Response to Horton and Dewdney

2002/10/02 by Roderich Tumulka, Tumulka, Roderich
Engineering · Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #FOS: Physical sciences #Mathematical Dynamics and Fractals #Mathematics and Applications #Quantum Physics (quant-ph) #Sports Dynamics and Biomechanics #quant-ph

paper · pdf · doi:10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0210018

2 pages, no figures, LaTeX

arxiv created 2002/10/02 · openalex publication_date 2002/10/02 · arxiv updated 2009/12/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28

Abstract

There are some points in the reply of Horton et al. [http://stacks.iop.org/JPhysA/35/7963] to my comment [quant-ph/0202140] on their paper [quant-ph/0103114] which I cannot let stand without a response. I provide here some clarification of how much I proved about the set of points where their law of motion is ill-defined.

Related

• Surrejoinder to the Comment on: "Thermostatistics of Overdamped Motion of Interacting Particles" by Y. Levin and R. Pakter
• Amherst Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
• Comments on Struyve and Baere's paper on experiments to distinguish Bohmian mechanics from quantum mechanics
• Replies to Comments on "Tetraquarks as Diquark-Antidiquark Bound Systems"
• The math must be right: Comment on "Dimensional analysis, falling bodies, and the fine art of not solving differential equations" by C. F. Bohren [Am. J. Phys. 72, 534-537 (2004)]