On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 9:12:49 PM UTC-8, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> On Monday 1 January 2024 at 23:47:35 UTC+1, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 30, 2023 at 12:56:06 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 12:08:48 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 10:20:57 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, December 26, 2023 at 10:21:33 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, December 25, 2023 at 12:38:35 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 12:03:38 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 10:48:02 AM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, December 24, 2023 at 9:31:14 AM UTC-8, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 12/23/23 6:13 PM, Mike Fontenot wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > In [the Bell paradox scenario], [...] the accelerometers on the two
> > > > > > > > > > > rockets will show different accelerations
> > > > > > > > > > This is JUST PLAIN WRONG. Equal proper accelerations is stipulated in
> > > > > > > > > > the setup. (IOW: the rockets are identical.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Please explain how, in the initial inertial frame, two identical rockets
> > > > > > > > > > can have differently-shaped trajectories simply because they are started
> > > > > > > > > > at different locations. You are claiming they do have differently-shaped
> > > > > > > > > > trajectories, which is ABSURD. (See the "***" paragraph of my previous
> > > > > > > > > > post, and its [@] footnote.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You are apparently too invested in your mistakes to re-think this and
> > > > > > > > > > resolve your errors. Your problem, not mine.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Tom Roberts
> > > > > > > > > I wonder, let's say you put "the theory" on a timeline down the decades.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, from 1900, there's electron physics, and, 1905, annus mirabilis, so every five years
> > > > > > > > > or so, there's an, ..., improvement, to the theory.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, not all the improvements, are compatible or sympatico, with the existing ones.
> > > > > > > > > For example that "relativity is classical in the limit" or along these lines, it's "conservative",
> > > > > > > > > while not compatible, is, "non-conservative", conservative in the sense of not really
> > > > > > > > > changing the theory, vis-a-vis conservation in the usual sense meaning invariant theory
> > > > > > > > > and symmetry laws and Noether's theorem and conserved quantities.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The Copenhagen interpretation or the stochastic model for the statistical ensemble is
> > > > > > > > > an example, then about Bohm-de Broglie and real wave mechanics of wave collapse,
> > > > > > > > > in events. Similarly resonance theory for the molecular and the differences between
> > > > > > > > > atomic and molecular is an example of this kind of thing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For relativity then the big deal seems about that SR is local. This wasn't in effect for
> > > > > > > > > lots of interpretations, so now they would be seen as, ...., well, "wrong" is pretty strong,
> > > > > > > > > but, no longer in effect, altogether.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Something like asymptotic freedom or that time symmetry is the only thing not shown
> > > > > > > > > falsified, these are pretty major touchstones on the evolution of the theory, and the
> > > > > > > > > fact that the popular accounts are usually quite a ways behind the novel accounts,
> > > > > > > > > and also not necessarily at all reflecting, the practical accounts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then, re-visiting the definitions and derivations, also result, revisiting the data. The
> > > > > > > > > data was gathered and tabulated according to the interpretation, about what it is.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, re-visiting or re-thinking the theory, here has the benefit of this, and the challenge
> > > > > > > > > of it, interpreting experiment as it's evolved in configuration and energy over time,
> > > > > > > > > and, according to what were the pronounced and exoteric theories, and especially,
> > > > > > > > > the practical or esoteric theories, is for dragging those out and helping people understand
> > > > > > > > > how and why the opinions changed, so they don't feel disserved or basically so
> > > > > > > > > that they don't distrust or dispute the competence, of, big and primary science.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Of course I'm kind of a personal aggrandizer myself and sort of really only trust
> > > > > > > > > theory for its own sake to make the best mathematical interpretation how then
> > > > > > > > > it's simplest to assign it clearest physical interpretations.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Otherwise, when there's "wall-papering", onto the theory, instead of "re-thinking",
> > > > > > > > > it, from first theoretical principles establishing the surrounds of the definitions
> > > > > > > > > and their derivations, I have feelings like "those people are incompetents and
> > > > > > > > > don't know bubkus, and their latest wall-papering after coat-tailing, is not,
> > > > > > > > > "quality construction".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Or, you know, "a theoretical physicist thinks this".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, whose problem is that?
> > > > > > > > One can say the same for mathematics and about the "standard" and "non-standard"
> > > > > > > > in mathematics, and the conservative and non-conservative, about continuum mechanics,
> > > > > > > > and, especially, what mathematics _owes_ physics, if physics, is to have sufficient correct
> > > > > > > > mathematical models, which of course automatically equip physical models, of the
> > > > > > > > attachments of physical models to mathematical models.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SZXq-UqCdA&list=PLb7rLSBiE7F5_h5sSsWDQmbNGsmm97Fy5&index=31
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Even defining a "continuous domain" today gets quite involved for measure theory,
> > > > > > > > then for these very interesting things in the interface between the discrete and continuous,
> > > > > > > > which would very well advise the conceit of the particle in quantum mechanics, and
> > > > > > > > why superstring theory is just a thing in continuum analysis, about doubling and halving,
> > > > > > > > the doubling-measures, doubling-spaces, angle-doubling, and so on, which are
> > > > > > > > quite, "real", mathematically, and mathematics is sort of short, owing physics.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, better theory in physics involves any rehabilitations of mathematics, also.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It's a continuum mechanics, ....
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Voice stress analysis is a sort of scientific approach to establish perceived veracity.
> > > > > > > Quine, "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", "Things and their place in theories"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quine%E2%80%93Putnam_indispensability_argument
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Putnam's Quibbles on Quine, pointless"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Paul Dirac gives a lecture, starting about why theoretical physicists are people.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "The wave function Psi is interpreted as referring to a physical state."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Some physicists have always objected to that probability interpretation. ..."
> > > > > > > "... One has to accept it. One cannot improve on it."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ci86Aps7CMo
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "We can no longer just shut our eyes to the negative energy states."
> > > > > > > (While it's still all positive probabilities, ..., as for what events.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "... there is a further doubling ...".
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > (Dirac explains where positrons come from, also electron holes.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > De Broglie talks about electron waves.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stRrf4DB_3Y
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I especially enjoyed the interview with de Broglie at the Paris Academy with the bust of Fresnel.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They're actually both pretty right. People saying Dirac and de Broglie are at odds are underinformed.
> > > > > > > Theorists not pulling them back together are just, well, they're stepping off.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgXYvaSfFdE
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Present day theoretical physics is not in a satisfactory state." -- Dirac
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Most physicists say that we can turn a blind eye toward the infinities, ...,
> > > > > > > cutting out artificially the infinities, ... I feel very unhappy about it. ...
> > > > > > > Mathematics does not allow you to discard infinities just when they
> > > > > > > don't suit you. ... I think I'm pretty well alone among physicists this way,
> > > > > > > ..., but I'm hoping, ...." -- Dirac
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "... resignation physics ...". -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Touschek#/media/File:Bruno_Touschek.jpg
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Merry Christmas
> > > > > > I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > He laughs then with his "how high I am" and "why worry" and it's like "you're finite, Feynman".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > His world of ammoniac salts is of a _false_, bravado. It's like when Dirac says
> > > > > > "it's hard to find people brave enough to be monumental physicists", Feynman's
> > > > > > a sort of showman.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I like Feynman, and he's got a lot of bits in his bag, and he's a decent explicator
> > > > > > when he isn't just blowing smoke, but after something like sum-of-histories
> > > > > > and the path integral that I associate with him, and are real, and formalisms
> > > > > > associated with scattering and tunneling in quantum theory, and electrodynamics
> > > > > > and chromodynamics, which are real, it's like that's a pretty good example of a
> > > > > > problem-solver and a calculator with a repertoire of approximations on the surface.
> > > > > > I like Feynman but he's sort of an engineer moreso than a physicist.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDZaM-Bi-kI
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It helps to hear Dirac's exposition first, then de Broglie, before Feynman.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Feynman is great, after Einstein he's one of the most famous physicists in the world.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "One man's virtual particle is another man's virtual anti-particle."
> > > > > I don't know if you've read d'Espagnat, he has a book that's a lot about Bell inequalities and the local,
> > > > > and non-local, and gets into all these notions of the instrumentalist and operationalist which are each
> > > > > sort of non-commital end-runs about the realist.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, on the one hand, I sort of enjoy reading d'Espagnat, because, he goes to such efforts to switch perspectives
> > > > > around and it's sort of a comedy of distraction, but on the other hand I sort of don't because it's seems a
> > > > > sort of illusionist's result, and I don't much feel that the theory result good and fair causally.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I sort of enjoy reading d'Espagnat, because most arguments he makes have easy pokes,
> > > > > but overall it seems he's just another "Dirac's timid coat-tailers", because "Dirac's brave theorists",
> > > > > are who will bring improvements overall to the theory, and not just another coat-tailing wall-papering.
> > > > >
> > > > > I kind of conflate d'Espagnat and Badiou this way.
> > > > Yeah, there's d'Espagnat and the like "I really put a lot into the Aspect-type experiment and
> > > > I'm here to tell you that Bell's inequalities aren't, and whether operationalist or instrumentalist
> > > > you're not a realist." Then Badiou's, "sure, I believe in truth, there's at least four kinds any one
> > > > of which obviates the other, and at any moment none of them are true", perception.
> > > >
> > > > They don't have, "a theory", but express volubly you don't, either,
> > > > whatever it is that you do. So I dispute them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect%27s_experiment
> > > >
> > > > "For his work on this topic, Aspect was awarded part of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics."
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, it's pretty much that want "physics is a French thing, you can't understand".
> > > > Then they also nod to Bohm who is better but say "don't listen to Bohm".
> > > >
> > > > It's like this one rap band put it, "it's a thing, that you _got_ to understand."
> > > >
> > > > "Refuse to lose."
> > > >
> > > > Don't get me wrong: waves are ondes.
> > > 1905: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaufmann%E2%80%93Bucherer%E2%80%93Neumann_experiments
> > >
> > >
> > > Greene: That's great 20'th century textbook.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFV2feKDK9E
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpsxH7mOopM&t=4670
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08aLgCb56_w
> > >
> > > Davies: Yeah, inflationary theory is paint-canned.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSpFz2ZXHGM
> > >
> > > t'Hooft: The, "quantum black hole", is really about the atom as real graviton and black-hole/white-hole and its own virtual partner.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z3JYb_g2Qs
> > >
> > > Woit: String theory's still a thing, it's just extended continuum mechanics. What mathematics needs is better continuum mechanics anyways, and it's what it's missing. Twistor theory is old Riemann metric wrapped as new.
> > >
> > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsI_HYtP6iU
> > >
> > > Turok: yeah you're right physics is in a crisis and its second ultraviolet catastrophe, and the first was resolved with discrete mechanics, and this with continuous.
> > >
> > > Davies has some of the best writings about the real parts of special relativity. Then though he gets into mysticism that isn't attached. Then t'Hooft is of course totally famous, and it reminds me of Jefimenko and they kind of go together. Turok is pretty great he at least is honest what's wrong with physics. Penrose on the one hand at least makes clear in his latest book "our theory together disagrees 120 orders of magnitude", then though he's gone right down the rabbit hole. Greene is sort of stuck because his dogmatic, if comprehensive, adherence to his received text kind of has him painted himself into a corner. Hossenfelder, rabbit hole. Kaku is pretty strong and he could pick up where he left off string theory, but, rabbit hole. Tyson is a great popularizer, and solid and textbook, but, the catastrophe has left him some sort of grasping so he's not really advised.
> > >
> > > Or, it's not their opinion, kind of.
> > >
> > > Turok though, Turok seemed pretty honest at least about problems physics has, and without going all rabbit hole, which is from Alice in Wonderland where going down the rabbit hole means leaving reality and traipsing into absurdity, or as from Through the Looking Glass and so on.
> > >
> > > So, t'Hooft is still out in front.
> > >
> > > Then there's Dirac, "see I told you so". Then there's Bohm and Einstein, "yeah, that'd be great".
> > >
> > > Then, it's kind of beckoning, "Cantor II".
> > 1905 it seems was a really great year. (For physics).
> It may seem. But really - the mystical mumble of your idiot
> guru wasn't even consistent, as it was demonstrated many
> times.

Happy New Year. 2023 was better in some ways than the COVID pandemic years..

I wonder about this, how about everybody in the world gets a unique ID.

Weinberg in "what's wrong with QM" and "living with infinities". (T'Hooft sort of went "quantum, more quantum, rabbit hole".)

Weinberg says "[Einstein] is, without question, the greatest physicist of the 20'th century."
Then he describes there are more involved with quantum mechanics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nnLbRaxtCE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFd9PIy_zXs

Of course Weinberg is a pretty real physicist.

Weinberg's about the most lucid of all these.

"There's a common answer that goes by the name of decoherence."

.... _to a continuum mechanics_, ..., is something I often say.

Weinberg, "from fundamental principles, ..., it's not from assuming it, ...".

I'm a big fan of Weinberg now and not just because Salam-Weinberg and asymptotic freedom
and he's a Nobel prize physicist. His quantum mechanics isn't wrong, and he understands it.

Then there's Weinstein, now on the Turok train "physics it's a crisis, subscribe mah tube",
Turok gets the priority on that because unlike the un-scientific "darker matter" or "morer complex"
or "what do you want it to be", he made it clear "it's hosed".

Weinberg, "it's still a pure wave function, no probability, superposition of two possibilities."

.... which then collapses back to one.

" ... maybe all the multiple histories of Everett really collapse to a single theory
and we don't have to worry about that anymore, ...".

"Lindblad, Gerardi Remini and Weber, ..."

Wow, then he takes questions, ..., and answers them. Though not a fan of Bohm, ....

"... the [pilot wave] didn't seem to me, ..., not to talk about Bohm's ideas, ..., maybe I'm allergic to them."

"If we could find a mathematical formulation ... yet that was philosophically satisfying ... yeah that would be great."

I enjoyed that, that talk from CASW ScienceWriting was good.

So Weinberg, is, out in front.

Happy New Year's

....