head-lblueora-brit

Some Scholarly Appreciations
of the new research ideas of Prof. Gomatam
at the foundations of Quantum Mechanics

 

      “I was very interested in the talk by Dr. Ravi Gomatam . . . because he showed, by some nice arguments, that the proper way to think of quantum mechanics is in terms of relationships . . . . This is a new way of thinking.  It may be that this is how we should be doing science”.

      (Brian Josephson, Nobel Laureate; Plenary talk, “Quantum Approaches to Consciousness” Conference; Organized by the University of Arizona at Flagstaff; August 1999)

§

“However, many applied optimization problems have not been considered yet. It is necessary to use optimization methods of quantum and bio-molecular systems, because of the practical importance of the implementation of physical processes satisfying the required quality criteria. Most of the attention is focused on the following problems: … 2. Mathematical modeling of controlled physical and chemical processes in the brain; [to] consider the brain as a quantum macroscopic object (Gomatam, 1999).”

Panos M. Pardalos and Vitaliy A. Yatsekno (Eds.) Optimization and Control of Bilinear Systems: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications, p. 208,  Springer, New York (2008)

§

 “Your paper* contains the germ of an important idea, namely that the ontology underlying the science needs or exploit quantum mechanics in a way that allows basic entities to be signs/symbols that are representations of meanings to be manipulated in the way that certain shapes are thought to be manipulated in the classical physics conception of reality.” 

(Prof. Henry Stapp, PhD, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, University of California, USA)

*R. Gomatam (2009) "Quantum Theory, the Chinese Room Argument and the Symbol Grounding Problem"  

§

“Gomatam has proposed a new approach† according to which quantum theory ought  to use the terms ‘statistics’ or ‘probability’ to refer only to the occurrence of observable events and  altogether renounce the notion of probabilities when talking about quantum ontological states. “

(Prof. B.V. Sreekantan, “Current Science” (2010), Journal of Indian Academy of Sciences)

R. Gomatam (2010) Popper’s Propensity Interpretation and
Heisenberg’s Potentia Interpretation
A comparative assessment

§

“We agree with Gomatam (1999)  who argues for a revision of our notion of macroscopic objects… Indeed, the key to progress … may lie in a willingness to abandon stalwart concepts of dynamism such as energy, momentum, force, and even causation at the fundamental level of modeling.”

      (M.W. Stuckey (2000) Uniform Spaces in the Pregeometric Modeling of Quantum Non-Separability; arXiv:gr-qc/0003104v2; submitted to the International J. Theoretical Physics

A NATO funded paper)

R. Gomatam (1999) Quantum Theory and the Observation Problem

§

© 2014 Bhaktivedanta Institute
Template by QualityJoomlaTemplates