born interference of probabilities. Very beautiful.

I have studied von Plato’s book Creating Modern Probability. From that conceptual history and from all my other studies, I concluded that interference of probabilities is not contained in the mathematics of probability, rather, its source is physics. Mathematical probability is instanced in physics, of course, but physics in quantum regimes is adding the interference modulations. I note that even classical mathematical probability comes without specifying uniquely its physical and epistemological situation in physical applications (Jetton 1994).

I was curious if by now you have already studied partial differential equations. Also very beautiful. Have you covered classical electrodynamics at the level of Jackson yet, or is that later?

Stephen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After mulling the deBroglie-Bohm style interpretation around for a bit (and taking some final exams :o), I have some comments on it. First, I want to state the general idea so that we can make sure we're all on the same page and I'm not misunderstanding it. Instead of the wavefunction being the "particle," there is instead a point particle being transported around by a wave whose shape is given by the wavefunction.

If that's all correct, then there is a problem with energy transfer. If the "particle" in the traditional picture has 1MeV of kinetic energy, then in the dBB picture, the point particle will have to have the energy, since otherwise a spot appearing on a screen in a double slit experiment would not be explainable. But then what is the pilot wave? Waves are disturbances and so must carry energy. If they were disturbances which didn't have a different energy than the system without the wave, then you can't rightfully call them disturbances. So where did this energy come from in the dBB picture?

What created the disturbance and gave the wave its energy? Is there just a sea of energy-carrying waves filling the universe that we can't tap into, except to see their effects on point particles they've transported around? What is the nature of the interaction between the particle and the wave -- can they transfer energy between each other? If they can, then can you ever observe the change in energy of the particle? If they can't, then there is no interaction, so how does the wave move the particle around?

Also, this criticism is particularly damning, because it shows how the dBB picture is essentially a "many-worlds" interpretation -- and for there to be "many-worlds" none of which we can interact with at all except our own is a contradiction in terms. Existence is a mutually interacting set of things and something which cannot interact with anything cannot exist!

--Andrew

P.S. - Stephen, I think the video is of an actual demonstration, since the narrator refers to a monitor showing the pattern. Also, E&M with Jackson is next term...I can't wait. :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
After mulling the deBroglie-Bohm style interpretation around for a bit (and taking some final exams :o), I have some comments on it. First, I want to state the general idea so that we can make sure we're all on the same page and I'm not misunderstanding it. Instead of the wavefunction being the "particle," there is instead a point particle being transported around by a wave whose shape is given by the wavefunction. If that's all correct, then there is a problem with energy transfer. If the "particle" in the traditional picture has 1MeV of kinetic energy, then in the dBB picture, the point particle will have to have the energy, since otherwise a spot appearing on a screen in a double slit experiment would not be explainable. But then what is the pilot wave? Waves are disturbances and so must carry energy. If they were disturbances which didn't have a different energy than the system without the wave, then you can't rightfully call them disturbances. So where did this energy come from in the dBB picture? What created the disturbance and gave the wave its energy? Is there just a sea of energy-carrying waves filling the universe that we can't tap into, except to see their effects on point particles they've transported around? What is the nature of the interaction between the particle and the wave -- can they transfer energy between each other? If they can, then can you ever observe the change in energy of the particle? If they can't, then there is no interaction, so how does the wave move the particle around? Also, this criticism is particularly damning, because it shows how the dBB picture is essentially a "many-worlds" interpretation -- and for there to be "many-worlds" none of which we can interact with at all except our own is a contradiction in terms. Existence is a mutually interacting set of things and something which cannot interact with anything cannot exist! --Andrew P.S. - Stephen, I think the video is of an actual demonstration, since the narrator refers to a monitor showing the pattern. Also, E&M with Jackson is next term...I can't wait. :unsure:

The original Bohmian Mechanics description [or de Broglie earlier] does not describe a physical mechanism for the guiding waves to guide quantum particles – I am not aware of any real progress in that respect - except my own work from 1990 and continuing and the implications of the work of Gregory S. Duane.

The first thing you need to look into is the work of Gregory S. Duane:

Duane, G.S., 2001: Violation of Bell’s inequality in synchronized hyperchaos, Found. Phys. Lett., 14, 341-353.

Duane, G.S., 2005: Quantum nonlocality from synchronized chaos, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 44, 1917-1932.

I would ignore Duane’s theorizing about possible mechanisms for Supraluminal signaling.

I assumed the correctness of Duane’s results in my work beginning in 1990 – 11 years before his proof.

In the way I have modeled Bohmian-Like mechanics the waves act perpendicularly to the motion of the moving particles - thus guiding - but not imparting energy. Instead of a type of “Many-World’s” selection process the guiding waves only “see” or act upon a particular particle because [as explained in the work of Duane] complex objects [hyperchaotic] do in fact selectively interact with other similar or identical objects through synchronization. In the case of a double slit experiment the particle is interacting with the plate as it travels and the guiding waves are reflections of its internal complexity imprinted upon the plate and re-emitted for it to interact with as it travels. The imprinting is a supraluminal process – the guiding wave reflections/emissions are luminal process. There is no net energy transfer involved in the linear QM process – much like a static magnetic field bending the path of a free electron but imparting no energy.

I agree a first glance at standard de Broglie-Bohm mechanics leaves much unanswered - but less so than the collapse of a probability wave function to spontaneously localize a particle across all of space.

I can attempt to clarify more if you are interested. This is my interpretation and I am not aware of anyone else discussing an actual mechanism.

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the cash value of your theory. Have you made a prediction that is experimentally corroborated that the standard theory does not? What is the value added of your theory?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is the cash value of your theory. Have you made a prediction that is experimentally corroborated that the standard theory does not? What is the value added of your theory? Ba'al Chatzaf

In the free market the cash value of any theory is whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

The theory provides explanations for a number of things orthodox physics has not and the Big Bang theory has already failed to explain.

Highlights:

The 1959-2011 attempt to use General Relativity plus Dark Matter to explain the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies failed with the revelation that impossible statistical mechanics are required to make the numbers work. My two component theory of gravity based on QM carriers provides a MOND-like result with a physical explanation.

The orthodox explanation of the CMBR fails to explain asymmetric results, incorrect lensing of the CBMR, shadowing of the CMBR, shadows filling with distance [and filling in differently at different frequency ranges], and a QM frequency profile for the CMBR better than would be expected given the Big Bang time frame of when it was supposed to be generated. My theory explains all of these failures – the CMBR is a non-linear QM spontaneous supraluminal thermalization as allowed in a Gregory S. Duane view of the foundations of QM.

My theory also allows a mechanism for diffuse backgrounds of high and low energy particles and radio noise which has failed to be explained by orthodox theory. The existence of some of those high energy particles cannot be explained at all in current theory.

If the neutrino - barely supraluminal - speed observations hold up – a physical mechanism for such an effect was already part of the theory going back to 1990.

The failure of the Big Bang theory to correctly predict the apparent angular size of distant galaxies and the old chemical compositions of distant galaxies is explained.

Overall it is a theory very different than orthodox physics and cosmology.

If anyone wants a hardcopy of my last big update [3 years ago] I have 9 copies left [for free]. Just send me your USPS address [to dennislmay@yahoo.com] and I will mail you a copy. I have started working on another updated version but it is far from being done. It is a short book summarizing some of the work and providing references.

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory provides explanations for a number of things orthodox physics has not and the Big Bang theory has already failed to explain.

Highlights:

The 1959-2011 attempt to use General Relativity plus Dark Matter to explain the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies failed with the revelation that impossible statistical mechanics are required to make the numbers work. My two component theory of gravity based on QM carriers provides a MOND-like result with a physical explanation.

The orthodox explanation of the CMBR fails to explain asymmetric results, incorrect lensing of the CBMR, shadowing of the CMBR, shadows filling with distance [and filling in differently at different frequency ranges], and a QM frequency profile for the CMBR better than would be expected given the Big Bang time frame of when it was supposed to be generated. My theory explains all of these failures – the CMBR is a non-linear QM spontaneous supraluminal thermalization as allowed in a Gregory S. Duane view of the foundations of QM.

My theory also allows a mechanism for diffuse backgrounds of high and low energy particles and radio noise which has failed to be explained by orthodox theory. The existence of some of those high energy particles cannot be explained at all in current theory.

If the neutrino - barely supraluminal - speed observations hold up – a physical mechanism for such an effect was already part of the theory going back to 1990.

The failure of the Big Bang theory to correctly predict the apparent angular size of distant galaxies and the old chemical compositions of distant galaxies is explained.

Overall it is a theory very different than orthodox physics and cosmology.

If anyone wants a hardcopy of my last big update [3 years ago] I have 9 copies left [for free]. Just send me your USPS address [to dennislmay@yahoo.com] and I will mail you a copy. I have started working on another updated version but it is far from being done. It is a short book summarizing some of the work and providing references.

Dennis May

Have you published and has it been peer reviewed?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory provides explanations for a number of things orthodox physics has not and the Big Bang theory has already failed to explain.

Highlights:

The 1959-2011 attempt to use General Relativity plus Dark Matter to explain the velocity profiles of spiral galaxies failed with the revelation that impossible statistical mechanics are required to make the numbers work. My two component theory of gravity based on QM carriers provides a MOND-like result with a physical explanation.

The orthodox explanation of the CMBR fails to explain asymmetric results, incorrect lensing of the CBMR, shadowing of the CMBR, shadows filling with distance [and filling in differently at different frequency ranges], and a QM frequency profile for the CMBR better than would be expected given the Big Bang time frame of when it was supposed to be generated. My theory explains all of these failures – the CMBR is a non-linear QM spontaneous supraluminal thermalization as allowed in a Gregory S. Duane view of the foundations of QM.

My theory also allows a mechanism for diffuse backgrounds of high and low energy particles and radio noise which has failed to be explained by orthodox theory. The existence of some of those high energy particles cannot be explained at all in current theory.

If the neutrino - barely supraluminal - speed observations hold up – a physical mechanism for such an effect was already part of the theory going back to 1990.

The failure of the Big Bang theory to correctly predict the apparent angular size of distant galaxies and the old chemical compositions of distant galaxies is explained.

Overall it is a theory very different than orthodox physics and cosmology.

If anyone wants a hardcopy of my last big update [3 years ago] I have 9 copies left [for free]. Just send me your USPS address [to dennislmay@yahoo.com] and I will mail you a copy. I have started working on another updated version but it is far from being done. It is a short book summarizing some of the work and providing references.

Dennis May

Have you published and has it been peer reviewed?

Ba'al Chatzaf

An early work was my undergraduate thesis and was published in the University of Nebraska Press [1984], a later version was to be my graduate thesis - I sent out to several journals and corresponded with Jean-Pierre Vigier about it but the Gregory S. Duane proof did not exist yet so my work in guiding waves was not understood at the time and I was not able to publish it [1991-1992 time frame]. I have only self published and corresponded with interested parties since that time. The body of work is too large and interconnected to be presented in a conventional journal. Properly fleshed out it would require a number of tomes. I have not found anyone to properly correspond with since Vigier and have a very low opinon of existing journal options.

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An early work was my undergraduate thesis and was published in the University of Nebraska Press [1984], a later version was to be my graduate thesis - I sent out to several journals and corresponded with Jean-Pierre Vigier about it but the Gregory S. Duane proof did not exist yet so my work in guiding waves was not understood at the time and I was not able to publish it [1991-1992 time frame]. I have only self published and corresponded with interested parties since that time. The body of work is too large and interconnected to be presented in a conventional journal. Properly fleshed out it would require a number of tomes. I have not found anyone to properly correspond with since Vigier and have a very low opinon of existing journal options.

Dennis May

Get a sponsor and place it in arXiv.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An early work was my undergraduate thesis and was published in the University of Nebraska Press [1984], a later version was to be my graduate thesis - I sent out to several journals and corresponded with Jean-Pierre Vigier about it but the Gregory S. Duane proof did not exist yet so my work in guiding waves was not understood at the time and I was not able to publish it [1991-1992 time frame]. I have only self published and corresponded with interested parties since that time. The body of work is too large and interconnected to be presented in a conventional journal. Properly fleshed out it would require a number of tomes. I have not found anyone to properly correspond with since Vigier and have a very low opinon of existing journal options.

Dennis May

Get a sponsor and place it in arXiv.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The bad thing is most journals also want content which has not been published elsewhere - most of my stuff has been self published or on the web for many years. Google recently expanded the nooks and crannies they search so recent searches I have done are mostly finding my own writings on topics I am interested in. I will have to look into arXiv policy to see what can be done.

Thanks - I read stuff there pretty often.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An early work was my undergraduate thesis and was published in the University of Nebraska Press [1984], a later version was to be my graduate thesis - I sent out to several journals and corresponded with Jean-Pierre Vigier about it but the Gregory S. Duane proof did not exist yet so my work in guiding waves was not understood at the time and I was not able to publish it [1991-1992 time frame]. I have only self published and corresponded with interested parties since that time. The body of work is too large and interconnected to be presented in a conventional journal. Properly fleshed out it would require a number of tomes. I have not found anyone to properly correspond with since Vigier and have a very low opinon of existing journal options.

Dennis May

Get a sponsor and place it in arXiv.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The bad thing is most journals also want content which has not been published elsewhere - most of my stuff has been self published or on the web for many years. Google recently expanded the nooks and crannies they search so recent searches I have done are mostly finding my own writings on topics I am interested in. I will have to look into arXiv policy to see what can be done.

Thanks - I read stuff there pretty often.

Dennis

I looked into arXiv - it appears that I could take a small part of the work [2 component gravity perhaps] and truncate context and only present it as a physical explanation of MOND or MOG gravity. I do not have a sponsor to get it in and they may still choose to throw it into their "general" pile which is the electronic equivlanent of the trash can. I will have to think about it some more.

Dennis May

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked into arXiv - it appears that I could take a small part of the work [2 component gravity perhaps] and truncate context and only present it as a physical explanation of MOND or MOG gravity. I do not have a sponsor to get it in and they may still choose to throw it into their "general" pile which is the electronic equivlanent of the trash can. I will have to think about it some more.

Dennis May

Right now arXiv is the only way to publish material quickly without going through an 18 month cycle of refereeing and possible rejection. It is not ideal but it is the best thing going. Many high quality papers first show on arXiv.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked into arXiv - it appears that I could take a small part of the work [2 component gravity perhaps] and truncate context and only present it as a physical explanation of MOND or MOG gravity. I do not have a sponsor to get it in and they may still choose to throw it into their "general" pile which is the electronic equivlanent of the trash can. I will have to think about it some more.

Dennis May

Right now arXiv is the only way to publish material quickly without going through an 18 month cycle of refereeing and possible rejection. It is not ideal but it is the best thing going. Many high quality papers first show on arXiv.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I will not submit to the 18 month cycle again [and that is an optimistic time line] - it may indeed be the best thing going. Any ideas on a sponsor to get it in? [i had three close relatives at universities but none are there now] I will have to buy a graphics package I was already looking at and get some software for proper formatting. Getting out a small portion of the work into a stable archive would be a worthwhile thing.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not submit to the 18 month cycle again [and that is an optimistic time line] - it may indeed be the best thing going. Any ideas on a sponsor to get it in? [i had three close relatives at universities but none are there now] I will have to buy a graphics package I was already looking at and get some software for proper formatting. Getting out a small portion of the work into a stable archive would be a worthwhile thing.

Dennis

Cultivate contacts at a nearby university or college. If you know someone in the business (a physicist or other physical science type) he may put you in touch with the right people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will not submit to the 18 month cycle again [and that is an optimistic time line] - it may indeed be the best thing going. Any ideas on a sponsor to get it in? [i had three close relatives at universities but none are there now] I will have to buy a graphics package I was already looking at and get some software for proper formatting. Getting out a small portion of the work into a stable archive would be a worthwhile thing.

Dennis

Cultivate contacts at a nearby university or college. If you know someone in the business (a physicist or other physical science type) he may put you in touch with the right people.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I have been in contact with one MOND-gravity researcher/professor - but he has indicated that even working the area has already threatened his career. I might catch him on a brave day. I need to get the paper ready before worrying about it too much.

Dennis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...