http://bit-player.org/2007/quantum-numbers An amateur's outlook on computation and mathematics. Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:42:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 http://bit-player.org/2007/quantum-numbers#comment-1496 asad Fri, 14 Sep 2007 06:19:58 +0000 http://bit-player.org/?p=100#comment-1496 plZ also include the derivations of the radius equations in ur site . shold b better in a flow so that easy 2 understand . plZ also include the derivations of the radius equations in ur site .
shold b better in a flow so that easy 2 understand .

]]> http://bit-player.org/2007/quantum-numbers#comment-1484 Luis F. Moreno Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:51:59 +0000 http://bit-player.org/?p=100#comment-1484 Very interesting article. I agree that Paul Benioff is confusing the physical representation of numbers with the (Platonic) concept of numbers. Thus, 2 observations: (1) He should be content with the representation of numbers on an abacus. Each bead has trillions of atoms, so the probability that it may smear its position enough to make the number it represents uncertain is too small to worry in the lifetime of the universe. Better yet, let the abacus be constructed of planet-sized beads... (2) Here is something more troubling for Benioff. When I look at Schrodinger's Equation, for example, I see "2", "pi", and "i". Thus, the entire structure of quantum physics may itself be subject to some sort of Heisenberg Uncertainty in information being carried by the symbols, if we pursue Benioff's ideas. The theory itself may not be communicable with rigor. The paradox is that Benioff is building his theory on these very quantum principles. What's left? Perhaps Newtonian physics. and Maxwell's Equations... Very interesting article.
I agree that Paul Benioff is confusing the physical representation of numbers with the (Platonic) concept of numbers. Thus, 2 observations:
(1) He should be content with the representation of numbers on an abacus. Each bead has trillions of atoms, so the probability that it may smear its position enough to make the number it represents uncertain is too small to worry in the lifetime of the universe. Better yet, let the abacus be constructed of planet-sized beads…
(2) Here is something more troubling for Benioff. When I look at Schrodinger’s Equation, for example, I see “2″, “pi”, and “i”. Thus, the entire structure of quantum physics may itself be subject to some sort of Heisenberg Uncertainty in information being carried by the symbols, if we pursue Benioff’s ideas. The theory itself may not be communicable with rigor. The paradox is that Benioff is building his theory on these very quantum principles.
What’s left? Perhaps Newtonian physics. and Maxwell’s Equations…

]]>