lambda – Page 4 – Annals of Post-Medieval Thought

Soufflé Subjects

Contemporary physics is home to many Soufflé Subjects. These are subjects born in ignorance, grown on enthusiasm and destined to die on insight.

Quantum Information Theory is one such subject. It is born of a misunderstanding, based on ignorance, which led to the enthusiasm, it is new and great, which will ultimately lead to the insight, a widespread understanding of a simpler unifying stance.

Let us start at the beginning, the misunderstanding.

Physicists believe they understand what a wave function is – it describes the probability of finding a point particle here or there. That is the essence of the Born Interpretation and the surrounding philosophy of Niels Bohr comprising the Copenhagen Interpretation.

It seems fair to say, most physicists continue to believe in the Born Interpretation of wave functions. However, it seems they no longer believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation, as it describes Quantum Measurement. In their view, that bit must be wrong somehow while the other bit, the Born interpretation, must be right. This thought process is natural. In the common view, it is best to change one thing at at time. Why change two things at once?

Of course, there is a fairly elementary problem with that attitude. Scientific theories tend to involve a series of assumptions which collectively are necessary to ensure consistency. The careless thinker assumes that it is perfectly okay to negate one of these without changing any of the others. Er, good luck with that Eugene!

So, where in this soup do we find clear evidence of a misunderstanding?

On my reading, physicists have already abandoned the idea that wave functions describe the probability of finding a point like particle here or there. They are busy constructing theories to say how accurately particles are found. Very clearly they do not believe in the Copenhagen Interpretation but they still believe in the Born Interpretation.

Curious, huh? How is that logical?

Clearly, they are mighty confused. On the one hand, they think a wave function describes the probability of a particle popping up somewhere. On the other hand, they want to describe the explicit dynamics of measurement to avoid this.

It is a perfectly confused amalgam of what Schrödinger said versus what Bohr and Heisenberg said. Terribly safe to pass the exam, but perfectly crap as a theory.

How does this relate to Quantum Information Theory?

Well, in that theory we suppose there are two kinds of information. We are supposed to believe that there is Classical Information and Quantum Information. However, nobody ever really defines what this means.

Why?

Answer: It is a Soufflé Subject.

When you prick Quantum Information Theory the subject deflates instantly leaving a ton of hot air. The reason is simple. The wave function itself is actually an unknown parameter, and you cannot determine it directly. Thus the probability densities we define on unknown wave functions are only known indirectly through inference of observations at the classical level. The information theory continues to be couched in probability terms, but there is absolutely no need for some special quantum probability or quantum information.

Sadly, this has eluded most workers. They continue to suppose that some “special” theory for probability and information is required. This is where the enthusiasm comes from:

Wow! Maybe we (physicists) get to re-invent everything!

Heroic physicists can replace: probability theory; information theory; control theory etc etc.

The jury will be out for some time, but I think the outcome for physics is just embarrassing.

Physicists simply lack insight. They are struggling to reconcile their view of Probability as Intrinsic (the Copenhagen Interpretation) with that of Probability as a State of Knowledge (Statistical Inference and Information Theory). This is a tension between two incompatible views, with the second one in the ascendant.

In short, the physics community is just taking the long way around. Physics is essentially the very last science to comprehend statistical inference in any level of depth. This is an uncomfortable position for physicists, since they like to think they are first to everything.

However, in this case Physics is definitely last with a bullet.

When you consider the possibility that probability is a state of knowledge, then many of the conundrums of Quantum Theory simply melt away. In particular, one can then view the wave function as an important latent variable, or to use the more common physical parlance, a hidden variable.

Let’s see: Engineers, Economists, Computer Scientists, Sociologists and even, the God Particle Forbid, Parapsychologists know what a latent variable is. Latent variables are the things you can only indirectly observe which you posit influence those variables that you can directly observe. In short, their values are inferred, a statistical concept.

Physicists, as a community, have the most immense problem with this concept. The idea of a latent variable, a thing which cannot be directly observed, is acid to their very soul. How could anything be hidden to the all seeing and all knowing God-Like eye of the Physicist? That is pure sacrilege! It cannot, it must not be. Resist to the bitter end!

This is such a soul destroying idea to one in the grip of the Mind Projection Fallacy, that it is a genuinely unthinkable thought. The simplest possible explanation, that the wave function is the hidden variable, is the one no practicing physicist can think.

Hence they do not, to their very great cost.

This idea, although simple and productive, is beyond their ken.

When you take this line of thought, things look very very different.

You are entitled to introduce probability densities on wave functions to describe your knowledge of them. You can sharpen your statement of physical theories by stating priors: such as de-coherent systems prefer to be in eigenstates of the pointer basis selected by the environment.

In short, the confusion simply melts away. The physics community cannot conceive of a probability density over a wave function, since that would be a probability of a probability. This is very confusing if you only ever learned that probabilities were frequencies.

However, if the wave function is simply a hidden parameter:

1) there is no problem with a probability density over its value

2) the hidden nature of the variable leads to an explanation for in-determinism

3) we do not need any new Quantum Information Theory or Quantum Probability

In short, the wave function is a dynamical parameter, an initial condition, so a probability density of that makes perfect sense. Further, the wave function is the natural non-local hidden variable underpinning observed stochastic behavior at the classical level.

That is the insight that deflates the soufflé.

The Mind Projection Fallacy

What got me really fired up with my last post was some of the recent literature I have read announcing ever more elaborate philosophical interpretations of the wave-function. It is my opinion that these attempts (too many to cite here) are afflicted with what E.T. Jaynes called the Mind Projection Fallacy.

The essence of this idea is the common affliction to mistake models for reality. There is a popular and equivalent concept of distinguishing carefully between Map and Territory. For those who like big words, the difference between Ontology (what is real) and Epistemology (what is known). It is my contention that contemporary physics is in a deep bind precisely because it has ignored this distinction.

The Shut up and Calculate crowd are complacent about what they think they know, while the philosophers obsessively change the words without changing the content of the theory. Each of these extremes leads to trouble.

So let me now make a bold assertion. I now firmly believe that important sections of the new quantum theory have already been published. Yes, you heard me right. Accepted for publication and in print.

This statement ought to shock people.

If there is a new theory of quantum mechanics already out there, then: How come nobody has ever heard of it? Surely with all these hyper-smart people running around in physics they could not be blind to the existence of a new quantum theory right under their noses?

In the journals they know and read? Surely not!

Let me explain why I think this to be the case and exactly why nobody has noticed.

Firstly, if the assertion is correct then how could people not notice?

Answer: Jaynes was absolutely correct. Physicists as a community suffer from the Mind Projection Fallacy. They fervently believe that their theory is correct and therefore they have stopped noticing difficulties. Now we are in the terminal phase of this illness. People not only do not notice difficulties, they do not notice solutions. How can you notice a solution to a difficulty you do not believe exists? Of course, you won’t.

It all started with a few small issues being swept under the rug. However, as time goes on little problems build up. I will state only two of direct relevance to this post:

1) the ongoing perplexing problems of infinities in treatment of self-energy; and

2) the apparent existence of a non-zero cosmological constant.

Of course, there are answers to both conundrums. The first is dealt with in the Standard Model through the program of renormalization, while the second was catered for early on by Einstein’s “great blunder” – his modification of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe by including a cosmological constant.

What if these two pat answers hide something deeper? Perhaps renormalization is simply a stop-gap. Perhaps the presence of the cosmological constant signals something else completely like a self-energy of geometry?

Secondly, if the assertion is correct, then: Where is the evidence of a new theory?

The best example I know is the Self-Field Quantum Electrodynamics of the late Asim Barut and co-workers. There is a lot more than that, but we are simply establishing prime-facie evidence for the logical possibility of my thesis.

Thirdly, if there already is a new theory: Why don’t people pay attention to it?

Here is an old conundrum: Why does mankind oftentimes fail to take heed of warnings?

A host of very distinguished physicists: Einstein, de Broglie, Schrödinger, Bohm and Bell, foremost amongst many, have been critical of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics. They thought it was missing something: that is was incomplete.

Niels Bohr persuaded physicists that these problems either: 1) had deeply philosophical answers; OR 2) were not to be considered part of the practical program of calculation.

In other words, Bohr persuaded folks that it was okay to blur ontology and epistemology. When one did not work, simply slip effortlessly into the other mode until your audience is mentally exhausted and simply gives up.

Whenever something did not make sense you should either: change the words employed, or try not to think about calculating anything. With this device you could happily sweep any problem under the rug.

However, over time this ruse has caught up with physics. There are now so many different words used to say what a wavefunction means that nobody knows anymore. Further, the different tricks and devices have turned fundamental physics into one giant hairball. It is next to impossible to know what to say, or what to do.

I believe this situation is now self-evident. However, the very many professional academic physicists out there will doubtless dismiss this appraisal as betraying a lack of familiarity with the wondrous advances of recent years.

I say: Hooey to that!

Let me close with a simple observation.

Some years ago I conjectured something I called the hypothesis of restricted observables. For now, I will give the one sentence, just go with the flow, formulation:

The hypothesis of restricted observables posits that matter waves are real, but that reality, as we perceive it and experience it, constitutes only the reduced one-body fields projected from the total entangled multi-body matter wave in configuration space.

In short, Schrödinger was right, with one small proviso of restriction, and Bohr and the rest of the team were dead wrong. And no, Dorothy, this ain’t philosophy. You missed your stop in Kansas. This is physics with a big P. The surf is up and the waves are huge today.

As a corollary to that statement, I would go further and state:

If I am correct then 99.999% of the Academic Physics community are dead wrong and we need a new theory. Since they do not believe a new theory is needed, and supposing I am right, they will simply read about it one day. They are not even in the race.

Let us close with a simple general challenge to the Academic physics community.

Here is a “picture” of the Electron Localization Function (charge density) as used daily by Chemical Physicists. The image is form a recent Nanotechnology article on experimental imaging of the electron density. That is (essentially) a one-body density.

I started out in experimental Chemical Physics so I have awesome respect for these people. They solve truly hard problems and do not have Particle Physics Big Head Syndrome. In short, they are good old-fashioned scientists.

Here is my challenge to academic physicists:

According to the hypothesis of restricted observables the above picture is a description of laboratory reality. Yeah, you read that right. That is it. Done and dusted.

The challenge is to prove this statement incorrect through experiment.

In return, I accept my own challenge – one of theory.

Can I build a self-consistent field theory based on the hypothesis of restricted observables?

I believe yes. The physics community (I warrant) believes no. One challenge speaks to ontology (decisive experiment) the other to epistemology (constructive theory).

People who do not understand why this challenge is real are welcome to simply have their heads explode on the spot. There is no shame in saying:

I won’t play, this physics game is just too perverse for words!

First you say: particle; then wave; then both; then what, exactly?

As a final icing on this cake, let us reprise the de la Vega Confusión de Confusiones theme and an old advertisement from the South Sea Bubble days. In that time, there were many prospectus offerings to raise money for dodgy ventures.

I am a financial guy, so here is the prospectus for my part of this here challenge:

…a challenge for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know if it has been done already

Let the fun begin!

Confusión de Confusiones

Lately I have been reading some of the recent literature on Quantum Information Theory.

I thought I might just catch up with references and then write out a few of my old scribblings from the bottom drawer.

You have to remember, it is twenty-six years since I first started work in this field and fully eighteen years since I last published anything on it of any substance.

With that introduction, there has clearly been a lot to catch up on.

Well, I have been diligently catching up…

My conclusion thus far: Boy, is this subject confused!

People in Quantum Information Theory do not seem to know if they are Arthur or Martha.

Hence the title: an homage to the classic 1688 work Confusión de Confusiones by stockbroker Joseph de la Vega on the pure madness of crowds in pursuit of fame, notoriety and profit.

The lesson of Quantum Mechanics to the modern scribbler has been received and perfectly misunderstood. Go forth and multiply!

Take every well-founded subject known to man and turn it into pure mush.

There are interminable papers that claim to have re-invented pretty much everything.

We have, let’s count ’em:

Quantum Logic
Quantum Computing
Quantum Probability
Quantum Inference (guilty as charged)
Quantum Information Theory
Quantum Control Theory
Quantum Geometry

and the list just keeps getting longer by the day.

It seems that the lesson of Quantum mechanics to physicists has been this:

Everybody else who ever thought about anything is wrong – let’s go raid their larder, eat their food and then present them with our “new improved” version of their subject.

I have some serious difficulty with this notion.

On reading the level of confusion expressed by physicists about their own subject I doubt they are competent to write about anything much at all.

Furthermore, it seems probable to me that the condition of “fixing up other subjects” merely betrays a psychological projection of pure animal fear. I think the physics community have a scent: something is wrong with our subject.

Indeed, there is something wrong with physics. It has abandoned the scientific method.

The late (and great) Edwin T. Jaynes put it very well.

Physics suffers from the Mind Projection Fallacy.

The way out of this mess is to start by cleaning up Quantum Information Theory.

This is a soufflé subject in need of singular encounter with reality.

There is a mess out there, believe me.

Time to take out the trash.

Forking the Physics Kernel

There remains much unfinished business in contemporary quantum physics.

Perhaps the most important issue of all is the correspondence between the mathematical objects of the theory and the reality of the laboratory. This is an old wound in physics, one which split the Church back in the 1920s when our new theory first came down from the mountain. Moses may be long dead now, but Abrahamanic tradition lives!

In the red corner, we had Bohr, Bohm and Heisenberg preaching the doctrine of the incomprehensible other, the land of the small, which was inherently non-commutative and involved (shock horror) matrices. In the blue corner, we had Einstein, de Broglie, Schroedinger and a bunch of other malcontents believing in fields and continuity.

In our own world today, this schism has resolved itself most imperfectly. We have, it would seem, rejected both Bohr and Einstein. To make matters worse, we no longer read either Schroedinger or Heisenberg. Perhaps we have a Tree, but the Fruit is Strange and leaves a sour taste. It is most unsatisfying to the intellect.

Quantum physics today is a theory most perfectly severed from its roots and what came before. It drifts around like a fallen autumn leaf on a pond, executing ever so fine whorls of in-consequence.

The theory is now a mess, a very fine mess indeed.

We have rejected the Copenhagen interpretation and now favor some populist nonsense that Quantum Theory is so weird that book sales would be most increased by pretending that everything happens at once and everywhere.

We have Many Worlds and in each of them some book will be a best-seller, Goddammit!

These days the cognoscenti have stopped pretending that the Theory of Everything is “just around the corner”. No no no. Now the theory of favor for Everyman can be found just around whichever corner he chooses to look!

No longer do we believe that there is The Theory. No no no. Everyman must have his very own theory. Theories for all… that is the New Physics.

Go forth and Fork the Physics Kernel.

The more monkeys we have at the cosmic typewriter the better.

One day, one lucky monkey will strike out the riff that is gold.

A best seller.

Physics as Airport Novel.

The Gloom Barrier

I have to admit life is making me Gloomy.

I am an Optimist by nature, but there seems to be a great weight on humanity.

Personally, I do not understand it. There is so much to be positive about but it seems that folks simply want to ignore every damn reason to get up in the morning.

In my youth, I was extremely positive about Science. Now I am not so sure.

Science seems to have turned into some kind of weird Religion. People just don’t seem to want to find anything new. They want to Genuflect and pay Homage to the Known while running away from the Unknown.

This is way wrong.

Take Physics, my own subject. Folks are obsessed with the crazy notion that it is nearly done. There is this crazy attitude that we are close to the end of human inquiry. I don’t believe a word of it. Not only is this foolish, it is destructive of Human Purpose.

When I look at the state of the present Quantum Theory it is Abundantly Clear that we are Nowhere Near the end of even the Beginning. The present theory is so shot through with holes and inconsistencies that it is Ludicrous to suppose that it will survive in its present form. However, we have legions upon legions of Professional Physicists dutifully pushing their pencils in the vain hope that a lick of paint will fix things.

I suspect that this situation is a calm before the storm. An Hiatus that allows the present generation to depart the field with some grace and dignity. What comes next is unknown but I have a hunch that it will involve Progress.

I will conclude with one simple thought.

If everyone believes that something is Impossible then for all practical purposes It Is.

However, in this world you only need One Person of Conviction and Purpose and the Impossible is Fritzed.

Back on 14th October 1947 there is one man we could all learn from.

The legendary Test Pilot and WWII Fighter Ace Chuck Yeager flew the Bell X-1 clean through the Sound Barrier and out the other side into a whole New Ballgame.

He blitzed that Shock Wave as clean and calm as your Granny doing Crochet.

Bell X-1

Of course, the engineers built the aeroplane but it was man in the Hot Seat that pushed the limit. This was no small thing, since the aerodynamics of transonic flight were then poorly understood. Chuck put paid to that limit. He buried that word Impossible.

It took a man with guts, determination and the finest touch to shatter that Sound Barrier.

Today we face a different challenge. It is less the metal and more the mind.

Yeager risked his life and took us all forward to a new place of knowledge.

Our problem today is far simpler.

Ground down by the modern system who can find a single man who will risk his mind on a new thought. That is the travesty of modern life.

We have so much we can accomplish but society is jammed up tight against the Gloom Barrier. People are so miserable they won’t try a damn thing. Corporations just want to pile up cash and politicians prefer to bicker and joust than action plans to move us forward.

The biggest problem for our future is to believe in our own future.

We need to shatter that Gloom Barrier.

General Chuck E. Yeager never believed in the word Impossible.

Neither should you.

The Lost Papers of Highgate Hill

Today I am happy to report that I have resurrected a good number of my “lost works” on Nonlinear Quantum Theory and its physical interpretation.

Twenty years ago, I was a post-doctoral researcher at University of Queensland. This was the early 1990s, and I was very active at that time in developing some new lines of research in nonlinear dynamics and quantum measurement.

The goal was to rebuild the present quantum theory from an alternative base. The different base was to use the Schroedinger interpretation of wavefunctions and not the Copenhagen interpretation.

That may seem like a small thing but it is a change with big consequences.

In particular, the Schroedinger interpretation is compatible with nonlinear field theories.

Nonlinear field theories occur naturally if you treat self-interaction effects directly rather than via a second-quantized quantum field theory.

There are many issues to overcome in rebuilding quantum theory along these lines. However, back in the early 1990’s I could see how to move forward.

Unfortunately, getting grant funding is a more difficult task than that of making progress in fundamental physics. The majority of physicists I interacted with at that time considered this line of research to be “too risky”, perhaps even “crazy”.

So it is with the sociology of science. It is pretty close to that of religion.

The majority of my “lost works” were submitted to various peer-reviewed scientific journals and rejected. The standard reason for rejection was: “We do not think this is important enough to warrant publication”. An all too common story with discovery.

However, one paper I actually withdrew from publication. This was the first paper I wrote on the Classical Schroedinger Equation. At the time, I felt this had become obsolete. However, even today, twenty one years later, it seems the results are unknown.

In that period, from 1991-1995, I was making progress so rapidly that my understanding of the field of nonlinear field theories changed extremely quickly. It was, so to say, opening out before me in real-time and there were few other active researchers. Indeed, the majority of physicists simply thought that to even try to build an alternative theory of quantum mechanics was a “crazy thing to do”.

So be it. People are quite rightly “crazy” until they succeed, I said. Then, in a single instant, everybody else is “crazy” for never having tried.

In such circumstances, the traditional model of refereed publications does not function very well. The referee cannot know about other works that are already in the pipe, but which cannot be cited since they are not published.

Pretty soon, things fall apart with the scientific process.

I had moved to a different place than most workers in physics and they knew next to nothing about why. I may has well have been speaking Greek.

It is a funny circumstance in hindsight, but was rather serious at the time.

The upshot was that I had to “find a new career”. I boxed up my notes and moved on.

I quit physics in 1996 and sought to make a living in financial markets. It was always a vague plan to return to my grand project one day. However, I needed some financial independence, liberty and freedom from chasing government funding. Aside: The sociology of herding is the biggest drag on human progress IMHO.

Today I am happy to relate two pieces of progess: 1) I am financially independent of the government; 2) I managed to restore my lost papers from obsolete storage formats.

I have found The Lost Papers of Highgate Hill.

Very Indiana Jones. Perhaps the Mayan prediction was right…

Many Worlds do end in 2012!

Quantum Inference on Amazon

Quantum Inference is now on Amazon and available for purchase.

The publisher CreateSpace, has distributed the book through Amazon. It shows up as a regular listing under the title Quantum Inference and the Optimal Determination of Quantum States, with an author page at Kingsley R Jones, PhD.

A few tips.

Although the book appeared on Amazon straight away, you have a fair bit of work to do.

You need to create an Author Page on Amazon and link your identity to the book. There is a Catch 22 here since you cannot be listed on Amazon as an author until you an author. You do this once the book is published.

Some details may be incorrect in which case you have to figure out how to fix them.

There is an edit submission procedure on Amazon should you need to change anything.

I am trying to do that now, since the PhD at the end of my name is not the convention in publishing. Normally, you would drop the post-nominal. I have not managed to fix this part yet. It is no big deal, but remember you are aiming for an industry standard result.

The author page on Amazon is important so I tried to add some interest there.

Mine is still pretty lame, but I daresay it will improve over time.

Now we are on to understanding marketing.

Self-Publishing

The digital revolution rolls on!

Here are a few quick notes on my self-publishing experience.

I started out with a simple goal. Learn how publishing works and become a publisher.

To keep things simple, I took an item whose copyright I own and which I thought there may be a small niche market for. The PhD thesis I slaved over seemed like a good choice!

Step One: It was only in loose paper sheets. When I left England in 1990 I was broke so I could not afford to get it bound. Also I had lost the computer file. Arrgghhh…

Scanning 161 pages by hand would be a bummer and not very professional. So I looked around for a scanning company. Guess what? The best firms are the Law guys. I found a Sydney company called Law-In-Order and they did a very professional digital scan to CD-ROM for a total cost of about $45 AUD.

Step Two: How to get the PDF printed?

I looked around at different sites like Smashwords and Lulu. These are all good but cater more for the novelist. I chose Createspace instead because the book is very niche and I wanted a high quality print job with flexible distribution options.

Step Three: Designing the book and loading the files.

Register at CreateSpace with an account and create a book project. Follow the online instructions, upload your PDF, design your cover and write your own third-person book description for marketing purposes. Total time: about 4 hours!

Step Four: Printers proofs and small gotchas.

I had to rescale my PDF to US paper size since it was UK A4. This required a fair bit of finessing on choice of book size. The cover art was a scan of the most eye-catching figure inside the thesis, which I had to re-size and retouch to 300 DPI. Finally, I had to add one additional blank page at the start to make up a multiple of four pages for the book.

None of this is hard, but it is frustrating. Spend time to get a good result.

Step Five: Receiving proofs and final checks.

I ordered five proof copies, because I thought that would be cheaper and I could give some of these away. Actually, you really only need one since they are marked PROOF and you will find it cheaper to buy copies online and ship direct to your recipient anyway.

The process of proof checking is very important as you don’t want to be charging people for a dud product. Take time over it and allow a few days to a week for this part.

Step Six: Marketing your work. The only hard bit.

Create a shop at CreateSpace and setup a discount voucher code. Your online store will be password protected and you can share the coupon with anybody you think would appreciate a discount. This is important as a way of getting started. However, as my career in research taught me, marketing is the be all and end all of success.

So far so good. At least we have a quality product out there.

As I said to begin with. The goal of this exercise was to understand digital publishing from front to back, since I want to use it in my regular line of business.

However, this process was so easy and the quality so good that I will now use it for other purposes. Creating books of photos for example, or other mementos.

All up cost. About $150 AUD including scan, 5 proof copies and extended distribution. These are the sort of numbers to keep in mind for a commercial project, like an extended white paper or (in my case) industry report.

The extended distribution is an experiment, but it is the way to make the work available to academic libraries. I want to understand how this part of the industry operates.

There are some more things to consider if you have a really valuable work, like the registration of copyright, getting your own ISBNs etc

I will deal with those at another time since they touch on what it means to be a publisher.

In the above CreateSpace is the publisher, whereas in future my firm will be.

Technology is a wonderful thing.

Be your own Gutenberg, people!

Quantum Inference Published!

Here is the cover of my newly published PhD thesis Quantum Inference and the Optimal Determination of Quantum States, from the University of Bristol, United Kingdom.

The book will be available to the general public on Amazon within a week at a recommended retail price of $29.99 USD.

However, for a limited time, you can acquire a discounted copy at $10.00 USD off by entering a parallel universe via the secret store:

Quantum Inference – Limited Time Offer

Simply enter the password:

6bayes@9

to gain access and use the coupon code:

JJB7J66Z

to acquire a discounted copy which is shipped and fulfilled by the publisher.

This special offer is made through this blog and LinkedIn:

Quantum Information Science Group.

Please look out for other forthcoming titles as I am dusting off the bottom drawer material.

Happy researching multi-versal people!

Kingsley

p.s. Gotta rush, the Cockatoos are eating my Yucca.

Quasipapers from Kingsley

This site collects previously published, and many unpublished, research papers from my earlier career as a mathematical physicist and theoretician.

The academic world has opened up greatly in the sixteen years since I left university and government research. Like many PhD graduates of the 1990s era I boxed up my old work in the basement and built a rewarding career in the finance industry. These days I am an active entrepreneur, and hedge fund manager. As luck would have it, many of the current opportunities that I pursue involve some kind of scientific knowledge or understanding.

I also find that I continue to generate interesting (to me at least) mathematical questions. When you spend a lot of time on planes and in airport lounges there is nothing more satisfying than to pick up a push pencil and a notebook and scribble some math.

Call me weird, but I enjoy that!

I will be sharing some of these results in Quasipaper form on this blog.

Quasipaper is my word for a recreational scientific article that tests or extends some aspect of my own understanding. During my time in academia, I generated a body of original research in: quantum information theory; quantum inference; the nature and interpretation of the classical limit; and quantum nonlinear dynamics.

While I did publish some twenty or more refereed scientific articles, the really original material never appeared in print. For this reason, I am reviving some of that, in freshly revised works, which treat more fully the connections across modern physics.

They will be released under a modification of the Creative Commons license so feel free to download, distribute or otherwise get involved. The only requirements are: 1) attribution if you make derivative works; 2) you notify me if something based on this work is submitted to an academic journal. I further reserve the right to submit modifications or expansions of these articles as formally submitted research papers at any time.

With that out of the way, please enjoy.

Best regards,

Kingsley Jones, PhD