I thought it would be fun just to show how many papers are out there that show how to derive famous physics equations (e.g., Schrodinger's equation) by other unrelated premises than that used by the people who developed the equations:

"Quantum mechanics as a result of time broadening of the classical object"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0411169

"The Significance of Information in Quantum Theory"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0410071

"Schroedinger revisited:How the time-dependent wave equation follows from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0409018

"Information and The Brukner-Zeilinger Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: A Critical Investigation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0407198

"Probabilities from Envariance"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0405161

"Deriving laws from ordering relations"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0403031

"An Information-Theoretic Link Between Spacetime Symmetries and Quantum Linearity"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0401190

"From Heisenberg to Goedel via Chaitin"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402197

"Matter and Light in Flatland"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0401153

"Can quantum cryptography imply quantum mechanics? Reply to Smolin"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0311065

"Elements of information-theoretic derivation of the formalism of quantum theory"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0306079

"Weakly nonlocal fluid mechanics - the Schrodinger equation"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0304062

"Quantum mechanics as a measurement theory on biconformal space"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0406159

"A geometric approach to the canonical reformulation of quantum mechanics"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0409086

"Entropy is complexity"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math-ph/0408040

"Categorical Foundations of Quantum Logics and Their Truth Values Structures"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402174

"Why the quantum?"
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/quant-ph/0402149

This is just a small sampling of 'foundational physics' that have appeared on LANL site over the past 18 months. It's clear that anyone of these authors could get on an internet site and say that their formulas are king stuff. Fortunately, few do that. Wouldn't it get old fast??

• What did you search for? - yanniru - December 20, 2004 - 21:19 UTC
  • I used... - harvey1 - December 20, 2004 - 23:09 UTC
    • Something changed greatly in Harv's account - carefuluniverse - December 20, 2004 - 23:37 UTC
      • Did physics bypassed him - wandaqueen - December 21, 2004 - 17:32 UTC
• Are these papers so simple that Harvey1 understands them? - quiet - December 20, 2004 - 23:22 UTC
  • I don't think Harv is moving to support my views. - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 11:33 UTC
    • Here is what Benoit Mandelbrot says - wandaqueen - December 21, 2004 - 17:36 UTC
      • You seem to be rational. - doctordick - December 21, 2004 - 19:36 UTC
        • Paragraph by paragraph - wandaqueen - December 22, 2004 - 03:33 UTC
          • Thank you for your precision. - doctordick - December 22, 2004 - 21:02 UTC
            • You presume it's all complaints - wandaqueen - December 30, 2004 - 14:25 UTC
        • Shouldn't this be at the end - wandaqueen - December 30, 2004 - 15:00 UTC
          • That is very simple to answer! - doctordick - December 30, 2004 - 18:10 UTC
            • Dr. Dick, others may not agree w/ you and might be correct! - kantolfir2 - December 30, 2004 - 20:26 UTC
        • I do not understand this - wandaqueen - December 31, 2004 - 00:13 UTC
          • I appreciate your rationality! - doctordick - January 1, 2005 - 03:29 UTC
            • question for Dr. Dick - carefuluniverse - January 1, 2005 - 21:43 UTC
              • Long post for such a short question! - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 01:27 UTC
                • No worries - kantolfir2 - January 3, 2005 - 07:21 UTC
                  • Not exac tly means not exactly. - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 17:31 UTC
                    • Re: "That's life." - kantolfir2 - January 3, 2005 - 20:34 UTC
                      • I see no contradiction in what I said! - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 22:05 UTC
                        • I'm just melting with the charm and sincerity of your logic ;) - kantolfir2 - January 4, 2005 - 02:18 UTC
            • Can a model be independent of the mapping procedure? - wandaqueen - January 1, 2005 - 22:44 UTC
              • Can a human brain ever produce unpredictable algorithms/outputs? - kantolfir2 - January 1, 2005 - 23:01 UTC
                • It seems you do not understand my post - wandaqueen - January 2, 2005 - 04:25 UTC
                  • Let's see - kantolfir2 - January 2, 2005 - 04:52 UTC
                  • Really? Is that a technical assessment? - carefuluniverse - January 6, 2005 - 05:53 UTC
              • C is defined to be ALL the relevent information. - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 01:08 UTC
                • You are right - wandaqueen - January 3, 2005 - 02:29 UTC
                  • So I've run you off have I? - doctordick - January 3, 2005 - 18:02 UTC
                    • Well you never answered my last question - wandaqueen - January 4, 2005 - 00:45 UTC
                      • I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:13 UTC
                        • Seems contradictory - wandaqueen - January 5, 2005 - 14:31 UTC
                          • I really didn't intend to upset you. - doctordick - January 6, 2005 - 01:12 UTC
                            • Ahh- You defined expectation - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:45 UTC
                            • Here is a clear contradiction - wandaqueen - January 6, 2005 - 13:50 UTC
                              • Thank you for your attention. - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 05:08 UTC
                                • A model of nature - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 16:24 UTC
                                  • Harv???? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 17:24 UTC
                                    • Someone else came to the same conclusion? - wandaqueen - January 8, 2005 - 18:47 UTC
                                      • Are you serious? - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 21:35 UTC
                                        • You said it yourself - wandaqueen - January 9, 2005 - 03:49 UTC
                                          • That is a worthless post! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:53 UTC
                                            • "phenomena to be modeled" has to be specific explanation" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:48 UTC
                                              • You haven't got the slightest idea what I am modeling! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:04 UTC
                                                • You do not know me - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 21:15 UTC
                                    • Dick???? - harvey1 - January 8, 2005 - 20:38 UTC
                                      • I already answered it! - doctordick - January 8, 2005 - 22:20 UTC
                                • Everything means infinity - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 15:52 UTC
                                  • Harv/Wanda and who else? Maybe Bruce? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 17:49 UTC
                                    • I'm having fun - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:58 UTC
                                      • I don't think you have paid any attention at all to what I say! - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:12 UTC
                                        • intellectual honesty is not your strong suit! - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:48 UTC
                                • Sorry- you said 'Theory of Anything" - wandaqueen - January 10, 2005 - 18:53 UTC
                                  • And exactly where did I say "theory" of anything? - doctordick - January 10, 2005 - 22:17 UTC
                                    • Explanation =s theory in my mind - wandaqueen - January 11, 2005 - 13:53 UTC
                      • I am trying very hard to be clear. - doctordick - January 4, 2005 - 20:14 UTC