On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 6:52:01 PM UTC-8, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, January 8, 2024 at 5:28:07 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 8:31:37 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.
> > > I'm much more enjoying d'Espagnat by now,
> > > it's getting pretty interesting, and he shows his bravery,
> > > with a sort of velvet-glove approach.
> > >
> > > "Philosophy of Physics", ....
> > >
> > > Not Badiou though
> > > ...
> > You can start your own acceleration on your world line...
> > But that does not create another frame's kinetic energy.
> > Your own motion gives you your own kinetic energy.
> Actually it's work.
>
> Yeah, d'Espagnat, is rather variable, or maybe it's just that his
> on the one hand advocating ontology, on the other hand advocating teleology,
> have their sections, with regards to his clean sections each, about whether
> he's enough of a unifier, to actually result the silver thread, from teleology
> through ontology for the theoretical and scientific views, or that
> lacking the necessary mathematical fundamentals, will result in caution.
>
> His strong objectivism doesn't really seem to take a very defensible approach
> for his theorist, and there is one and it's a strong mathematical platonism that
> after mathematical foundations arrives with a teolological theory at all, and
> it's a strong contradistinctive objective/subjective.
>
> So, it remains to be seen whether his "Physics and Philosophy",
> results a, philosophy and physics.

Also you should know that pseudomomentum is how modern physics is acknowledging
that Newton's laws include neither the rotational, centrally, nor the Mach-ian, or as for
field effects, and even in the regular meso-scale.

That is to say, pseudomomentum, in the open, is how conservation of momentum is,
and, then otherwise that according to General Relativity, it's inertial-system, objects in motion.

Some people would have been entirely agog that the usual physics they got in mechanics
was only about half right, and, about half wrong. And, not just because their teachers or books
were poor, it's that the theory needs quite a bit more better mathematics to get sound itself.

Anyways if you enjoy Dirac, he's still waiting for better physics for better physicists.
What he needs though is better mathematics.

There's lots of empirical knowledge in mechanics and the electrical and optical and nuclear,
a lot, indeed so much so that's separated from the simpler theories that it's hard to find a
good anybody any more, in a world half-full of shallow incompetents faking it as they don't make it.

That is to say, every sector from the photon sector to the nonlinear to the cosmological,
but starting directly with mechanics and the electrical, has a whole bunch of esoteric
empirical wisdom, with its related formalisms and theory and sub-fields of fields, about
the tribological and rheological and the limits of electron physics and Hooke and Clausius,
the limits of the Central Limit Theorem, the classical in a world of sum potentials, and on and on,
according to whom planes fly and phones dial and even mostly simple APIs work on their stack.

So, the idea of making a better mathematics first, is that mathematics is the entire noumenal
realm of the ideals, that isn't the metaphor that fails, but the strong metonymy that supports
all structure, and any matters of sound reason and inference, in the noumenal realm that
includes an object-sense after a word-sense and number-sense, these being senses bridging
the noumenal realm of Man and his Mind, and, the phenomenal realm of the Animal and Machine.

So, mathematics, has a continuum in it. And, modern mathematics, is due a paleo-classical super-classical,
approach to the accommodation of mathematical continuum, and mathematical infinity, as
elements exactly as of our object-sense, and exactly as what is Mind's gift, truth, from inference.

Thusly, the great work of those who ushered in modern technology, is according to the development
of these higher level notions, and then, the great many excellent minds who invented modern
society instead of squeezing the rich juice out of selling the most stupid attention grabbers possible,
has that it's a real tragedy that so many great minds never really learned a field except asymmetry
of information, exploiting it.

So, it's not so that a modern man (or woman, a person) can't learn themselves a theory, a good one,
a solid one, a sound one, with all the guarantees of performance, correctness, accuracy, and truth.

But, mostly, great minds don't think alike. Great minds think apiece, and result alike.

Then, as for strong mathematical platonism and axiomless natural deduction, one thinks the same.

So, you, too, can be a real scientist, but your resource isn't a script-reader designed to be anybody's minder,
it's the stacks, it's the collected wisdom of the greatest assemblage of knowledge in today's recorded
history, it's called front-line primary science, and you owe it a lot.

Then, the only way to get there, and be a scientist and not just an experiment, is theory.

Then, at some point the truth is as profound as music is about it. Of course,
music is all about you, and the fact that there are universal truths and a universal truth,
still make for that there's an infinity of theories and one of them's yours..

Yet, a strong mathematical platonism is a theory that will be there.

---