Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #396803 > unrolled thread

Penrose's new book

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 20:20 -0700
    Re: Penrose's new book Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 16:47 +0000
      Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 18:57 -0700
    Re: Penrose's new book Mike Fontenot <mlfasf@comcast.net> - 2016-10-27 07:19 -0600
    Re: Penrose's new book JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 13:07 -0700
      Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 21:26 -0700
      Re: Penrose's new book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-28 18:45 -0700
        Re: Penrose's new book Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-28 20:22 -0700
          Re: Penrose's new book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-28 21:34 -0700
            Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 06:23 -0700
              Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 12:19 -0700
                Re: Penrose's new book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-29 21:04 -0700
                  Re: Penrose's new book The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-10-30 12:27 -0800
                    Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 13:14 -0700
                      Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 23:51 -0700
                        Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 22:16 -0700
                          Re: Penrose's new book "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-11-24 20:02 -0800

#396803 — Penrose's new book

R. Penrose's book is pretty great.

It's a pretty good single source for 
a lot of what is under consideration 
in foundations as would need reconcile 
with theory and experiment.

Following "Road to Reality" as the modern 
treatise on mathematical physics, this new 
book "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the 
New Physics of the Universe" outlays much 
of the necessary complement of background 
to give the modern reader in physics a 
relevant perspective to issues in questions 
in modern physics.

I'd more highly recommend it but I'm only 
on page 70.  Otherwise my taste lies with, 
for example, Davies as one of the great 
explicators (and of very sound physics), 
Hawking is not poor, lately I read some 
Bohr and it was very good.

I'd be interested in your comments as you 
know it or have read it.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#396856

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

> I'd be interested in your comments as you know it or have read it.

You do the comments, so we spare the reading.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396894

(I'll return to 
unifying mathematics, 
then physics.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396913

On 10/25/16 9:20 PM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> R. Penrose's book is pretty great.
>

Thanks for the recommendation.  I think Penrose does an amazingly
good job in his books ...I've especially gotten (and continue to get) a
lot of good out of his "Shadows of the Mind" book.


>   Otherwise my taste lies with,
> for example, Davies as one of the great
> explicators (and of very sound physics),
> [...] lately I read some
> Bohr and it was very good.
>

I also like Davies little QM book (which I bought based on Penrose's
recommendation). But I've always found Bohr's writing to be very
obtuse.  Bohm and Dirac are much more to my liking (although they
have quite different writing styles).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396948

On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 8:20:31 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> R. Penrose's book is pretty great.
> 
> It's a pretty good single source for 
> a lot of what is under consideration 
> in foundations as would need reconcile 
> with theory and experiment.
> 
> Following "Road to Reality" as the modern 
> treatise on mathematical physics, this new 
> book "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the 
> New Physics of the Universe" outlays much 
> of the necessary complement of background 
> to give the modern reader in physics a 
> relevant perspective to issues in questions 
> in modern physics.
> 
> I'd more highly recommend it but I'm only 
> on page 70.  Otherwise my taste lies with, 
> for example, Davies as one of the great 
> explicators (and of very sound physics), 
> Hawking is not poor, lately I read some 
> Bohr and it was very good.
> 
> I'd be interested in your comments as you 
> know it or have read it.

Penrose is one of my fav. writers (except his speculation on the "ideal
world" are hopelessly naive IMHO, people have been thinking about this
stuff literally for milennia, unfortunately studying it is completely
out of fashion for scientists these days - long story).

Glancing at the table of content: it looks very similar to his other
books, what's the difference?

Another oddity: not a single mention of the quantum eraser according to
the Amazon search).

--
Jan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#396990

On Thursday, October 27, 2016 at 1:07:25 PM UTC-7, JanPB wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 8:20:31 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > R. Penrose's book is pretty great.
> > 
> > It's a pretty good single source for 
> > a lot of what is under consideration 
> > in foundations as would need reconcile 
> > with theory and experiment.
> > 
> > Following "Road to Reality" as the modern 
> > treatise on mathematical physics, this new 
> > book "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the 
> > New Physics of the Universe" outlays much 
> > of the necessary complement of background 
> > to give the modern reader in physics a 
> > relevant perspective to issues in questions 
> > in modern physics.
> > 
> > I'd more highly recommend it but I'm only 
> > on page 70.  Otherwise my taste lies with, 
> > for example, Davies as one of the great 
> > explicators (and of very sound physics), 
> > Hawking is not poor, lately I read some 
> > Bohr and it was very good.
> > 
> > I'd be interested in your comments as you 
> > know it or have read it.
> 
> Penrose is one of my fav. writers (except his speculation on the "ideal
> world" are hopelessly naive IMHO, people have been thinking about this
> stuff literally for milennia, unfortunately studying it is completely
> out of fashion for scientists these days - long story).
> 
> Glancing at the table of content: it looks very similar to his other
> books, what's the difference?
> 
> Another oddity: not a single mention of the quantum eraser according to
> the Amazon search).
> 
> --
> Jan

It seems his other works are somewhat 
more deliberative and pedantic, linear 
in the narrative as so establishes the 
usual grounds for reasoning (or proof, 
derivations) for the tools of the 
mathematical physics.  Here, he seems 
somewhat more speculative and querulous, 
letting his opinion through so much more 
than as academic reserve.  This is very 
enlightening to share the thought process 
about the tools of physics and also their 
goals and requirements to satisfy what 
would bridge the schism among relativity, 
quantum theory, and gravity.

In this section, he has introduced some of 
the reasoning as to why there would be
supra-dimensionality, then about the concerns 
of the combinatorial explosion or "functional 
freedom" in notation, of dimensionality, and 
as of the symmetry groups that preserve the 
invariance of gauge (or phase, as he clarifies).  
This helps me to understand the development of 
quantum theory toward beneath the Planck regime, 
and the history and cause behind the development 
of superstring theory.  Then, as from the mathematics 
there's a notion of pan- or poly-dimensionality, 
which may also be familiar as sum-of-histories, 
then I am looking forward to more of this as with 
regards to progress toward the "SU^N gauge theory".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397090

JanPB wrote:
> 
> On Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 8:20:31 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > R. Penrose's book is pretty great.
> >
> > It's a pretty good single source for
> > a lot of what is under consideration
> > in foundations as would need reconcile
> > with theory and experiment.
> >
> > Following "Road to Reality" as the modern
> > treatise on mathematical physics, this new
> > book "Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the
> > New Physics of the Universe" outlays much
> > of the necessary complement of background
> > to give the modern reader in physics a
> > relevant perspective to issues in questions
> > in modern physics.
> >
> > I'd more highly recommend it but I'm only
> > on page 70.  Otherwise my taste lies with,
> > for example, Davies as one of the great
> > explicators (and of very sound physics),
> > Hawking is not poor, lately I read some
> > Bohr and it was very good.
> >
> > I'd be interested in your comments as you
> > know it or have read it.
> 
> Penrose is one of my fav. writers (except his speculation on the "ideal
> world" are hopelessly naive IMHO, people have been thinking about this
> stuff literally for milennia, unfortunately studying it is completely
> out of fashion for scientists these days - long story).
> 
> Glancing at the table of content: it looks very similar to his other
> books, what's the difference?
> 
> Another oddity: not a single mention of the quantum eraser according to
> the Amazon search).
> 
> --
> Jan


One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.

quantum eraser erasers quantum..

It isn't there because quantum theory is not there.

You cannot understand that which does not exist.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397096

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.

10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
theory", as if this were somehow a point against it. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397101

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> 
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> 
> 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.



"Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."




 Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

    --Albert Einstein



"Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397123

On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > 
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > 
> > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> 
> 
> 
> "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> 
>     --Albert Einstein
> 
> 
> 
> "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman

"Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about 
several features observed in nature of radiation, 
as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate, 
or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the 
quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise 
exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave 
model, where high energy physics may have its 
tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave / 
pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.  

So, sometimes this is because there are observed 
"particles" at the detector, so as that defines 
the model, and sometimes this is because the 
mathematics would integrate the continuous and 
compute non-real-valued quantities (from, 
correspondingly, real-valued inputs).  

Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors 
and real-valued quantities are necessary for 
the usual experimental and theoretical in the 
physics, it's important to so establish what 
these particles and waves are (and they're both, 
as we also know from theory and experiment), 
for a tractable implementation of experiment 
(or to use the effects of physics for machines).  

The measurement or observation effect, then, 
is among the issues in the quantum to understand, 
and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among 
the issues in the quantum to understand, in 
the physics.

For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually 
"un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these 
goals, to understand non-standard real numbers 
as to how there can be computing of normalized 
(or measured) quantities thus that normalization 
is implemented in the continuous instead of the 
discrete (or "quantized").  

So, the big challenge for foundations in physics, 
is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics, 
and as a usual explanation of the continuous and 
discrete, and all that it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397156

On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > 
> > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > > 
> > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > 
> >     --Albert Einstein
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
> 
> "Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about 
> several features observed in nature of radiation, 
> as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate, 
> or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the 
> quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise 
> exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave 
> model, where high energy physics may have its 
> tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave / 
> pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.  
> 
> So, sometimes this is because there are observed 
> "particles" at the detector, so as that defines 
> the model, and sometimes this is because the 
> mathematics would integrate the continuous and 
> compute non-real-valued quantities (from, 
> correspondingly, real-valued inputs).  
> 
> Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors 
> and real-valued quantities are necessary for 
> the usual experimental and theoretical in the 
> physics, it's important to so establish what 
> these particles and waves are (and they're both, 
> as we also know from theory and experiment), 
> for a tractable implementation of experiment 
> (or to use the effects of physics for machines).  
> 
> The measurement or observation effect, then, 
> is among the issues in the quantum to understand, 
> and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among 
> the issues in the quantum to understand, in 
> the physics.
> 
> For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually 
> "un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these 
> goals, to understand non-standard real numbers 
> as to how there can be computing of normalized 
> (or measured) quantities thus that normalization 
> is implemented in the continuous instead of the 
> discrete (or "quantized").  
> 
> So, the big challenge for foundations in physics, 
> is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics, 
> and as a usual explanation of the continuous and 
> discrete, and all that it is.

A point of that is that 
most all particles of the 
Standard Model "zoo" are 
interactions of waves, in 
fields (of waves).

This is the same point as 
that quantum mechanics 
is continuum mechanics.

Quantum mechanics is upheld 
as it offers beautifully 
precise extra-classical 
predictions, given very 
particular configurations 
and energies of experiment.  
While that is so, over time 
it is always changing as 
higher-energy experiments 
come online and redefine the 
"running constants", where 
Avogadro's number grows.  

So, "quantum mechanics is 
never wrong", or, "always 
right", but it's never 
quite what it was or will 
be, just what it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397174

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > > >
> > > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > > > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > >
> > >     --Albert Einstein
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
> >
> > "Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about
> > several features observed in nature of radiation,
> > as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate,
> > or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the
> > quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise
> > exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave
> > model, where high energy physics may have its
> > tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave /
> > pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.
> >
> > So, sometimes this is because there are observed
> > "particles" at the detector, so as that defines
> > the model, and sometimes this is because the
> > mathematics would integrate the continuous and
> > compute non-real-valued quantities (from,
> > correspondingly, real-valued inputs).
> >
> > Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors
> > and real-valued quantities are necessary for
> > the usual experimental and theoretical in the
> > physics, it's important to so establish what
> > these particles and waves are (and they're both,
> > as we also know from theory and experiment),
> > for a tractable implementation of experiment
> > (or to use the effects of physics for machines).
> >
> > The measurement or observation effect, then,
> > is among the issues in the quantum to understand,
> > and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among
> > the issues in the quantum to understand, in
> > the physics.
> >
> > For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually
> > "un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these
> > goals, to understand non-standard real numbers
> > as to how there can be computing of normalized
> > (or measured) quantities thus that normalization
> > is implemented in the continuous instead of the
> > discrete (or "quantized").
> >
> > So, the big challenge for foundations in physics,
> > is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics,
> > and as a usual explanation of the continuous and
> > discrete, and all that it is.
> 
> A point of that is that
> most all particles of the
> Standard Model "zoo" are
> interactions of waves, in
> fields (of waves).
> 
> This is the same point as
> that quantum mechanics
> is continuum mechanics.
> 
> Quantum mechanics is upheld
> as it offers beautifully
> precise extra-classical
> predictions, given very
> particular configurations
> and energies of experiment.
> While that is so, over time
> it is always changing as
> higher-energy experiments
> come online and redefine the
> "running constants", where
> Avogadro's number grows.
> 
> So, "quantum mechanics is
> never wrong", or, "always
> right", but it's never
> quite what it was or will
> be, just what it is.



so, is the moon there even if I'm not looking at it?


Does it suddenly materialize just because I look at it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397201

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > > > >
> > > > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > > > > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > > >
> > > >     --Albert Einstein
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
> > >
> > > "Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about
> > > several features observed in nature of radiation,
> > > as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate,
> > > or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the
> > > quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise
> > > exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave
> > > model, where high energy physics may have its
> > > tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave /
> > > pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.
> > >
> > > So, sometimes this is because there are observed
> > > "particles" at the detector, so as that defines
> > > the model, and sometimes this is because the
> > > mathematics would integrate the continuous and
> > > compute non-real-valued quantities (from,
> > > correspondingly, real-valued inputs).
> > >
> > > Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors
> > > and real-valued quantities are necessary for
> > > the usual experimental and theoretical in the
> > > physics, it's important to so establish what
> > > these particles and waves are (and they're both,
> > > as we also know from theory and experiment),
> > > for a tractable implementation of experiment
> > > (or to use the effects of physics for machines).
> > >
> > > The measurement or observation effect, then,
> > > is among the issues in the quantum to understand,
> > > and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among
> > > the issues in the quantum to understand, in
> > > the physics.
> > >
> > > For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually
> > > "un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these
> > > goals, to understand non-standard real numbers
> > > as to how there can be computing of normalized
> > > (or measured) quantities thus that normalization
> > > is implemented in the continuous instead of the
> > > discrete (or "quantized").
> > >
> > > So, the big challenge for foundations in physics,
> > > is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics,
> > > and as a usual explanation of the continuous and
> > > discrete, and all that it is.
> >
> > A point of that is that
> > most all particles of the
> > Standard Model "zoo" are
> > interactions of waves, in
> > fields (of waves).
> >
> > This is the same point as
> > that quantum mechanics
> > is continuum mechanics.
> >
> > Quantum mechanics is upheld
> > as it offers beautifully
> > precise extra-classical
> > predictions, given very
> > particular configurations
> > and energies of experiment.
> > While that is so, over time
> > it is always changing as
> > higher-energy experiments
> > come online and redefine the
> > "running constants", where
> > Avogadro's number grows.
> >
> > So, "quantum mechanics is
> > never wrong", or, "always
> > right", but it's never
> > quite what it was or will
> > be, just what it is.
> 
> so, is the moon there even if I'm not looking at it?
> 
> Does it suddenly materialize just because I look at it?

Or, is the moon not there when I'm not looking at it?

so, if the moon is not there when I'm not looking at it..

...and when I begin to open my eyes to look at it...it
materializes...and it's there????


Albert Einstein [I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to
think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."

--Albert Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397207

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 12:26:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > 
> > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > >
> > > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > > > > > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > > > >
> > > > >     --Albert Einstein
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
> > > >
> > > > "Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about
> > > > several features observed in nature of radiation,
> > > > as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate,
> > > > or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the
> > > > quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise
> > > > exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave
> > > > model, where high energy physics may have its
> > > > tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave /
> > > > pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.
> > > >
> > > > So, sometimes this is because there are observed
> > > > "particles" at the detector, so as that defines
> > > > the model, and sometimes this is because the
> > > > mathematics would integrate the continuous and
> > > > compute non-real-valued quantities (from,
> > > > correspondingly, real-valued inputs).
> > > >
> > > > Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors
> > > > and real-valued quantities are necessary for
> > > > the usual experimental and theoretical in the
> > > > physics, it's important to so establish what
> > > > these particles and waves are (and they're both,
> > > > as we also know from theory and experiment),
> > > > for a tractable implementation of experiment
> > > > (or to use the effects of physics for machines).
> > > >
> > > > The measurement or observation effect, then,
> > > > is among the issues in the quantum to understand,
> > > > and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among
> > > > the issues in the quantum to understand, in
> > > > the physics.
> > > >
> > > > For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually
> > > > "un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these
> > > > goals, to understand non-standard real numbers
> > > > as to how there can be computing of normalized
> > > > (or measured) quantities thus that normalization
> > > > is implemented in the continuous instead of the
> > > > discrete (or "quantized").
> > > >
> > > > So, the big challenge for foundations in physics,
> > > > is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics,
> > > > and as a usual explanation of the continuous and
> > > > discrete, and all that it is.
> > >
> > > A point of that is that
> > > most all particles of the
> > > Standard Model "zoo" are
> > > interactions of waves, in
> > > fields (of waves).
> > >
> > > This is the same point as
> > > that quantum mechanics
> > > is continuum mechanics.
> > >
> > > Quantum mechanics is upheld
> > > as it offers beautifully
> > > precise extra-classical
> > > predictions, given very
> > > particular configurations
> > > and energies of experiment.
> > > While that is so, over time
> > > it is always changing as
> > > higher-energy experiments
> > > come online and redefine the
> > > "running constants", where
> > > Avogadro's number grows.
> > >
> > > So, "quantum mechanics is
> > > never wrong", or, "always
> > > right", but it's never
> > > quite what it was or will
> > > be, just what it is.
> > 
> > so, is the moon there even if I'm not looking at it?
> > 
> > Does it suddenly materialize just because I look at it?
> 
> Or, is the moon not there when I'm not looking at it?
> 
> so, if the moon is not there when I'm not looking at it..
> 
> ...and when I begin to open my eyes to look at it...it
> materializes...and it's there????
> 
> 
> Albert Einstein [I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to
> think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> 
> --Albert Einstein

"Maybe it would help to see it clearly 
if you took off your glasses first 
and looked at it with your naked eye."

Then see it.

Exactly what the detector is as a 
physical interface for the realization 
of the "quantization" of the thing, 
or exactly what paths the "particle" 
may take (as a wave) sees that in a 
sense, the wave (or impulse) may 
not follow the classical model of 
propagation instead this tachyonic/
bradyonic wave model.  This is kind 
of like where light speed is always 
c and time is always forward and 
cause always makes event.  Still, 
it allows for the intromissive 
and extromissive.  

You can sleep well at night, 
it's still there.

I have a pretty good idea of what sound 
a forest makes for the trees, and one 
hand clapping is one hand grasping.

Here, the koan has no meaning.

Then, that said as rather soft or 
lightly philosophical, you seem to 
ask more about the observer or 
measurement effect then how it applies 
to particles and waves.  This is 
most certainly an anthropocentric 
view, that you can see for yourself, 
then that the more we know the more 
likely there's another view.

So, it is in a sense philosophical, 
these questions of very existence, 
for which we have a mathematical logic 
for reason, that these days some still 
hope to achieve as a natural philosophy 
or physics as from mathematics alone.


I skipped some ahead in Penrose's book 
and was surprised when he noted that he 
wouldn't hold unitarity U as key.  I could 
agree that the quite entire thing altogether 
is anisotropic or the gradient (i.e., not 
isotropic, though, isotropic in the large) 
but still quite isotropic in the large for 
unitarity.  These days the universe is yet 
measured flat again, and our locale as a 
jet in the mega-structure LaniaKea of all 
the galaxies as which we are but a jet, 
the universe isn't quite so expanding as 
last year.  

The recent sky surveys are having quite 
more usually random red- and blue-shift, 
this is affecting some of the conclusions 
of data of the 20'th c. sky survey.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397569

On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 1:14:15 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 12:26:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > 
> > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > > > > > > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > > > > >
> > > > > >     --Albert Einstein
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
> > > > >
> > > > > "Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about
> > > > > several features observed in nature of radiation,
> > > > > as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate,
> > > > > or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the
> > > > > quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise
> > > > > exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave
> > > > > model, where high energy physics may have its
> > > > > tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave /
> > > > > pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, sometimes this is because there are observed
> > > > > "particles" at the detector, so as that defines
> > > > > the model, and sometimes this is because the
> > > > > mathematics would integrate the continuous and
> > > > > compute non-real-valued quantities (from,
> > > > > correspondingly, real-valued inputs).
> > > > >
> > > > > Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors
> > > > > and real-valued quantities are necessary for
> > > > > the usual experimental and theoretical in the
> > > > > physics, it's important to so establish what
> > > > > these particles and waves are (and they're both,
> > > > > as we also know from theory and experiment),
> > > > > for a tractable implementation of experiment
> > > > > (or to use the effects of physics for machines).
> > > > >
> > > > > The measurement or observation effect, then,
> > > > > is among the issues in the quantum to understand,
> > > > > and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among
> > > > > the issues in the quantum to understand, in
> > > > > the physics.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually
> > > > > "un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these
> > > > > goals, to understand non-standard real numbers
> > > > > as to how there can be computing of normalized
> > > > > (or measured) quantities thus that normalization
> > > > > is implemented in the continuous instead of the
> > > > > discrete (or "quantized").
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the big challenge for foundations in physics,
> > > > > is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics,
> > > > > and as a usual explanation of the continuous and
> > > > > discrete, and all that it is.
> > > >
> > > > A point of that is that
> > > > most all particles of the
> > > > Standard Model "zoo" are
> > > > interactions of waves, in
> > > > fields (of waves).
> > > >
> > > > This is the same point as
> > > > that quantum mechanics
> > > > is continuum mechanics.
> > > >
> > > > Quantum mechanics is upheld
> > > > as it offers beautifully
> > > > precise extra-classical
> > > > predictions, given very
> > > > particular configurations
> > > > and energies of experiment.
> > > > While that is so, over time
> > > > it is always changing as
> > > > higher-energy experiments
> > > > come online and redefine the
> > > > "running constants", where
> > > > Avogadro's number grows.
> > > >
> > > > So, "quantum mechanics is
> > > > never wrong", or, "always
> > > > right", but it's never
> > > > quite what it was or will
> > > > be, just what it is.
> > > 
> > > so, is the moon there even if I'm not looking at it?
> > > 
> > > Does it suddenly materialize just because I look at it?
> > 
> > Or, is the moon not there when I'm not looking at it?
> > 
> > so, if the moon is not there when I'm not looking at it..
> > 
> > ...and when I begin to open my eyes to look at it...it
> > materializes...and it's there????
> > 
> > 
> > Albert Einstein [I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to
> > think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > 
> > --Albert Einstein
> 
> "Maybe it would help to see it clearly 
> if you took off your glasses first 
> and looked at it with your naked eye."
> 
> Then see it.
> 
> Exactly what the detector is as a 
> physical interface for the realization 
> of the "quantization" of the thing, 
> or exactly what paths the "particle" 
> may take (as a wave) sees that in a 
> sense, the wave (or impulse) may 
> not follow the classical model of 
> propagation instead this tachyonic/
> bradyonic wave model.  This is kind 
> of like where light speed is always 
> c and time is always forward and 
> cause always makes event.  Still, 
> it allows for the intromissive 
> and extromissive.  
> 
> You can sleep well at night, 
> it's still there.
> 
> I have a pretty good idea of what sound 
> a forest makes for the trees, and one 
> hand clapping is one hand grasping.
> 
> Here, the koan has no meaning.
> 
> Then, that said as rather soft or 
> lightly philosophical, you seem to 
> ask more about the observer or 
> measurement effect then how it applies 
> to particles and waves.  This is 
> most certainly an anthropocentric 
> view, that you can see for yourself, 
> then that the more we know the more 
> likely there's another view.
> 
> So, it is in a sense philosophical, 
> these questions of very existence, 
> for which we have a mathematical logic 
> for reason, that these days some still 
> hope to achieve as a natural philosophy 
> or physics as from mathematics alone.
> 
> 
> I skipped some ahead in Penrose's book 
> and was surprised when he noted that he 
> wouldn't hold unitarity U as key.  I could 
> agree that the quite entire thing altogether 
> is anisotropic or the gradient (i.e., not 
> isotropic, though, isotropic in the large) 
> but still quite isotropic in the large for 
> unitarity.  These days the universe is yet 
> measured flat again, and our locale as a 
> jet in the mega-structure LaniaKea of all 
> the galaxies as which we are but a jet, 
> the universe isn't quite so expanding as 
> last year.  
> 
> The recent sky surveys are having quite 
> more usually random red- and blue-shift, 
> this is affecting some of the conclusions 
> of data of the 20'th c. sky survey.

Penrose continues with an outline 
of supersymmetry, and as about 
the bosons and fermions and as 
they obey the Bose and Fermi 
statistics or parastatistics, 
though instead he just describes 
as they are different and separated 
as the transforms are not commutative, 
then about that the partner-ino's are 
academic in terms of modern and foreseen 
levels of energy and experiment (yet 
still quite academic).

The Bose and Fermi statistics and 
parastatistics reflect that the 
statistics or probabilities as 
it is well established quantum 
events so follow, don't necessarily 
follow usual models as continuous 
(or discrete, for that matter) 
probability distributions.  From 
what I gather, Fermi statistics are
reasonably approximated by continuous 
distributions, and Bayes, and Bose 
reasonably approximated by continuous 
distributions, and Jeffreys (expectations), 
but neither is quite accurate.  

This is an example where probability 
theory itself has some explaining to 
do to have a mathematical model for 
parastatistics at all.

Penrose doesn't include parastatistics 
in the section yet on supersymmetry 
that he otherwise frames as the balance 
in the particles between bosons and fermions.

A supersymmetric gauge and quantum field 
theory with perhaps superstring theory 
but only for Minkowski, yet seems to be 
compatible with Penrose's outline in 
the first hundred or so pages.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#397742

On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:51:14 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 1:14:15 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 12:26:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > > > > > > > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >     --Albert Einstein
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about
> > > > > > several features observed in nature of radiation,
> > > > > > as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate,
> > > > > > or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the
> > > > > > quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise
> > > > > > exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave
> > > > > > model, where high energy physics may have its
> > > > > > tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave /
> > > > > > pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, sometimes this is because there are observed
> > > > > > "particles" at the detector, so as that defines
> > > > > > the model, and sometimes this is because the
> > > > > > mathematics would integrate the continuous and
> > > > > > compute non-real-valued quantities (from,
> > > > > > correspondingly, real-valued inputs).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors
> > > > > > and real-valued quantities are necessary for
> > > > > > the usual experimental and theoretical in the
> > > > > > physics, it's important to so establish what
> > > > > > these particles and waves are (and they're both,
> > > > > > as we also know from theory and experiment),
> > > > > > for a tractable implementation of experiment
> > > > > > (or to use the effects of physics for machines).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The measurement or observation effect, then,
> > > > > > is among the issues in the quantum to understand,
> > > > > > and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among
> > > > > > the issues in the quantum to understand, in
> > > > > > the physics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually
> > > > > > "un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these
> > > > > > goals, to understand non-standard real numbers
> > > > > > as to how there can be computing of normalized
> > > > > > (or measured) quantities thus that normalization
> > > > > > is implemented in the continuous instead of the
> > > > > > discrete (or "quantized").
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, the big challenge for foundations in physics,
> > > > > > is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics,
> > > > > > and as a usual explanation of the continuous and
> > > > > > discrete, and all that it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > A point of that is that
> > > > > most all particles of the
> > > > > Standard Model "zoo" are
> > > > > interactions of waves, in
> > > > > fields (of waves).
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the same point as
> > > > > that quantum mechanics
> > > > > is continuum mechanics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Quantum mechanics is upheld
> > > > > as it offers beautifully
> > > > > precise extra-classical
> > > > > predictions, given very
> > > > > particular configurations
> > > > > and energies of experiment.
> > > > > While that is so, over time
> > > > > it is always changing as
> > > > > higher-energy experiments
> > > > > come online and redefine the
> > > > > "running constants", where
> > > > > Avogadro's number grows.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, "quantum mechanics is
> > > > > never wrong", or, "always
> > > > > right", but it's never
> > > > > quite what it was or will
> > > > > be, just what it is.
> > > > 
> > > > so, is the moon there even if I'm not looking at it?
> > > > 
> > > > Does it suddenly materialize just because I look at it?
> > > 
> > > Or, is the moon not there when I'm not looking at it?
> > > 
> > > so, if the moon is not there when I'm not looking at it..
> > > 
> > > ...and when I begin to open my eyes to look at it...it
> > > materializes...and it's there????
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Albert Einstein [I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to
> > > think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > > 
> > > --Albert Einstein
> > 
> > "Maybe it would help to see it clearly 
> > if you took off your glasses first 
> > and looked at it with your naked eye."
> > 
> > Then see it.
> > 
> > Exactly what the detector is as a 
> > physical interface for the realization 
> > of the "quantization" of the thing, 
> > or exactly what paths the "particle" 
> > may take (as a wave) sees that in a 
> > sense, the wave (or impulse) may 
> > not follow the classical model of 
> > propagation instead this tachyonic/
> > bradyonic wave model.  This is kind 
> > of like where light speed is always 
> > c and time is always forward and 
> > cause always makes event.  Still, 
> > it allows for the intromissive 
> > and extromissive.  
> > 
> > You can sleep well at night, 
> > it's still there.
> > 
> > I have a pretty good idea of what sound 
> > a forest makes for the trees, and one 
> > hand clapping is one hand grasping.
> > 
> > Here, the koan has no meaning.
> > 
> > Then, that said as rather soft or 
> > lightly philosophical, you seem to 
> > ask more about the observer or 
> > measurement effect then how it applies 
> > to particles and waves.  This is 
> > most certainly an anthropocentric 
> > view, that you can see for yourself, 
> > then that the more we know the more 
> > likely there's another view.
> > 
> > So, it is in a sense philosophical, 
> > these questions of very existence, 
> > for which we have a mathematical logic 
> > for reason, that these days some still 
> > hope to achieve as a natural philosophy 
> > or physics as from mathematics alone.
> > 
> > 
> > I skipped some ahead in Penrose's book 
> > and was surprised when he noted that he 
> > wouldn't hold unitarity U as key.  I could 
> > agree that the quite entire thing altogether 
> > is anisotropic or the gradient (i.e., not 
> > isotropic, though, isotropic in the large) 
> > but still quite isotropic in the large for 
> > unitarity.  These days the universe is yet 
> > measured flat again, and our locale as a 
> > jet in the mega-structure LaniaKea of all 
> > the galaxies as which we are but a jet, 
> > the universe isn't quite so expanding as 
> > last year.  
> > 
> > The recent sky surveys are having quite 
> > more usually random red- and blue-shift, 
> > this is affecting some of the conclusions 
> > of data of the 20'th c. sky survey.
> 
> Penrose continues with an outline 
> of supersymmetry, and as about 
> the bosons and fermions and as 
> they obey the Bose and Fermi 
> statistics or parastatistics, 
> though instead he just describes 
> as they are different and separated 
> as the transforms are not commutative, 
> then about that the partner-ino's are 
> academic in terms of modern and foreseen 
> levels of energy and experiment (yet 
> still quite academic).
> 
> The Bose and Fermi statistics and 
> parastatistics reflect that the 
> statistics or probabilities as 
> it is well established quantum 
> events so follow, don't necessarily 
> follow usual models as continuous 
> (or discrete, for that matter) 
> probability distributions.  From 
> what I gather, Fermi statistics are
> reasonably approximated by continuous 
> distributions, and Bayes, and Bose 
> reasonably approximated by continuous 
> distributions, and Jeffreys (expectations), 
> but neither is quite accurate.  
> 
> This is an example where probability 
> theory itself has some explaining to 
> do to have a mathematical model for 
> parastatistics at all.
> 
> Penrose doesn't include parastatistics 
> in the section yet on supersymmetry 
> that he otherwise frames as the balance 
> in the particles between bosons and fermions.
> 
> A supersymmetric gauge and quantum field 
> theory with perhaps superstring theory 
> but only for Minkowski, yet seems to be 
> compatible with Penrose's outline in 
> the first hundred or so pages.



Penrose on anti-De Sitter Conformal Field Theory 
(AdS/CFT):

"To sum up, it does seem clear tha the AdS/CFT 
correspondence has opened a huge new area of 
research, which has related many active areas 
of theoretical physics, making unexpected 
connections between such disparate fields as 
condensed matter physics, black holes, and 
particle physics.  On the other hand, there 
is a strange contrast between this great 
versatility and wealth of ideas, and the 
unreality of the immediate picture of the 
world that it projects.  It depends on the 
wrong sign for the cosmological constant; it 
requires 4 generators of supersymmetry, whereas 
none has been observed; it requires a gauge 
symmetry group acting on infinitely many 
parameters instead of the 3 that particle 
physics requires; and its bulk space-time 
has 1 too many dimensions!  It will be most 
fascinating to see where all this leads."

I think this is very promising, for as noted 
I'm looking for Penrose to find some SU^N 
(that's Special Unitarity group to Infinity) 
gauge theory, and he notes AdS/CFT works toward 
it.  I think instead it's just de Sitter space, 
not "anti" de Sitter space.  Then about the 
cosmological constant, that seems almost the 
key, where I have the cosmological constant 
as a mathematical infinitesimal, here Penrose 
notes instead that, it's negative one, as it 
were, establishing another free basis about 
the curvature about it, Einstein's cosmological 
constant (and what a blunder).  

3+1 + 1 Minkowski plus perspective seems quite usual.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#399659

On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 10:16:49 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 2, 2016 at 11:51:14 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 1:14:15 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Sunday, October 30, 2016 at 12:26:45 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Saturday, October 29, 2016 at 6:23:52 AM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 9:34:18 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, October 28, 2016 at 7:45:08 PM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > One mustn't forget...quantum theory is ..just a theory.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a
> > > > > > > > > theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Einstein was never happy with quantum theory because it denied a reality of things when they were not being observed."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >  Albert Einstein[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >     --Albert Einstein
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Nobody understands quantum mechanics." --Richard Feynman
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Quantum theory" and "quantum effects" are about
> > > > > > > several features observed in nature of radiation,
> > > > > > > as a wave, which only exchanges as particulate,
> > > > > > > or in some discrete jump or band, so to be the
> > > > > > > quantum or quantized.  This is where otherwise
> > > > > > > exchanges of waves (of our usual classical wave
> > > > > > > model, where high energy physics may have its
> > > > > > > tachyonic/bradyonic wave model for ghost wave /
> > > > > > > pilot wave) are continuous, vis-a-vis, discrete.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, sometimes this is because there are observed
> > > > > > > "particles" at the detector, so as that defines
> > > > > > > the model, and sometimes this is because the
> > > > > > > mathematics would integrate the continuous and
> > > > > > > compute non-real-valued quantities (from,
> > > > > > > correspondingly, real-valued inputs).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then, as mechanical interfaces or detectors
> > > > > > > and real-valued quantities are necessary for
> > > > > > > the usual experimental and theoretical in the
> > > > > > > physics, it's important to so establish what
> > > > > > > these particles and waves are (and they're both,
> > > > > > > as we also know from theory and experiment),
> > > > > > > for a tractable implementation of experiment
> > > > > > > (or to use the effects of physics for machines).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The measurement or observation effect, then,
> > > > > > > is among the issues in the quantum to understand,
> > > > > > > and the tachyonic/bradyonic wave model is among
> > > > > > > the issues in the quantum to understand, in
> > > > > > > the physics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For the quantum, "re-normalization" is actually
> > > > > > > "un-de-normalization".  Then, there seem these
> > > > > > > goals, to understand non-standard real numbers
> > > > > > > as to how there can be computing of normalized
> > > > > > > (or measured) quantities thus that normalization
> > > > > > > is implemented in the continuous instead of the
> > > > > > > discrete (or "quantized").
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, the big challenge for foundations in physics,
> > > > > > > is the big challenge for foundations in mathematics,
> > > > > > > and as a usual explanation of the continuous and
> > > > > > > discrete, and all that it is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A point of that is that
> > > > > > most all particles of the
> > > > > > Standard Model "zoo" are
> > > > > > interactions of waves, in
> > > > > > fields (of waves).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is the same point as
> > > > > > that quantum mechanics
> > > > > > is continuum mechanics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quantum mechanics is upheld
> > > > > > as it offers beautifully
> > > > > > precise extra-classical
> > > > > > predictions, given very
> > > > > > particular configurations
> > > > > > and energies of experiment.
> > > > > > While that is so, over time
> > > > > > it is always changing as
> > > > > > higher-energy experiments
> > > > > > come online and redefine the
> > > > > > "running constants", where
> > > > > > Avogadro's number grows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, "quantum mechanics is
> > > > > > never wrong", or, "always
> > > > > > right", but it's never
> > > > > > quite what it was or will
> > > > > > be, just what it is.
> > > > > 
> > > > > so, is the moon there even if I'm not looking at it?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Does it suddenly materialize just because I look at it?
> > > > 
> > > > Or, is the moon not there when I'm not looking at it?
> > > > 
> > > > so, if the moon is not there when I'm not looking at it..
> > > > 
> > > > ...and when I begin to open my eyes to look at it...it
> > > > materializes...and it's there????
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Albert Einstein [I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to
> > > > think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
> > > > 
> > > > --Albert Einstein
> > > 
> > > "Maybe it would help to see it clearly 
> > > if you took off your glasses first 
> > > and looked at it with your naked eye."
> > > 
> > > Then see it.
> > > 
> > > Exactly what the detector is as a 
> > > physical interface for the realization 
> > > of the "quantization" of the thing, 
> > > or exactly what paths the "particle" 
> > > may take (as a wave) sees that in a 
> > > sense, the wave (or impulse) may 
> > > not follow the classical model of 
> > > propagation instead this tachyonic/
> > > bradyonic wave model.  This is kind 
> > > of like where light speed is always 
> > > c and time is always forward and 
> > > cause always makes event.  Still, 
> > > it allows for the intromissive 
> > > and extromissive.  
> > > 
> > > You can sleep well at night, 
> > > it's still there.
> > > 
> > > I have a pretty good idea of what sound 
> > > a forest makes for the trees, and one 
> > > hand clapping is one hand grasping.
> > > 
> > > Here, the koan has no meaning.
> > > 
> > > Then, that said as rather soft or 
> > > lightly philosophical, you seem to 
> > > ask more about the observer or 
> > > measurement effect then how it applies 
> > > to particles and waves.  This is 
> > > most certainly an anthropocentric 
> > > view, that you can see for yourself, 
> > > then that the more we know the more 
> > > likely there's another view.
> > > 
> > > So, it is in a sense philosophical, 
> > > these questions of very existence, 
> > > for which we have a mathematical logic 
> > > for reason, that these days some still 
> > > hope to achieve as a natural philosophy 
> > > or physics as from mathematics alone.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I skipped some ahead in Penrose's book 
> > > and was surprised when he noted that he 
> > > wouldn't hold unitarity U as key.  I could 
> > > agree that the quite entire thing altogether 
> > > is anisotropic or the gradient (i.e., not 
> > > isotropic, though, isotropic in the large) 
> > > but still quite isotropic in the large for 
> > > unitarity.  These days the universe is yet 
> > > measured flat again, and our locale as a 
> > > jet in the mega-structure LaniaKea of all 
> > > the galaxies as which we are but a jet, 
> > > the universe isn't quite so expanding as 
> > > last year.  
> > > 
> > > The recent sky surveys are having quite 
> > > more usually random red- and blue-shift, 
> > > this is affecting some of the conclusions 
> > > of data of the 20'th c. sky survey.
> > 
> > Penrose continues with an outline 
> > of supersymmetry, and as about 
> > the bosons and fermions and as 
> > they obey the Bose and Fermi 
> > statistics or parastatistics, 
> > though instead he just describes 
> > as they are different and separated 
> > as the transforms are not commutative, 
> > then about that the partner-ino's are 
> > academic in terms of modern and foreseen 
> > levels of energy and experiment (yet 
> > still quite academic).
> > 
> > The Bose and Fermi statistics and 
> > parastatistics reflect that the 
> > statistics or probabilities as 
> > it is well established quantum 
> > events so follow, don't necessarily 
> > follow usual models as continuous 
> > (or discrete, for that matter) 
> > probability distributions.  From 
> > what I gather, Fermi statistics are
> > reasonably approximated by continuous 
> > distributions, and Bayes, and Bose 
> > reasonably approximated by continuous 
> > distributions, and Jeffreys (expectations), 
> > but neither is quite accurate.  
> > 
> > This is an example where probability 
> > theory itself has some explaining to 
> > do to have a mathematical model for 
> > parastatistics at all.
> > 
> > Penrose doesn't include parastatistics 
> > in the section yet on supersymmetry 
> > that he otherwise frames as the balance 
> > in the particles between bosons and fermions.
> > 
> > A supersymmetric gauge and quantum field 
> > theory with perhaps superstring theory 
> > but only for Minkowski, yet seems to be 
> > compatible with Penrose's outline in 
> > the first hundred or so pages.
> 
> 
> 
> Penrose on anti-De Sitter Conformal Field Theory 
> (AdS/CFT):
> 
> "To sum up, it does seem clear tha the AdS/CFT 
> correspondence has opened a huge new area of 
> research, which has related many active areas 
> of theoretical physics, making unexpected 
> connections between such disparate fields as 
> condensed matter physics, black holes, and 
> particle physics.  On the other hand, there 
> is a strange contrast between this great 
> versatility and wealth of ideas, and the 
> unreality of the immediate picture of the 
> world that it projects.  It depends on the 
> wrong sign for the cosmological constant; it 
> requires 4 generators of supersymmetry, whereas 
> none has been observed; it requires a gauge 
> symmetry group acting on infinitely many 
> parameters instead of the 3 that particle 
> physics requires; and its bulk space-time 
> has 1 too many dimensions!  It will be most 
> fascinating to see where all this leads."
> 
> I think this is very promising, for as noted 
> I'm looking for Penrose to find some SU^N 
> (that's Special Unitarity group to Infinity) 
> gauge theory, and he notes AdS/CFT works toward 
> it.  I think instead it's just de Sitter space, 
> not "anti" de Sitter space.  Then about the 
> cosmological constant, that seems almost the 
> key, where I have the cosmological constant 
> as a mathematical infinitesimal, here Penrose 
> notes instead that, it's negative one, as it 
> were, establishing another free basis about 
> the curvature about it, Einstein's cosmological 
> constant (and what a blunder).  
> 
> 3+1 + 1 Minkowski plus perspective seems quite usual.

It so follows that the description of 
mathematical quantum mechanics vis-à-vis 
the Wessell instead of Argand is the most 
concise and direct statement and explanation 
of the reasoning behind "quantum mechanics" 
that I know of.  

In a few pages with a few sections of preliminaries, 
Penrose outlines Schroedinger for Weyl and Dirac for 
then a usual formalism of the "complex" of the unitary, 
classic, and reduction then as with regards to the 
bosons and fermions of quantum mechanics.  As well, 
there is another intuitive or geometric notion of 
"spin", and about then quantum mechanics' meanings 
of mathematics' "complex" and mechanics' "spin".

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web