Letters

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 5:36 PM
To: "Heinz Dehnen" [[email protected]]
Cc: "Peter Enders" [[email protected]], "DAAD (Delhi)" [[email protected]], "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Sehr geehrter Herr Professor Dehnen,

Herr Dwivedi hat mich gebeten, Ihnen zu erklären, dass er angesichts seines Alters (17) und dementsprechend nicht vorhandener akademischer Abschlüsse keinen Antrag beim DAAD einreichen kann.

Herr Dwivedi hat mich vor einiger Zeit aufgrund meiner Veröffentlichungen über die klassisch-mechanischen Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik (Weiterführung der Hertzschen und Schrödingerschen Programme) angeschrieben. Aus seinen mir bekannten Manuskripten sind seine hehren Vorhaben, noch nicht aber deren Verwirklichung ersichtlich, doch bin ich kein Experte auf diesen Gebieten. Leider ist es mir bei Siemens nicht möglich, einen, sagen wir, mehrwöchigen Aufenthalt dieses zweifelsohne überdurchschnittlich begabten jungen Mannes zu organisieren. Es ist mir andererseits nicht klar, weshalb er nicht zunächst eine höhere Bildungsanstalt in Indien besucht (wie unsere Kollegen in Bangalore).

Mit den besten Wünschen,
Peter Enders

Dr. Peter Enders
Fischerinsel 2
10179 Berlin

Your Enquiry of July 24, 2006

Theodor W. Hänsch [[email protected]] Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 1:11 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Dwivedi,

Thank you for your enquiry.

As an experimental laser physicist I am not the right person to help you pursue your theoretical studies on quantum gravity. However, I wish you luck and success in finding a rewarding research opportunity in one of the many institutes or research groups focussing on this important topic.

Sincerely,

Professor Theodor W. Hänsch

Url: http://www.mpq.mpg.de/~haensch

Towards the final Theory

Prof. Dr. Heinz Dehnen (Physik) [[email protected]] Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 4:07 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Sir,

Yes, you can visit my research group, but you have to apply for a Humboldt - or DAAD-fellowship via the German embassy. If necessary, I can write an invitation letter for you.

Sincerely
H. Dehnen

Url: http://kaluza.physik.uni-konstanz.de/DE/

Quantum Theory in generalized perspective

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Fri, Jun 16, 2006 at 3:44 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you very much for your letter and the interesting book attached! Although my personal feeling tells me that the many dimensions of string theory bring too many free parameters into the theory, the Content of this book contains many interesting headings.

I had a short look at your recent ms. and as I'm interested in philosophy, too, I have read your short essay about God. Where do you assume from that there is one God? Why do you assume that others of your age are worthless, because they are different?? Among them are millions of artists which will enjoy people much more than you (and I) ever can... Where do you assume from that you have understood His intentions?

Which ms. deals with states?

It's new for me that Dirac has referred to 'Strict Mathematics'; famous successes -- such as the delta function -- he has achieved due to his intuition as a learned electro-engineer (for whom a peak pulse is quite a natural thing). May be, he had in mind non-standard analysis for dealing with the infinities of Quantum Theory? On the other hand, Newton, Leibniz, Euler and others have first invented the mathematical formalisms they needed (notably calculus and calculus of variations, respectively). At the beginning, this were no 'Strict Mathematics', of course. Thus, Euler's superiority in physical axiomatics is clearly supported by his mastery of maths, but mainly caused by the power and clarity of his physical thinking.

In other words, IMHO, the solution of the fundamental problems will not come from a tunneling from one clear position to another clear position, but from the understanding of all intermediate steps. As the history of Quantum Theory demonstrates, such a tunneling may be even impossible...

Nevertheless, the stronger you are in maths the better :-)

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

PS: Many physicists claim that Quantum Theory can be established independently of classical physics, but nobody has realized that claim. Wave-particle duality is a classical dichotomy that has been slept into Quantum Theory by tunneling in the methodological sense sketched above. Newton's notion of state is not bounded to continuum (discrete state changes were considered to be possible already by Maupertuis). Regularization is the admission that something has been done wrong before.

QM in Noncommutative Spacetimes

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Mon, May 29, 2006 at 2:30 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]
Cc: "Carlos Castro Perelman" [[email protected]]

Hello Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you very much for your message. I'm very happy for you for the kind recommendation by Professor Perelman.

Thank you also for a copy of the paper ON MODIFIED WEYL-HEISENBERG ALGEBRAS, NONCOMMUTATIVITY MATRIX-VALUED PLANCK CONSTANT AND QM IN CLIFFORD SPACES by Carlos Castro. I'm impressed by the amount of varieties this generalization opens. On the other hand, many new free parameters appear. For this, you know, I'm working on the better understanding of notions like state. It's my impression that many difficulties in modern physics are caused not by deficiencies in the mathematical formalisms (so many physicists are working so many decades on them), but by deficiencies in the physical understanding of the mathematical formalisms (and only relatively few physicists are working in this field). For exemple, even renowned experts in the hisatory are not aware about the fact that Newton used another notion of state than it is used nowadays. One consequence of this ignorance is the claim that quantum logic implies Quantum Mechanics, while a classical mechanics working only with Newton notion of state is another possible consequence.

Do we need more variables or degrees of freedom? I don't know really. The exemple of the replacement of the uncountable number of epicicles in old astronomy by the one Kepler ellipse suggests that we need a simplification and unification in quantum (field) theory.

Moreover, the still unsolved problems in quantum electrodynamics question the correctness of the ingrediencies. In Stefanovich's book RELATIVISTIC QUANTUM DYNAMICS (arXiv: physics/0504062 v2 28 Oct 2005) you have recommended me, overcomes the divergencies by clever renormalization and dressing. He agrees that it would be by far preferable to abandon not only the bare particles, but also the bare Hamiltonian. Thus, do we understand the ingrediencies of QED such as minimum coupling (which can be justified, indeed), gauge invariance (see the recent criticism by deMontigny & Rousseaux), the role of the potentials (I think that Gross' statement that the electromagnetic fields are underestimated by the field strengths, but overestimated by the potentials, and the the middle way lies in phases, is a great idea; it is related to a simple link between classical and Quantum Mechanics if one requires the classical Hamiltonian to be independent of the gauge). Can we think to have got the unity of quantum physics without having got the unity of classical physics?

Thus, any search in any direction is allowed; at the end, they all have to answer the same questions, among those above ;-)

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

Welcome to the Quantum Relativity web site

Prof. Dieter Suisky [[email protected]] Sun, May 28, 2006 at 5:49 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you very much for your mail. It seems to be a useful way to relate your paper The universe "zero and infinite" to the principles of non-standard analysis.

http://math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html

Best regards
Dieter Suisky

Url: http://www.physik.hu-berlin.de

QM in Noncommutative Spacetimes

Carlos Perelman [[email protected]] Fri, May 5, 2006 at 1:43 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]], "T. P. Singh" [[email protected]]

Dear Prof Singh (and Saurav) :

For your interest, I am attaching the pdf file of a paper on QM in Noncommutative Spacetimes and a Matrix-valued generalization of the Planck Constant related to the Extended Relativity Theory in Clifford spaces. It was submitted to J Physics A.

Also I would like to refer to Prof. Singh the name of a very talented 17 year old native from India who is self-taught and is interested in pursuing a Ph.D in Physics. His name is Saurav Dwivedi. The Tata Institute will be a great place for such a talented young person to pursue his interests. It is rare to run into self-taught young individuals. QM and Relativity are his main interests. Let me give you his information :

Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)
S/o. Santosh Dwivedi
Lakhy Cold Storage Comp.
Sheodaspur, Lahartara
221002 Varanasi, India

Email: [email protected]
Url: www.dwivedi.bravehost.com

If Prof. Singh can be of any help to Saurav I would be very greatful.

Thank you
Best wishes,
Carlos Castro Perelman

Url: http://www.archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html

Towards the final Theory

George Ellis [[email protected]] Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 3:19 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]], "GRG" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi

thank you for your email. I regret that I am not in a position to offer you a fellowship to pursue your work. I suggest the place you should apply is ICTP in Triests (Italy), see http://www.ictp.it

Yours sincerely
George Ellis

Url: http://www.mth.uct.ac.za/~ellis

Matej Pavsic

Carlos Perelman [[email protected]] Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 3:07 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]
Cc: "Carlos Perelman" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav :

Yes, Matej Pavsic wrote and told me he was very impressed with you. You could be the new Ramanujan. I feel very honoured that you are interested in my (our) work on the Extended Relativity in Clifford spaces.

If there are any problems with mailing me by air mail your papers, do not worry, I can pay for the charges upon arrival. (as long as you do not mail me me an elephant). I have been to India in two occasions, 3 months each time. I liked it very much.

Best wishes
Carlos

Url: http://www.archivefreedom.org/freedom/Cyberia.html

CV etc.

Ulrich Eckern [[email protected]] Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 4:45 PM
Reply-To: "Ulrich Eckern" [[email protected]]
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Dwivedi,

Thank you for your recent mail and for sending your CV. However, please note that it is not simply possible to enter into graduate studies here (or at any other university): a formal education is required, i.e. a B.Sc. and a M.Sc. in physics (or the German "diploma", which is equivalent to the M.Sc.). I understand that you are eager to do research - but these are the rules.

Best regards
Ulrich Eckern

Url: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern

On the Universal and Unifying theory

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Tue, Jan 3, 2006 at 4:10 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Thank you for this information.

Why not training by exploring smaller steps? For instance, unifying classical mechanics and electromagnetism or investigating the implications of the fact that the internal parameter of a wave is not the oscillation frequency as for the harmonic oscillator, but the speed of propagation... I wonder if the latter will become a clue to an alternative field quantization.

PE

On the Universal and Unifying theory

Larry Horwitz [[email protected]] Sun, Jan 1, 2006 at 12:55 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

A universal theory would be a theory with not so wide application, but applicable in a wide variety of environments, such as the universal time of Newton, or gravity. A unifying theory would put some theories together, like electricity and magnetism as done by Maxwell.

No, I can't put anything on TAU preprints except for the work of people employed here, and they do it themselves.

Best wishes,
Larry

Url: http://www.tau.ac.il/~larry

Quantization

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Sat, Dec 17, 2005 at 3:00 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you once more for your interest in theoretical physics. Please proceed step by step. First study the foundations of classical physics in order to understand the notions used in non-classical physics. For this let me propose you to read the two starting sections 'Definitions' and 'Axioms, or the 'Laws of Motion' of Newton's 'Principia'. Then answer the following questions.

1) What are the differences between Newton's notion of state and the nowadays used one?
2) Which variable is the state variable / state function?
3) Why the position of a body is not a state variable in the sense of Newton's Laws?
4) Is the Hamilton function a state function in the sense of Newton's Laws?
5) Consider a conservative mechanical system of N equal bodies in the stationary state of total energy E. Can you distinguish the individual bodies knowing only the Hamilton function, H(p1...pN,q1...qN)=E ?

If you have found the answers, then you can understand Gibbs' paradox and Einstein's seminal (though widely underestimated) paper on the specific heat of solids.

Looking forward to read your results.

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

Quantization

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 4:27 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Apparently all colleagues are recommending you to make your study more systematically. This does not require you to think less originally than before, for Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Schrödinger, etc: they all knew very well the physics of their time. Equally well, it may be usefull not to know all physics of his/her time, in order to not to be too much influenced by the main stream.

Mainstream refers to knowledge - independend thinking refers to character

Schrödinger's and other relevant papers you will find in the list attached. If you inscribe at a university you will find much better access to litterature there. - Did you approach the Birla Science Center in Hyderabad?

Best wishes,
Peter

Quantum Relativist : Saurav Dwivedi

Matej Pavsic [[email protected]] Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 4:17 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Saurav Dwivedi,

I read your papers and CV carefully. I am much impressed by the depth of your thoughts and the level of mathematical and physical skills you posses. But you need to go to the university. Only after having finished your studies you will become professional physicist and be able to contribute valuable research results to the scientific community.

Concerning my book, you can find some chapter from it at the following links:

http://www-f1.ijs.si/~pavsic/Contents1Pdf
http://www-f1.ijs.si/~pavsic/Contents1Ps

I also attach a pdf file of Part IV.

Unfortunately, I cannot post my book, because I had to transfer the copyright to Kluwer. But I can send you some other chapters from my book.

Best regards,
Matej Pavsic

Url: http://www-f1.ijs.si/~pavsic

Towards the final Theory

"Thibault Damour" [[email protected]] Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:35:10 +0100
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Sir

I admire the maturity of the physics questions you are asking and trying to address. You seem to have acquired some nontrivial knowledge about QM and Special Relativity

I would however advise you against the idea of continuing to study alone these problems. You should also learn the essential of the other aspects of physics. You should go to the university as soon as possible to get a normal training in modern physics. In the mean time, I would advise you to read important physics books such as:

on Classical Field Theory : Landau Lifshitz: Classical Field Theory
on General Relativity : S Weinberg's Gravitation and Cosmo (still excellent) plus a recent more elementary such as Bernard Schutz's Gravity from the ground up
on Quantum Field Theory : the book of A Zee QFT in a nutshell
on String theory : the book of Barton Zwiebach An Introduction to ST

Most of the books above are technically rather accessible, but they are written by good physicists and you will learn a lot from reading them carefully. I advise you against thinking too much of Quantum Mechanics at this early stage in your career. To me, the only thing you really need top understand about QM is the existence of the Everett interpretation. This is discussed for instanbce in the volume 1 of the last books by Bryce De Witt "Global Quantum Field theory" (but do not try to read these books apart from the discussion of Everett)

As Sommerfed told to Heisenberg, before tackling big questions you should first learn general physics and "do the exercizes"

With my best wishes
Thibault DAMOUR

Url: http://www.ihes.fr/~damour

Towards the final Theory

Matej Pavsic [[email protected]] Thu, Dec 8, 2005 at 11:26 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Thanks for your mail. I looked at your papers and found them very impressive. The amount of knowledge and the depth of the ideas is incredible for your age of 17. I am sure you will be able to make significant contributions to theoretical physics. But you need to go to the university and undergo serious and thorough studies.

Since you are interested into fundamental issues, final theory, etc., it will be perhaps of interest for you to look at my book "The Landscape of Theoretical Physics: A Global View; From Point Particles to the Brane World and beyond, in Search of a Unifying Principle" (Kluwer Academic, 2001). Here you will find a lot of material related to your research. You can ask, if they have my book in your institute library. If not, you can look at the sample pages on my web page:

http://www-f1.ijs.si/~pavsic

If some chapters of my book are too difficult for you at the moment, you could read them later, when you acquire the necessary background knowledge in the course of your future studies. On my home page there is also a link to my papers, many of them related to you work.

Best regards,
Matej Pavsic

Url: http://www-f1.ijs.si/~pavsic

Paper for you

Larry Horwitz [[email protected]] Tue, Dec 6, 2005 at 11:41 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

The last paper on quantization seems to contain fairly well-known constructions. The Schrödinger equation really doesn't quantize anything, it just provides a way of evolving quantum systems. You need the operators and the Hilbert space before, although the argument you give does show consistency with the Heisenberg equations. See von Neumann's book, and the book of J.M. Jauch.

Best regards,
Larry Horwitz

Url: http://www.tau.ac.il/~larry

Review [of] papers and general issues

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 12:13 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you for your request to review some of your papers. Generally speaking, you have to spend more effort to introduce the reader into your thoughts. Explain unusual notions rather than referring to your other papers which are perhaps unknown to the reader.

I cannot recommend 'The Canonical Wave Transformation', because you use a form of the wave function which Schrödinger refused from expressis verbis in the 2nd footnote of the 2nd Communication without explaining why you are doing so (this applies to your other manuscripts, too). I wrote you earlier about that. You are free to leave aside my recommendations, but then you cannot expect support for that.

Your paper 'The Eigenoperator Formalism' needs an introduction explaining the differences to and benefits when compared with the eigenvalue formalism. Since you know some of Schrödinger's own criticism you should exploit it.

'Probabilistic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with Schrödinger Quantization Rule' contains manipulations of several entitities which are mathematically trivial, because all are equal to one.

In 'Ostrogradsky Quantum Field Theory', the first sentence is wrong, because the number of dynamically independent variables is limited by the number of degrees of freedom. Why f is a transformation? Please define "prime". What is the benefit of the entities introduced in this paper?

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

PS: My English is rather modest, so you should write simpler and clearer in order to avoid misunderstandings. What means "a theoretical paper [mine's] is too theoretical"? You need a better knowledge of litterature for judging other's work. Thank you for your hint to account for epistemology. I'm just not (yet ;-) a philosopher. But I do like papers like that by Smilga attached.

EJTP Journal

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 2:09 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Dwivedi,

I guess Mr. Sakaji recommends you to study physics, in order to realize your great dreams.

It's like in sports: Not all masters in performance are masters as coaches. But in most cases you can learn thinking best from them. Thus you should at least consult them. Generally speaking, each book is differently accessible to different readers. This alone would make the listing of my bookshelf different from Mr. Sakaji's list -- you will read what you will find in your library.

You should try to read methodically varying books. Some authors concentrates more on the facts, others -- on the system of knowledge. Some presents you the current knowledge like God-given, others try to explain the inner relationships, the reasons why, say, quantum field theory is as it is.

Thus you must learn to think new ideas (for this, first of all, you should be an independent thinker, ie, you should not to tightly be connected to one direction or one school) on a fairly actual level on knowledge (for not to invent the bicycle again). For instance, you could look at the current particle zoo and gain the impression that this resembles the epicycles of ancient astronomy. Find the two simple steps corresponding to moving the center of solar system (Copernicus) and to allowing for ellipses in place of circles (Kepler). Then find the dynamical law underlying the motion. This is not as simple as it seems! Newton had to recognize that the symmetry of the orbit ('effect') is lower than the symmetry of the force field ('causa'); the set of all possible orbits for given values of energy and (modulus of) angular momentum is circular (spherical) symmetric.

This is a modest goal when compared with yours. But if you try to reach it, you will see that the way is stony. But as you are young, you could reach it faster than I can ;-)

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

G. 't Hooft

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 3:29 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Hello Mr. Dwivedi,

The letter by Prof. 't Hooft confirms what I have written you earlier; his experience as a teacher lets him point more clearly to the pedagogical aspects of your problem.

Did you approach the Birla Science Center in Hyderabad? Its director Prof. Sidharth organizes and actively participates in the international symposia Frontiers in Fundamental Physics, a great forum for discussing novel ideas. May be, you will easier find support there.

Again, don't tell people that you have solved all problems myriads of others are still working on. Nobody will believe you (myself included), because your texts contain just claims, but no real solutions. In case you did found anything new, write it down in a publishable form and submit it to Prof. Finkelstein. Being willing to support young talents, I would agree to review the manuscript in case Prof. Finkelstein would ask me to do so.

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

Towards the final Theory

Hooft 't G. [[email protected]] Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 8:22 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Sir,

I cannot arrange a fellowship for you. From what I read, you will need a lot of tutoring. Topics such as quantum field theory, gauge theory and string theory should be on your priority list. You should try to avoid being an "independent" physicist, but try to get connections at univeristies. From what I see, you are not receiving enough criticism; this will be very important for you. You should meet people who are stubbornly difficult to convince of anything, forcing you to think and rethink all your arguments.

Success,

G. 't Hooft

Url: http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft

Towards the final Theory

John D. Stack [[email protected]] Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 2:09 AM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

It is clear from your letter that you have a serious love of physics and devotion to it. However, I think you are unfortunately too much isolated from the community of what is known, particularly in Quantum Mechanics. For example upon looking at your first paper "A Theoretical Study of Psi-Waves", it is clear that you are violating elementary Quantum Mechanics by allowing the position variable "q" to be a function of time "t" in the wave function. The wave function is a probability amplitude for the particle to be found at an arbitrary value of "q" at the time "t". As such, "q" and "t" are independent variables. It is straightforward to show that your formulae do not apply to the quantum harmonic oscillator for example. I would recommend that you enroll in a University course in physics and study what is surely known before trying to formulate a "final theory". Some books on Quantum Theory I would recommend are Feynman and Hibbs Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics (see the treatment of the harmonic oscillator there) and Dirac Principles of Quantum Mechanics. The latter is an old book but nowhere are the principles of Quantum Mechanics explained better.

Best of luck in your studies of physics,

John D. Stack
Associate Head for Graduate Program
Department of Physics
University of Illinois

Hello Sir-Saurav from India

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:32:11 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Hello,

You should thank Prof. Bekenstein for his open words and follow his advice. Did you write a manuscript for IJTP along the hints by Prof. Finkelstein? You will not receive much help if you are reluctant to follow advices (over-sensitivity against criticism may be a widespread weekness among Indian people as I was told, but this would by no means be an accuse).

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

Endorsement request for arXiv quant-ph

Claudio Garola [[email protected]] Sun, Nov 6, 2005 at 552 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you for requesting my endorsement for the quant-ph arXiv. I have considered your manuscripts but I must say that they are not yet mature, in my opinion, for submitting them to the arXiv. Nevertheless I would like to encourage you. I too, as prof. Finkelstein, was impressed by your young age and by your ability in managing non-trivial mathematics at your school level. I think that you are a promising young student, that can soon become a good scholar by attending higher level studies. I hope that you will be able to do this.

Yours sincerely,
Claudio Garola

Url: http://www.le.infn.it

Towards the final Theory

Wolfgang Drechsler [[email protected]] Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:13:36 +0100 (CET)
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Dr. Saurav Dwivedi,

I thank you for your kind letter and the expose of your research projects. (I was not around when your E-mail arrived; therefore, please, excuse my late reply.) What you wrote sounds all very interesting and reminded me of my own endeavours in that direction using fiber bundles as a geometric arena for the unification of GR (in the base of the bundle) and QM (described through the fibers of the bundle). I wish you endurance and success in your work --- unfortunately I cannot do more since I am retired from my position at the Max-Planck-Institute since many years and have no more any funds (or even office space) for the invitation of scolars.

With kindest regards,
Sincerely Yours,
Wolfgang Drechsler

Url: http://wwwth.mppmu.mpg.de/members/wdd/

Step quantization and relativization

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:57 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]
Cc: "David Finkelstein" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi, Thank you for your explanations. As I wrote earlier, I agree that the unification of Relativity and quantization is overdue. But I doubt that this can be done by means of the notions used by the main stream who is rather careless against proper notions (otherwise, in view of the huge effort spent it should have been done already). - I will read your manuscripts and comment on them when having a quiter period. Did you edit some of them and submit to Prof. Finkelstein?

For academic studies in Germany Deutscher Akademischer Auslandsdienst (~German Service für Studying Abroad) is an appropriate address. I'm sure that they have a representance in New Delhi (you may find out that via the Embassy of Germany). You may also seek direct contact with professors in Germany via their university web sites. They are usually polite in answering questions to their publications; note that many are too busy to step sideward for other ideas.

Good luck!
Peter Enders

Towards the final Theory : Some common and some methodical remarks

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Sun, Oct 9, 2005 at 3:46 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]
Cc: "David Finkelstein" [[email protected]],
"Walter Greiner" [[email protected]], "José Luis López Bonilla" [[email protected]], "Larry Horwitz" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you for your reply. Please note that I am neither a professor nor your admirer.

Let me make some methodical remarks. You are right to look at the basic features of the theories you are working on. If you go one step further than in your email below, you will realize that Quantum Mechanics is a dynamical theory, while Special Relativity is a kinematical theory. I doubt that their unification is done by just making the quantum equations relativistically covariant, because the contradiction between the role of observers remains (notably in Einstein's own views!). A dynamical foundation of Special Relativity has been developed by Suisky & Enders (Annual Meeting of the German Physical Society, Berlin 2005, Poster GR18).

Another hole in the unification of physics is the relationship between Classical Mechanics and Classical Electromagnetism. I think that the approach by Fritz Bopp (Z. Phys. 169 (1962) 45-52) can be completed through deriving the Lorentz force from purely mechanical reasonings and using symmetry arguments (cf. Enders &Suisky, Annual Meeting of the German Physical Society, Berlin 2005, Poster MP 10.8).

In summary, why Lagrange's mechanics was a complete theory of that time? Because it incorporated statics and kinematics and dynamics in a unified, harmonic manner. This may be an exemple for you to reach your goal. Don't worry, it's physics ;-)

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

Towards the final Theory

Sergei I. Anisimov [[email protected]] Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:09:37 +0400
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you for your letter. It is really impressive, especially taking into account your young age and very short period of your studies of Theoretical Physics. It seems to me that you made a proper choice of the field of activity.

I am also a physicist. However, I am old and my narrow field is Macroscopic Physics. Certain of my friends and colleagues work in Quantum Field Theory and Elementary Particle Theory. This is closer to your interests. May I show your letter to them? I bear in mind Alexander Polyakov, Semyon Gershtein, Alexei Abrikosov, Rashid Sunyaev.

Wishing you a great success,
Sincerely yours,
Sergei Anisimov

Url: http://www.itp.ac.ru

Towards the final Theory

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Thu, 29 Sep 2005 03:39:39 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]
Cc: "David Finkelstein" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you for your email. I'm very happy that Prof. Finkelstein has made such a generous offer. I also support the proposal by Mr. Narlikar to study Feynman. This will promote your ability of imagination and fantasy.

In order to sharpen your feeling for the accuracy of notions, I would like to recommend you the still unsurpassed work by Leonhard Euler, but I don't know if English editions are available (Euler was the first to publish Newton's equation of motion in explicit form and has shown that only Newton's 1st Law is a necessary axiom, while Laws 2 and 3 can be treated as problems to be solved for the concrete problems under consideration; this paves the way to found the relationship between CM and QM you are using, as you can see from my paper with Dieter Suisky in IJTP).

But Schrödinger's work should be. Schrödinger's 4 Communications "Quantization as Eigenvalue Problem" (1926) belong to the few pioneering papers, where the author writes not only 'look, here is something great new one!', but at the same time 'this and this and this need to be justified or even done quite differently in the final treatment'. - In footnote 2 of Comm. 2, he rejects his approach psi~exp(action) of Comm. 1 you are using, but if you can justify such an approach, great! But be careful! At the end, you will find out, that Schrödinger actually means, that quantization is NOT an eigenvalue problem at all (in agreement with Einstein's finding in his pioneering paper on the specific heat of solids, 1907 (!)).

In order to attract interest from other people, you should name the benefits of your equations, if they differ from the standard ones, and, optimally, how to validate them experimentally.

Why (22) "is the second quantization principle"?
What are "n-order primes of generalized coordinates"?

Another hint: Be accurate:

- Planck (1900) didn't consider a "smallesst possible action in nature".
- Read Heisenberg's pioneering papers on yyour own for describing them correctly.
- "Schrödinger proposed to quantize quantiities to their operators by an interpretation of Schrödinger (psi) wave." is wrong.
- "Heisenberg transformed poisson bracketss to quantum commutators" is wrong.

A further hint: Be accurate (2): Give sources of quotations, eg, "The formulation of Relativity could only be carried out by the spirit of that person who sees things from every view, from the eyes of everyone". - Actually, this statement is should be coompleted by , or by a person having understood Euler's axiomatic of CM" (for one can derive SR axiomatically this way).

A further hint: Be accurate (3): Indicate, where you have used which reference. Otherwise, the reader may believe that you have read the books or papers you are referring too, but he/she cannot recognize a concrete relationship (who/what is supporting your position or not and why).

A further hint: Choose another name for your email address: 'tachyon' will percepted by many as 'not serious'.

A last hint:

- Don't distribute the last pages of your pdf file. Rather follow Heisenberg and have 3 types of papers in work: One to finish, one to do research on and one to read much about.
- Don't try to give the impression to be cclose to the solution of everything.
- Don't try to be a philosopher: You are jjust too young for that. Keep an interest in philosophy of science, unity of physics etc., but be modest with own statements: philosophy is largely a matter of ripeness.
- Religion, on the other hand, knows nothiing about physics. Believing is a category of psychology, hence, beyond physics. Anything you may assume about god is contradictory, hence, wrong. You may hope that a unification of physics and religion is possible - as Teilhard de Chardin did - but you will not succeed in that. For physics and believe have got quite contradictory criteria of validity.

Hope this helps,
Peter Enders

Your papers

Pankaj S Joshi [[email protected]] Wed, 28 Sep 2005 10:04:02 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Shri Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you for your papers. I am impressed by the effors you have taken to study physics and the work you have put in to produce the material that you did. I can do no better than what others already advised you, namely to read the three volumes of Feynman, apply at universities abroad and also some good ones in india, where you can attach these papers with your application.

With best wishes,
Pankaj S Joshi

Url: http://www.tifr.res.in

About your paper

Zeng Ding Fang [[email protected]] Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:27:48 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Sir,

I read your paper for a few minutes. But I have difficult to find what you have done which is different from my well accepted frame work of Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity, and what problem you have solved based on your own invented frame work of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity which cannot be solved in the frame-work of my well accepted frame-works.

So what I need is, can you tell me what you have done on the above two aspects? in simple words and few mathematica formulaes. You know, to follow other's formulaes is very difficult if we are not familiar with his physical ideals.

Sincerely yours,
Dingfang Zeng

Hello Sir-Saura from India

T. P. Singh [[email protected]] Mon, 26 Sep 2005 15:29:49 +0530 (IST)
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

Thank you for your mail and for telling me about your research interests. I am very sorry for this delayed reply. In my opinion, after completing your basic studies (i.e. B. Sc.) you should apply for entrance to the graduate student research programmes of Universities or Institutes, in India or abroad (for example TIFR).

With my best wishes for your fruitful research career,

Sincerely,
T. P. Singh

Url: http://www.tifr.res.in/~tpsingh

Towards the final Theory

Prof. Dr. W. Greiner [[email protected]] Thu, 22 Sep 2005 13:35:34 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

After looking through the material you have sent to me, I'm sorry to say that this does not convince me to take you on as a graduate student for Ph.D. In particular you should have done a Master Thesis equivalent to our Diploma thesis, which I could not discover. You use a lot of very ambitious vocabular, but I see, in fact, only some reformulated text book knowledge.

In case I'm wrong, I ask for forgiveness.

Sincerely
(Walter Greiner)

Url: http://www.fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~greiner

Work is Worship

Larry Horwitz [[email protected]] Sun, 18 Sep 2005 11:35:33 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

It would be nice to have you here at TAU, but I have no funds for support, and the financial situation at the University is very difficult. Some students make their way by teaching preparatory courses for the University, but there are few places and Hebrew would be necessary. That is also true for high school teaching, which some have also used. There are good universities in India, for example at Delhi. You might want to consider applying to a university in the U.S. If you have good grades there is still a good chance of financial support at many places. Of course, the best are Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Cornell, but even places like Ohio have excellent people. The main thing is to get those basic courses which reflect how people are thinking so you can go on from there.

Best wishes,
Larry

Url: http://www.tau.ac.il/~larry

Hello Sir - Saurav from India

Larry Horwitz [[email protected]] Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:37:54 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

Thank you very much for sending me your interesting papers. It is remarkable that you have been able to grasp so much of the technical tools of theoretical physics so quickly. There are some examples that we have of young people, very quick and clever, that want to move forward quickly. Without the basic foundations, they generally have difficulties, and those that have been successful have gone back to take the basic courses. You clearly have a talent to do so, but move you must. Your work shows many gaps in basic fundamental ideas and methods, and you should have the patience and strength to suffer through some of the standard courses at a good university. When you have gone through these courses methodically, you will be in a better position to move out and ahead with your own ideas. Some people claim that to do research in mathematics, one can read some books, or even work out much structure oneself; but in physics, you must see and hear what people think, to know their world view if you are to have an impact on it. I think this is even true of mathematics itself. I wish you success in this program. If you have questions or wish to discuss some ideas, please don't hesitate to be in contact with me.

With best wishes,
Larry Horwitz

Url: http://www.tau.ac.il/~larry

Towards the final Theory

Pankaj S Joshi [[email protected]] Tue, 13 Sep 2005 18:45:10 +0530 (IST)
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Shri Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you for your mail. It is impressive that you have tried to study the deep problems in theoretical physics. As such physics is however a difficult subject. In order to make further progress, it will be good if you also pursue a good course of study at a reputed university in India or abroad.

Wishing you all the best,
Pankaj S Joshi

Url: http://www.tifr.res.in

Towards the final Theory

Dr. Peter Enders [[email protected]] Mon, 12 Sep 2005 03:00:14 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Hello Saurav,

Thank you for your letter: I'm happy about every young man being an enthusiast of physics! As you have seen from my paper, I'm trying to understand Classical Physics, in order to understand Non-Classical Physics. Quantum Electrodynamics unifies Mechanics and Electromagnetism at the quantum level, but first it has to be unified at the classical level, for otherwise the problems of QED remains not really understood, as history seems us to tell. Nevertheless, you may email me any of your papers you wish to discuss about.

Best wishes,
Peter Enders

Towards the final Theory

Larry Horwitz [[email protected]] Thu, 08 Sep 2005 23:37:27 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

It will hard to get a "final" theory because we don't have all the experiments at hand. I would be interested in seeing what you have written. Please send material to me at

Prof. Larry Horwitz
School of Physics
Tel-Aviv University
Ramat Aviv 69978
Israel

Best wishes,
Larry Horwitz

Url: http://www.tau.ac.il/~larry

papers

Prof. Dr. W. Greiner [[email protected]] Thu, 01 Sep 2005 15:11:29 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Saurav Dwivedi,

Would you please send me your C.V. and some of your papers. The titles of your papers sound interesting, but I would like to have a look of some of them before making any commitment.

Let me also ask whether you have complete some formal studies e.g. do you have some master degree or any other degree.

Sincerely yours,
(Walter Greiner)

Url: http://www.fias.uni-frankfurt.de/~greiner

Hello Sir-Saurav from India

David Finkelstein [[email protected]] Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:31:30 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

Thank you for letting me see Bekenstein's advice. I agree with it completely, and it increases my already great respect for the man: that he took the time, come to the right conclusion, and expressed it so well.

Listen to him.
DRF

Url: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/dfinkelstein.html

Quoting "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Hello Sir-Saurav from India

Jacob Bekenstein [[email protected]] Fri, 29 Jul 2005 15:07:04 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Dwivedi,

I have had time to read a small part of your papers. I conclude you are either much older than 16 and with a good education in mathematics, or maybe 16 and very well read on your own. But I cannot say your papers, as far as I have read, hold great discoveries as you plainly think. There is too much of formal manipulation of equations without regard to the meaning of things. In other words, this way you are not going to get new physics. You need to develop a self-critical sense. This is best done in direct conversation with competent physicists of which there are many, many in India. And in view of your evident interest in theoretical physics, you should enter into a formal degree program at a university. Thus I do not see the justification for your being bored and requiring to come here. Your development can plainly be accomplished in India. And when you become properly self-critical and produce tenable ideas will be the time to look for continuation of studies abroad. Since I am in the dark about your real age and education, I cannot advice you more specifically. I should also say I materially lack the time to do more reading of your work.

Sincerely,
Jacob Bekenstein

Url: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~bekenste

Hello Sir-Saurav from India

Jacob Bekenstein [[email protected]] Mon, 25 Jul 2005 11:35:15 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Dwivedi,

I take it you are 16 of age. A bit young to enter B. Sc. studies. I was not able to find any papers by you, so I am unable to judge your true level of understanding. So this is all I can tell you. In general there are no full fellowships for undergraduates, which would make it specially hard for you.

best wishes,
Jacob Bekenstein

Url: http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~bekenste

Hello sir-Saurav from India

Eugene Stefanovich [[email protected]] Thu, 21 Jul 2005 22:40:25 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Hi Saurav,

Thank you very much for your article. Could you use your equations to consider some simple physical system (e.g., the hydrogen atom) and to demonstrate how predictions of your theory are different (or the same?) from the predictions of the existing approach? Is it possible to observe the differences in experiment? What kind of experiment should it be?

Please note that it is not accepted among scientists to name their equations after themselves (e.g. "Saurav equation").

Regarding computer software, I've never used Math type. I have a very old copy of Mathematica. I guess that official version of Mathematica costs hundreds of dollars, but I suspect that in India you can find "less official" versions for much less money.

You can get LaTeX and other useful software for free from the web-site www.miktex.org. I did that. It works fine.

To post your papers to arXiv.org you should carefully read all the instructions provided at that site. You'll not have troubles if you just follow the instructions. However, I believe, your paper is not yet suitable for publication. You need to show how your equations are related to observable physics, as I described above.

Regards.
Eugene.

Url: http://www.geocities.com/meopemuk

Hello sir-Saurav from India

Eugene Stefanovich [[email protected]] Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:13:25 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

I am doing some work on Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in my spare time. My regular work is at a computer software company. I do not have much contacts with academic institutes and the rest of scientific community. So, I am sorry, I am not able to help you with you desire to work in USA.

Best of luck in your pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Regards.
Eugene Stefanovich.

Url: http://www.geocities.com/meopemuk

Race for the time not yet lost

"Celia M. Elliott" [[email protected]] Thu, 07 Jul 2005 02:09:41 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Dwivedi:

Thank you for your most recent message, although I am afraid I am not able to understand your various papers. I am not a physicist; I am a technical editor who teaches scientific and technical writing to our advanced undergraduates.

I have no capability to arrange a fellowship for you; those are awarded to our best students who have gained admission to our graduate program (i.e., those students who have already obtained a bachelor's degree and who have been admitted to study for a Ph.D degree in physics) after a competitive and rigorous application process. My best advice would continue to be to pursue your studies in India, obtain your bachelor's degree, and then follow the steps to apply for graduate study in the United States. Our website has a useful document that explains the steps a student must take at

www.physics.uiuc.edu/Education/Graduate/applic/graduate-study-in-us.htm

There are no shortcuts or ways around this formal process.

Very truly yours,
Celia Elliott

Celia Elliott
Department of Physics
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
"Saepe errans, nunquam incerta"

Saurav from India

"Celia M. Elliott" [[email protected]] Fri, 03 Jun 2005 21:37:37 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Dwivedi:

Thank you for your message, and please accept my sincere apologies for my tardiness in replying to you. Unfortunately, it arrived while I was on travel to Arizona, and I'm afraid I overlooked it when I returned. I found it again today as I was filing some old email messages.

I think your tactic of submitting papers to the International Journal of Physics is a good one. We learn and grow as scientists as we submit our ideas to experts for their constructive criticism and advice. It is very important to think critically and objectively about the reviews that you receive on your papers and let the comments of the reviewers guide your thinking.

In August, we will have a new faculty member joining our department, Dr. Smitha Vishveshwara. She is a theoretical condensed matter physicist, and she is also Indian. Her email address is [email protected]. Perhaps she could also suggest some strategies for you.

Your friend,
Celia

Celia Elliott
Department of Physics, University of Illinois
"Saepe errans, nunquam incerta"

Your recent email

Malcolm MacCallum [[email protected]] Mon, 20 Jun 2005 15:42:29 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Thank you for your further letter. As I think I would have explained before I am not an appropriate person to advise you scientifically since my expertise is not in the areas you are working on, although I am impressed by your self-study efforts.

I think the best course for you at this stage would be to make contact with one of the several strong centres in India. It seems to me quite important if you are to develop further that you should make contact with active researchers and gain an understanding of what the key questions are, what is already known, and especially what is not worth doing.

Unfortunately I no longer have contacts in Banaras Hindu University, which I think is not so far from you. I am not expert in the geography of India but there are certainly good groups in, for instance, Delhi, Calcutta, Nagpur, Pune, Mumbai and Bangalore and maybe one of those is accessible for you. But perhaps your best bet would be to contact the Inter-University Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics at Pune, who have as part of their mission the encouragement of school students.

Good luck for the future
Malcolm MacCallum
Vice-Principal (Science and Engineering)
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Queen Mary, University of London

Url: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~mm

Theoretical Physicist-Saurav Dwivedi (India)

Malcolm MacCallum [[email protected]] Mon, 28 Feb 2005 04:11:25 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

I admire the efforts you are making but unfortunately my institution does not have funds for support of people in circumstances such as yours.

I wish you the very best of luck
Malcolm MacCallum
Vice-Principal (Science and Engineering)
Professor of Applied Mathematics
Queen Mary, University of London

Url: http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/~mm

Towards the final Theory

Lee Smolin [[email protected]] Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:43:15 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav,

If you have done all this and are still in high school the good advice is just to apply to university and go there and get a good training in physics and mathematics. Many universities will take students who have shown evidence of talent a year early.

Thanks,
Lee Smolin

Url: http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca

Hello sir-Saurav from India

David Finkelstein [[email protected]] Mon, 16 May 2005 00:00:24 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

MIT has put many of its courses on the internet. You might take some of their physics courses as self-study, wherever you enroll.

Regards,
David Finkelstein

Url: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/dfinkelstein.html

Quoting "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Hello sir-Saurav from India

David Finkelstein [[email protected]] Tue, 22 Mar 2005 05:54:23 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

Your interest in adavnced physics is admirable and should be encouraged. I regret to say, however, that your grades and the quality of your papers does not permit me to endorse your application for a scholarship to Georgia Tech. I hope that you will manage to continue your studies anyway, either through independent study or in a more accessible university.

Sincerely,
David Finkelstein

Url: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/dfinkelstein.html

Quoting "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Hello sir-Saurav from India

David Finkelstein [[email protected]] Fri, 08 Oct 2004 01:18:57 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Saurav Dwivedi,

The instructions at the two addresses I gave you are all that I have. If you have not yet mastered the LaTeX language there are several good books that make it easy. I use "LaTeX: A Document Preparation System (2nd Edition)" by Leslie Lamport. The information may also be available on line.

Good luck,
David Finkelstein

Url: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/dfinkelstein.html

Quoting "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

[ My Admirers | Letters | Scientific Criticism | Editorial Criticism | Top ]

Editorial Criticism

Moderation for QPT

Timothy F. Havel [[email protected]] Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 8:15 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]
Cc: "David G. Cory (Editor-in-Chief)" [[email protected]]

Dear Dr. Saurav Dwivedi,

Nevertheless, our previous conclusion still stands: your paper will certainly find more suitable readers if it is sent to a journal that deals specifically with foundational issues in Quantum Mechanics. A subsequent paper which deals specifically with the benefits that your theory brings to quantum computing may be of interest, but you should of course first get your paper on the basic theory published.

With best wishes,

--
Timothy F. Havel
Managing Editor, Quantum Information Processing
MIT (NW14-2218) 150 Albany St.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 USA

617/253-8309 (-5405 FAX)
[email protected]

LaTeX [final version] of Quantum Probability Theory

Timothy F. Havel [[email protected]] Tue, Jul 4, 2006 at 6:10 PM
To: "Saurav Dwivedi (qr.)" [[email protected]]
Cc: "David G. Cory (Editor-in-Chief)" [[email protected]]

Dear Dr. Saurav Dwivedi,

The editor-in-chief, David Cory, and I have now had a chance to examine your paper together, and we have to say that we do not think it is really suitable for our journal. Specifically, our journal is dedicated to Quantum Information Processing, which is simultaneously a branch of computer science and engineering physics. Your paper deals however with the foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Granted, some of the papers appearing in our journal do deal with rather fundamental issues, to the extent that these impinge upon quantum algorithms and/or questions regarding how a quantum computer may someday be built. As a rule, however, we try not to publish papers which are primarily concerned with the foundations of Quantum Mechanics, as there are already quite a number of other journals out there which do this. The readers of another Springer journal, Foundations of Physics, are quite a bit more likely to be excited by your paper, for example.

Nevertheless, we appreciate the interest you have shown in our journal, and would welcome any papers you may write on more applicable topics.

With best wishes,

--
Timothy F. Havel
Managing Editor, Quantum Information Processing
MIT (NW14-2218) 150 Albany St.
Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 USA

617/253-8309 (-5405 FAX)
[email protected]

Your Annalen submission ue301/2005

Ulrich Eckern [[email protected]] Wed, 30 Mar 2005 19:09:47 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Mr. Saurav Dwivedi,

Thank you for sending your manuscript "A theoretical study of psi-waves" to Annalen der Physik. The paper has been given the reference number ue301/2005.

I understand that you have put a lot of work into this study. However, I have to inform you that your manuscript is not acceptable for publication in this journal, since it does not conform with our usual standards. In particular, by mixing rather arbitrarily classical and quantum concepts, no additional understanding of Quantum Mechanics and its classical limit is achieved. The ambiguous use of total and partial time derivatives is, in my opinion, very questionable.

Sincerely yours
Ulrich Eckern
Editor in Chief

Url: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/~eckern

Hello Sir : Saurav From India

David Finkelstein [[email protected]] Wed, 10 Nov 2004 15:42:25 IST
To: "Saurav Dwivedi" [[email protected]]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for offering your work to International Journal of Theoretical Physics. I do not believe that we received the paper copy. We now provide an internet site where you can contribute articles and track their progress on line. You will find its address and instructions for using it at

http://www.physics.gatech.edu/ijtp/

I look forward to receiving your paper electronically.

Yours truly,
David Finkelstein

Url: http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/dfinkelstein.html

Quoting Saurav Dwivedi [[email protected]]

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws