Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Bulletin of the American Physical Society

DIGIT-PHYSICS: Digits Are Bosons Are Quanta Because (On Average) Quanta and Bosons Are and Always Were Digits!!!;Contra Wigner, ``On the Unreasonable Effectiveness of \textbf{\textit{Physics in}} Mathematics!''; Do Physics-NECESSARY-Averages Equal or VS. DIGITS-Log-LawS(!!!) Averages???

Hermon Chernoff, Edward Carl-Ludwig Siegel, Marvin Antonoff, Adolph Smith, Frederic Young

Published Mar 19, 2013• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

DIGIT-PHYSICS: Digits Are Bosons Are Quanta Because (On Average) Quanta and Bosons Are and Always Were Digits!!! DIGITS?: For a Very Long Time Giving Us All The FINGER!!!

Edward Carl-Ludwig Siegel, Simon Newcomb, John William Strutt-Rayleigh +4 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 4, 2015•0 citations

``Quantum-Computing''(Q-C) = Simple-Arithmetic Since Digits = Quanta/Bosons Via Algebraic-INVERSION 1881(<1901-05-25) of Digits On-Average Logarithmic-Law = ONLY BEQS!!!

Ermakov Pi, Edward Carl-Ludwig Siegel

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 22, 2011•0 citations

Quanta, Physicists, and Probabilities ... ?

Elemér Elad Rosinger

There seems to be nothing short of a {\it double whammy} hitting the users of probability, and among them physicists, especially those involved in the foundations of quanta. First is the instant instinctual reaction that phenomena which interest one do sharply and clearly divide into the {\it dichotomy} of {\it two and only two} alternatives of being {\it either} ``deterministic", {\it or} on the contrary, being ``probabilistic". However, there is also a second, prior and yet deeper trouble, namely, the ``probabilistic" case is strongly believed to be equally clear and well-founded as is the ``deterministic" one. And the only difference seen between the two is that the latter can talk also about ``individual" phenomena, while the former can only do so about large enough ``ensembles" for which, however, it is believed to be equally clear, precise and rigorous with the ``deterministic" approach. Or briefly, ``probabilistic'' is seen as nothing else but the ``deterministic'' on the level of ``ensembles" ... \\The fact, however, is that there is a {\it deep gap} between the empirical world of ``random" phenomena, and on the other hand, theories of ``probability". Furthermore, any attempt to bridge that gap does inevitably involve {\it infinity}, thus aggravating the situation to the extent that even today, and even if not quite realized by many, theories of ``probabilities" have a {\it shaky} foundation. \\This paper tries to bring to the awareness of various users of ``probabilities", and among them, to physicists involved in quanta, the fact that - seemingly unknown to them - they are self-inflicted victims of the mentioned double whammy. \\ \\

•Oct 22, 2016•0 citations

Why Fermions and Bosons are Observable as Single Particles while Quarks are not

Sencer Taneri

Applied mathematics/Applied Mathematics. A Journal of Chinese Universities/Gao-xiao yingyong shuxue xuebao•Jan 1, 2018•0 citations

Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics

Basudeba Mishra

Is mathematics the only language of science? Is there an equation for the observer? If not, can science ignore observer as unscientific. Was Wigner right when he talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics? Was Godel's incompleteness theorem based on natural mathematics? What is the basis of number theory? If we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems. The physics community blindly accepts rigid, linear ideas about the nature of space, time, dimension, etc. These theories provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better.

•Oct 1, 2015•0 citations

Mathematical Emptiness: The Illusion-like Effectiveness of Mathematical Mind

Graham P. Smetham

The view of the interdependent genesis of the two realms of dualistic manifestation; the realm of ‘physicality’, which is the objective aspect of the dualistic manifestation from the deeper, unitary, implicate (to use a term for levels of non-duality used by physicist David Bohm) dimension of Mindnature, and the subjective realm of individuated ‘mentality’ solves a crucial puzzle that has bothered many physicists and mathematicians. Eugene Wigner, for instance, referred to what he considered to be the ‘unreasonable effectiveness’ of mathematics in describing and explaining the physical world of ‘nature’; he called mathematics a ‘miracle’ and ‘a wonderful gift that we neither understand nor deserve.’ However, if both the realm of mentality and physicality emerge from a deeper level of universal Mindnature then it is surely not such a great mystery that mathematics, itself a product of mind, produces the conceptual patterns generated and followed by the ‘physical’ functioning of reality.

Prespacetime journal•Jan 1, 2011•0 citations
There seems to be nothing short of a {\it double whammy} hitting the users of probability, and among them physicists, especially those involved in the foundations of quanta. First is the instant instinctual reaction that phenomena which interest one do sharply and clearly divide into the {\it dichotomy} of {\it two and only two} alternatives of being {\it either} ``deterministic", {\it or} on the contrary, being ``probabilistic". However, there is also a second, prior and yet deeper trouble, namely, the ``probabilistic" case is strongly believed to be equally clear and well-founded as is the ``deterministic" one. And the only difference seen between the two is that the latter can talk also about ``individual" phenomena, while the former can only do so about large enough ``ensembles" for which, however, it is believed to be equally clear, precise and rigorous with the ``deterministic" approach. Or briefly, ``probabilistic'' is seen as nothing else but the ``deterministic'' on the level of ``ensembles" ... \\The fact, however, is that there is a {\it deep gap} between the empirical world of ``random" phenomena, and on the other hand, theories of ``probability". Furthermore, any attempt to bridge that gap does inevitably involve {\it infinity}, thus aggravating the situation to the extent that even today, and even if not quite realized by many, theories of ``probabilities" have a {\it shaky} foundation. \\This paper tries to bring to the awareness of various users of ``probabilities", and among them, to physicists involved in quanta, the fact that - seemingly unknown to them - they are self-inflicted victims of the mentioned double whammy. \\ \\
Is mathematics the only language of science? Is there an equation for the observer? If not, can science ignore observer as unscientific. Was Wigner right when he talked about the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics? Was Godel's incompleteness theorem based on natural mathematics? What is the basis of number theory? If we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems. The physics community blindly accepts rigid, linear ideas about the nature of space, time, dimension, etc. These theories provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better.
The view of the interdependent genesis of the two realms of dualistic manifestation; the realm of ‘physicality’, which is the objective aspect of the dualistic manifestation from the deeper, unitary, implicate (to use a term for levels of non-duality used by physicist David Bohm) dimension of Mindnature, and the subjective realm of individuated ‘mentality’ solves a crucial puzzle that has bothered many physicists and mathematicians. Eugene Wigner, for instance, referred to what he considered to be the ‘unreasonable effectiveness’ of mathematics in describing and explaining the physical world of ‘nature’; he called mathematics a ‘miracle’ and ‘a wonderful gift that we neither understand nor deserve.’ However, if both the realm of mentality and physicality emerge from a deeper level of universal Mindnature then it is surely not such a great mystery that mathematics, itself a product of mind, produces the conceptual patterns generated and followed by the ‘physical’ functioning of reality.