but i had to make it up first as it's not on your list.
one thing Einstein didn't have...
and a number of things Bohr, DeBroglie, Heisenberg, Planc and Shrodinger didn't
have...
was in the case of Einstein, well he didn't have Einstein's theory. he had to
create it.
and in the case of Bohr et al, they didn't have Bohr's et al ideas and discoveries. they had to create and discover those.
Dr. Dick & Frieden had all of the above. they had knowledge of the theories to recognize and build upon as they worked their way through their thoughts and mathematical manipulations. note that in chapter 2 of Fundamentals of Physical Reality equations 2.16, Dick introduces two fundamental physical constants that he has not derived from his disertation. those being Planc's constant and the speed of light. with out physics as it is he could not have introduced those constants. in his disertation Dick points out how his math is merging with well known equations of modern physics, such as the Shrodinger equation. if there had not first been a Shrodinger equation would Dick have known he had anything significant to point out?
so it may seem i deride the achievments of Dr. Dick & Frieden. i do not.
at least not Dr. Dick as i don't really know Frieden's work well. i for one find it interesting that Dr. Dick can get as far as he does in the derivation of modern physics. i think it sheds light on what all this complicated stuff is about. at the very least it gives us another vantage point to think about
physics from. we are all different, with differing degrees of knowledge and experience. try to see this for a moment from my perspective. i'm a layman who was introduced to quantum mechanics almost thirty years ago. i never recieved what i would call a rigorous derivation of the Shrodinger equation. although i didn't go on to work in a field that needs the Shrodinger equation, i've always wondered about it (after all it's a really neat thing), wondered about the nitty gritty behind it as well as other things about science. perhaps, Dr. Dick's derivation is not proper, i don't know. i find it interesting, seems sensible to me at least as far as i've gotten with it.
but all that i've stated above aside, what i learned most from Dr. Dick's work has nothing to do with physics or deriving it. it has to do with problem solving and cognition. no one seems to get or care about this point, ie the question of how to go about solving complicated problems. but this is i believe the real point that Dr. Dick's work has to offer and i believe he has as much as said so in posts in this forum and in his document as well.
regards, tim
