_heretic Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 Does this look like pseudoscience to you fellows? http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0020 Quantum Theory in the Context of a "block" Universe ModelAbstract: The conclusion is drawn; from considering the role of wavefunction collapse in a universe in which there is no universally held present or progression of time that a new, novel interpretation of Quantum Theory is needed in which events in a paticular space-time become casually disconnected from space-times which would typically be considered to casually follow and precede the space-time in question, and in which all possible space-times are realised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 It looks like rubbish. It even cites Peter Lynd, who is a college drop out with little behind his papers than philosophical rambling... personally, Peter Lynd is an oddity who should never have became famous. And I say that politely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_heretic Posted June 12, 2012 Author Share Posted June 12, 2012 It looks like rubbish. It even cites Peter Lynd, who is a college drop out with little behind his papers than philosophical rambling... personally, Peter Lynd is an oddity who should never have became famous. And I say that politely. That seems a little harsh I've read through Lynds papers myself and they seem interesting, he is published after all (http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/622019?ln=en) but anyway that might be straying off topic. What do you think makes this one look rubbish, I've only skimmed over it myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 viXra should be a heads up that it's probably garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 viXra is where papers go when everywhere else has turned them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aethelwulf Posted June 12, 2012 Share Posted June 12, 2012 That seems a little harsh I've read through Lynds papers myself and they seem interesting, he is published after all (http://cdsweb.cern.c...rd/622019?ln=en) but anyway that might be straying off topic. What do you think makes this one look rubbish, I've only skimmed over it myself. No self-serving paper nowadays would even dream of citing Peter Lynds. He's was published because the board who looked over his work obvious can't discern a good scientific debate. This point was raised by many scientists at the time of his.... fascinatingly bizarre leap to fame. They said his paper was .... ok, but certainly wasn't ground-breaking and most where surprised it managed to get published in that specific journal. Anyway, that's makes this work rubbish. But, I will take a better look later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now