There is nothing of interest to mathematicians in DocDick's paper. Only physicists would be interested. He has tried to publish it, but it has always been rejected because of its outlandish claims.

When actually it is quite simple. He takes a variable that stands for all known and unknown data, assumes shift and scale symmetry and derives an equation that in various approximations becomes the well known wave equations of physics.

The assumption of shift symmetry introduces an exponential from which the wave equation follows. The math is as simple as that. His equation comes directly from his assumption of shift symmetry in the variable that he says stands for data.

But that variable could stand for anything. What counts is what properties he assumes for that variable. Nothing else matters. He claims that the symmetry is a necessity and not an assumption.
Well that is equivalent to admitting that he makes that assumption. All the rest is just words.

Besides that his Schroedinger result has already been derived and published in the physics literature. I can provide a link for you. It's based on Fisher's Sampling Theory first published in the 1930s. What those authors did was to start with classical physics and combine it with Fisher Theory to get quantum mechanics. A remarkable result. Stafford's results are just as remarkable but he does not seem to understand his own results. It's like he has brainwashed himself. Too bad. So sorry to see a great result go to waste.

• He wants to say something big - harvey1 - May 7, 2003 - 14:02 UTC
• Who does, Harv? Dick, or Mike - quiet - May 7, 2003 - 17:54 UTC