On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 16:06:40 +0000 (UTC), Arnold Neumaier
<Arnold.Neumaier@univie.ac.at> wrote:
You might like the non-esoteric interpretation given in my paper
Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 17 (2003), 2937-2980.
quant-ph/0303047
At page 11, eq. 9 of [1], the x and y belong in R? (Rather no). Please
stress that they must multiplied by 1 (or I).
E4 on p.15 is involved with continuouity of Expectation? Where can
someone find the equivalence to Kolmogorov's probability?
What means the \approx symbol in p.23?
On p.26 you say "For non commuting effects, "and" and "or" ar
undefined." the ar must become are.
p.27. Does the <fk>=0 is deduced by the formula of Quantum mechanical
ensembles of p.16?
Is it possible that the "?" symbol of page 30 has something to do with
non-computability? (By virtue perhaps of the limited computational
power of the observer)
"Classical few-particleparticle" p.31, you have a double "particle".
p.41. "the dissipative environment selects the preferred basis in
which the 'collapse of the wave function' happens; see the references
at the end of this section." I hope you have an explanation for that.
"particles are intrinsically extended and cannot be regarded as
pointlike." p.41-42. So, if I got it right you say that electrons are
extended objects. Do they have parts? If yes you have a problem. If
not then you have to re-interpret Euclidean geometry as a geometry of
extensive objects where a point is something extensive but with no
parts. (I have already done it, years ago, trying to model quantum
systems as extensive objects with no parts).
.
|
