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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #430028 > unrolled thread

What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view

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

Contents

  What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-25 17:28 -0500
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-25 15:42 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-25 19:17 -0500
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <nobody@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 01:50 -0400
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 09:07 -0500
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-26 08:03 -0700
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 10:43 -0500
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-26 09:13 -0700
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 11:26 -0500
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:43 -0400
                Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 11:41 -0500
                  Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:23 -0400
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:35 -0400
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 17:31 -0400
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-26 17:01 -0500
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-26 18:53 -0400
                Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-27 10:20 -0500
                  Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-28 16:21 -0400
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-26 22:52 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-25 23:51 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Bídníkùm Laterá <bila@wehia.ui> - 2017-08-26 12:00 +0000
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-26 16:19 +0000
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 14:25 -0500
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-08-26 13:38 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 13:01 -0700
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-26 15:23 -0500
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-08-27 00:00 -0700
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 16:59 -0500
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 10:55 -0700
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-08-28 11:09 -0700
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-08-27 01:33 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-08-26 14:43 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 15:57 -0700
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 17:08 -0700
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 18:00 -0700
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-26 19:15 -0700
    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:11 +0200
      Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 12:22 -0700
        Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-28 21:49 +0200
          Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-28 23:43 -0700
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-29 16:01 +0200
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-29 10:42 -0700
                Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 09:37 -0700
                  Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-08-30 10:06 -0700
                    Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-08-30 21:45 +0200
            Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-09-02 12:46 -0700
              Re: What modern physics is really about, from a woodworker's view Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-09-03 22:32 +0200

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#430052

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
> 
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell)
> is still the best model, and that physics went astray with relativity
> and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says classical physics
> is off a bit.

You are aware of so many things.

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

#430072

Very good post.  I see that the physics of the subatomic realm is more
and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest
cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or
why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup&params).

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

#430080

On 8/26/17 11:19 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Very good post.  I see that the physics of the subatomic realm is more
> and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest
> cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or
> why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup&params).
> 

Well, I would quibble about it being "just math". Fields are very real. 
The properties of empty space are very real. And symmetry is very real. 
All of these are PHYSICAL concepts. Just different ones. Not the ones of 
our everyday worldview or our common sense. Our common sense minds are 
just focused on the wrong things.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#430092

W dniu sobota, 26 sierpnia 2017 21:25:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał:
> On 8/26/17 11:19 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > Very good post.  I see that the physics of the subatomic realm is more
> > and more just math and less and less "objects" interacting. Simplest
> > cases, why is there only one pi-0 and not two (u+ubar and d+dbar) or
> > why is the lambda-0 not the same as sigma-0 (same quark makeup&params).
> > 
> 
> Well, I would quibble about it being "just math". Fields are very real. 
> The properties of empty space are very real. And symmetry is very real. 

Your gurus said?



> All of these are PHYSICAL concepts. Just different ones. Not the ones of 
> our everyday worldview or our common sense. Our common sense minds are 
> just focused on the wrong things.

Like recognizing a puffed, brainwashed, mumbling
moron.

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

#430086

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:28:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> All "things" have been replaced by fields which extend over 
> ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time... they
> are part of the fabric OF space and time... the idea of "things" 
> moving through space and time has become replaced with the idea 
> of fields that extend everywhere...

Be careful not to mix up the concept of "localized objects" with the concept of background independence.  Standard quantum field theory is firmly based on fields that exist IN a fixed background of space and time. The fields of the standard model are not part of the "fabric" OF space and time.  Their extension is a separate issue, but note that energy is localizable in standard QFT.  General relativity, at least in the weak field limit in asymptotically flat space-time, can also be interpreted as a quantum field theory IN a fixed space and time, but in general the full non-linear field equations have a geometrical interpretation in which the metrical field is indeed part OF the "fabric" of space-time, and gravitational energy is not localizable.

> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than
> a map of the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself...

I'm not sure how to interpret that.  The fields of the standard model and standard quantum field theory exist in a fixed flat Minkowski space-time.  Attempts to develop a theory with the "key idea" that you described were tried, but they failed, basically because there is no "equivalence principle" for the other forces of nature, that would enable them to be interpreted as features of the geometrical structure of spacetime.

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

#430090

On 8/26/17 3:01 PM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:28:25 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> All "things" have been replaced by fields which extend over
>> ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time... they
>> are part of the fabric OF space and time... the idea of "things"
>> moving through space and time has become replaced with the idea
>> of fields that extend everywhere...
> 
> Be careful not to mix up the concept of "localized objects" with the concept of background independence.  Standard quantum field theory is firmly based on fields that exist IN a fixed background of space and time. The fields of the standard model are not part of the "fabric" OF space and time.  Their extension is a separate issue, but note that energy is localizable in standard QFT.  General relativity, at least in the weak field limit in asymptotically flat space-time, can also be interpreted as a quantum field theory IN a fixed space and time, but in general the full non-linear field equations have a geometrical interpretation in which the metrical field is indeed part OF the "fabric" of space-time, and gravitational energy is not localizable.
> 
>> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than
>> a map of the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself...
> 
> I'm not sure how to interpret that.  The fields of the standard model and standard quantum field theory exist in a fixed flat Minkowski space-time.  Attempts to develop a theory with the "key idea" that you described were tried, but they failed, basically because there is no "equivalence principle" for the other forces of nature, that would enable them to be interpreted as features of the geometrical structure of spacetime.
> 

Not what I meant. I'm not referring to a geometric structure a la Kaluza 
and Klein. There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with 
quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime, so I'm not sure 
it's fair to say that QFTs *only* have been worked out in static flat 
spacetime.

As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the background, 
this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to see in what I'm reading 
-- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN 
spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined 
as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is, 
properties of WHAT? The field is a map of the properties of the field 
itself? This is where the metric serves as a leading example, not as a 
pointer to a geometric interpretation of the properties, but merely that 
the metric is a description of some properties of spacetime ITSELF, and 
so other fields may indeed be other properties (nongeometric ones, 
perhaps) of spacetime.

-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#430130

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:23:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with 
> quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime...

Sure, but that's semi-classical GR, and the quantum fields still reside IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime.  There is currently no quantum theory of gravity.

> As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the 
> background, this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to 
> see in what I'm reading ...

I think what you're describing is speculative ideas.  Modern physics (the subject of this thread) presently consists of the standard model, plus general relativity.  The quantum fields exist IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime.

> -- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN 
> spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined 
> as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is, 
> properties of WHAT? 

I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  When you say "a field is a map of properties over space and time", what exactly does that mean?  Are you just saying that a field is defined to have values as a function of space and time?  For example, the value of a scalar field, or the components of a vector field, are defined as functions of space and time?  This has always been the case, even in the 19th century fields.  And I don't know how to interpret your question "Properties of what?"  Are you harkening back to the 19th century question about what is the medium of electromagnetic waves and fields?

Are these your own ideas, or are you reporting things from some papers or books describing the current state of modern physics (as distinct from speculative ideas like the multiverse, etc)?

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

#430201

On 8/27/17 2:00 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:23:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
>> quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime...
> 
> Sure, but that's semi-classical GR, and the quantum fields still reside IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime.  There is currently no quantum theory of gravity.

Again, I'm not talking about a quantum field theory of gravity. I'm 
talking about for example Wald's treatment of a general QFT (like a 
simple harmonic oscillator) in curved spacetime.

> 
>> As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the
>> background, this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to
>> see in what I'm reading ...
> 
> I think what you're describing is speculative ideas.  Modern physics (the subject of this thread) presently consists of the standard model, plus general relativity.  The quantum fields exist IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime.
> 
>> -- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN
>> spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined
>> as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is,
>> properties of WHAT?
> 
> I'm not sure what you're referring to here.  When you say "a field is a map of properties over space and time", what exactly does that mean?  Are you just saying that a field is defined to have values as a function of space and time?  For example, the value of a scalar field, or the components of a vector field, are defined as functions of space and time?  This has always been the case, even in the 19th century fields.  And I don't know how to interpret your question "Properties of what?"  Are you harkening back to the 19th century question about what is the medium of electromagnetic waves and fields?
> 
> Are these your own ideas, or are you reporting things from some papers or books describing the current state of modern physics (as distinct from speculative ideas like the multiverse, etc)?
> 

These are not my ideas. They are being floated by people like Smolin and 
Arkani-Hamed and Penrose and Randall. Yes, they may be speculative in 
the sense that they are extensions of the standard model. But the 
insight seems to be important.


-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#430298

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> On 8/27/17 2:00 AM, dancouriann@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 1:23:29 PM UTC-7, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> There is also a fair amount of work that has been done with
> >> quantum field theory in a curved, dynamic spacetime...
> >
> > Sure, but that's semi-classical GR, and the quantum fields still reside IN spacetime, they are not aspects OF spacetime.  There is currently no quantum theory of gravity.
> 
> Again, I'm not talking about a quantum field theory of gravity. I'm
> talking about for example Wald's treatment of a general QFT (like a
> simple harmonic oscillator) in curved spacetime.


I think i got a "simple harmonic oscillator" in my attic somewhere...

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

#430300

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 11:55:30 AM UTC-6, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> I think i got a "simple harmonic oscillator" in my attic somewhere...

“Only those who attempt the absurd will achieve the impossible. I think it's
in my basement... let me go upstairs and check.” – M. C. Escher

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

#430133

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 3:23:29 PM UTC-5, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> As for whether the fields are separate in existence from the background, 
> this is precisely the shift that I'm starting to see in what I'm reading 
> -- that there is no reason to think that fields are a thing IN 
> spacetime. That is, if you consider that a field is essentially defined 
> as a map of some properties over space and time, then the question is, 
> properties of WHAT? 

Hmmm... That sounds like the sort of stuff that I might read in popular
accounts of what's next in physics to replace the standard model. I avoid
reading such works, for the simple reason that I do not have the competency to 
judge what is good or bad in them. Again and again it has been emphasized in
these groups that the ability to speculate beyond standard physics requires a
thorough grounding in standard physics. I simply do not have that thorough
grounding in what is known.

I prefer going through standard textbooks. Maybe by the time that I finish
Zee's nutshell books, I'll be ready to read popular works by Greene, Gribbin, 
Krauss, Smolin, Kaku etc. This might sound weird, but the few times that I've
tried reading one of these popularizations, I've been left feeling stumped.

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

#430103

Io have you ever been on a space ship and talked to Alien? Were they green or blue? 

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

#430110

Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
> 
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> classical physics is off a bit.
> 
> But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
> 
> Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> (gauge bosons, for example).
> 
> But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> may not be fully aware of it.
> 
> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> fabric OF space and time.
> 
> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> the conservation laws of nature.
> 
> Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists
> have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th
> century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called
> Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with
> field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are
> really talking about these field quanta.
> 
> So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time
> has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and
> the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.
> 
> (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of
> the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields
> correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the
> fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields
> can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.)
> 
> Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one
> field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a
> different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields.
> Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge
> or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
> "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
> pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws
> that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more
> symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).
> 
> What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
> fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
> object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
> symmetries as the fundamental constraint.
> 
> So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
> backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
> interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
> physics seems to me to be really about.
> 
> There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap
> in much better detail.
> 
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables




"interaction" is not what "physicists now believe", it's just another
'rehash' of an old theory. 


You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction".

It's pushcart science.

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

#430115

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >
> > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
> >
> > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> > classical physics is off a bit.
> >
> > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
> >
> > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> > (gauge bosons, for example).
> >
> > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> > may not be fully aware of it.
> >
> > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> > fabric OF space and time.
> >
> > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> > the conservation laws of nature.
> >
> > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists
> > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th
> > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called
> > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with
> > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are
> > really talking about these field quanta.
> >
> > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time
> > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and
> > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.
> >
> > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of
> > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields
> > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the
> > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields
> > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.)
> >
> > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one
> > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a
> > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields.
> > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge
> > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
> > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
> > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws
> > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more
> > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).
> >
> > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
> > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
> > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
> > symmetries as the fundamental constraint.
> >
> > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
> > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
> > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
> > physics seems to me to be really about.
> >
> > There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap
> > in much better detail.
> >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 
> "interaction" is not what "physicists now believe", it's just another
> 'rehash' of an old theory.
> 
> You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction".
> 
> It's pushcart science.




Let me explain to yous what "interation" really means in the 'old hat' world...

it's simply a rehash of the word....entanglement, or quantum entanglement.




'spooky at a distance' is a very old concept, ...now lem me see if i can remember who thought of that?

give me a break with..."physicists now believe".


Poppycock, hogwash...fake science news.

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

#430117

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> > > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> > > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> > > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
> > >
> > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> > > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> > > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> > > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> > > classical physics is off a bit.
> > >
> > > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> > > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> > > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
> > >
> > > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> > > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> > > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> > > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> > > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> > > (gauge bosons, for example).
> > >
> > > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> > > may not be fully aware of it.
> > >
> > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> > > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> > > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> > > fabric OF space and time.
> > >
> > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> > > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> > > the conservation laws of nature.
> > >
> > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists
> > > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th
> > > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called
> > > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with
> > > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are
> > > really talking about these field quanta.
> > >
> > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time
> > > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and
> > > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.
> > >
> > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of
> > > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields
> > > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the
> > > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields
> > > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.)
> > >
> > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one
> > > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a
> > > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields.
> > > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge
> > > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
> > > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
> > > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws
> > > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more
> > > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).
> > >
> > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
> > > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
> > > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
> > > symmetries as the fundamental constraint.
> > >
> > > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
> > > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
> > > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
> > > physics seems to me to be really about.
> > >
> > > There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap
> > > in much better detail.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> > "interaction" is not what "physicists now believe", it's just another
> > 'rehash' of an old theory.
> >
> > You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction".
> >
> > It's pushcart science.
> 
> Let me explain to yous what "interation" really means in the 'old hat' world...
> 
> it's simply a rehash of the word....entanglement, or quantum entanglement.
> 
> 'spooky at a distance' is a very old concept, ...now lem me see if i can remember who thought of that?
> 
> give me a break with..."physicists now believe".
> 
> Poppycock, hogwash...fake science news.


Here is the definition of the entaglement...and watch the catch words:

"Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or
groups of particles are generated or interact.."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement



So, someone simply takes 'entanglement' and switches it to
"interaction", and makes a new science the one word..interaction.

It's just...the same ol 'spooky at a distance'....


"physicists now believe"???? Give me a break...hogwash, that's all it
is, rehashing old stuff.


It translate that the Odd Bodkin has no place in this world anymore...he
is..irrevelant.


wasting space.


kaput.


Toys-was-Us

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

#430121

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > The Starmaker wrote:
> > >
> > > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> > > > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> > > > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> > > > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
> > > >
> > > > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> > > > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> > > > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> > > > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> > > > classical physics is off a bit.
> > > >
> > > > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> > > > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> > > > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
> > > >
> > > > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> > > > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> > > > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> > > > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> > > > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> > > > (gauge bosons, for example).
> > > >
> > > > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> > > > may not be fully aware of it.
> > > >
> > > > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> > > > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> > > > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> > > > fabric OF space and time.
> > > >
> > > > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> > > > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> > > > the conservation laws of nature.
> > > >
> > > > Ripples can be measured by a quantity called "action", which physicists
> > > > have known about for a long time. What they didn't know until the 20th
> > > > century is that the smallest chunk of action is given by a number called
> > > > Planck's constant. These smallest ripples are what we associate with
> > > > field quanta, and when physicists say "fundamental particles" they are
> > > > really talking about these field quanta.
> > > >
> > > > So, recapping so far, the idea of "things" moving through space and time
> > > > has become replaced with the idea of fields that extend everywhere, and
> > > > the ripples in them that are bestowed with small amounts of action.
> > > >
> > > > (I've glossed over a key idea that a field is nothing more than a map of
> > > > the value(s) of a property(ies) OF spacetime itself. Different fields
> > > > correspond to different sets of properties of spacetime, and all the
> > > > fields overlay each other. The little quantized ripples in the fields
> > > > can be distinct from each other though, in some sense.)
> > > >
> > > > Now the last core concept is that a ripple carrying some action in one
> > > > field can generate or disturb a ripple carrying some action in a
> > > > different field. This is what we call an interaction between fields.
> > > > Here's where another old idea gets replaced -- charge (like color charge
> > > > or electromagnetic charge) is not some kind of "stuff" that belongs to
> > > > "things"; instead, charge is just defined as that tendency for a given
> > > > pair of fields to interact and create ripples in each other. The laws
> > > > that control these interactions are in fact driven by yet more
> > > > symmetries of nature (local gauge symmetries).
> > > >
> > > > What's astonishing about this is that physicists now believe that the
> > > > fundamental thing that physics is about is the interaction, not the
> > > > object. And rather than physical laws, physicists now think of
> > > > symmetries as the fundamental constraint.
> > > >
> > > > So gone are the days of thinking of the world as moving things in a
> > > > backdrop of space and time. Here today we have the primacy of the
> > > > interaction, of action, and of symmetry. And THAT is what 21st century
> > > > physics seems to me to be really about.
> > > >
> > > > There are lots of good references here that support this nutshell recap
> > > > in much better detail.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> > > "interaction" is not what "physicists now believe", it's just another
> > > 'rehash' of an old theory.
> > >
> > > You certaintly fell for the new lingo "interaction".
> > >
> > > It's pushcart science.
> >
> > Let me explain to yous what "interation" really means in the 'old hat' world...
> >
> > it's simply a rehash of the word....entanglement, or quantum entanglement.
> >
> > 'spooky at a distance' is a very old concept, ...now lem me see if i can remember who thought of that?
> >
> > give me a break with..."physicists now believe".
> >
> > Poppycock, hogwash...fake science news.
> 
> Here is the definition of the entaglement...and watch the catch words:
> 
> "Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or
> groups of particles are generated or interact.."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
> 
> So, someone simply takes 'entanglement' and switches it to
> "interaction", and makes a new science the one word..interaction.
> 
> It's just...the same ol 'spooky at a distance'....
> 
> "physicists now believe"???? Give me a break...hogwash, that's all it
> is, rehashing old stuff.
> 
> It translate that the Odd Bodkin has no place in this world anymore...he
> is..irrevelant.
> 
> wasting space.
> 
> kaput.
> 
> Toys-was-Us




What modern physics is really about?   There is nothing modern about it..really.

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

#430309

Am 26.08.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
>
> I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> classical physics is off a bit.
>
> But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
>
> Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> (gauge bosons, for example).
>
> But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> may not be fully aware of it.
>
> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> fabric OF space and time.
>
> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> the conservation laws of nature.
>

Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have 
written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.

It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).

I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:


https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then 
tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still 
think, the concept is correct.

TH

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

#430311

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 26.08.2017 um 00:28 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who are not
> > even comfortable with the concepts of 19th century physics, let alone
> > 20th century physics, and these people prefer to just speculate and
> > argue about what "feels right" to them, justified or not.
> >
> > I'm aware that there are a number of people on this group who think 19th
> > century physics (the "classical" physics of Newton and Kelvin and
> > Maxwell) is still the best model, and that physics went astray with
> > relativity and quantum mechanics and basically anything that says
> > classical physics is off a bit.
> >
> > But what's interesting to me is that, with some of the reading that I've
> > done over the last decade, even the "modern physics" of the 20th century
> > has been left behind for newer and much different ideas.
> >
> > Even in the "modern physics" paradigm, amateurs are prone to think of
> > physics as being about things (objects, particles, material things)
> > moving around in a backdrop of space and time, where their behaviors are
> > controlled by certain laws of physics (like conservation of momentum or
> > Gauss' law) and by certain interactions mediated by other "things"
> > (gauge bosons, for example).
> >
> > But the real picture of the 21st century is far stranger, and amateurs
> > may not be fully aware of it.
> >
> > In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> > which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> > like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> > fabric OF space and time.
> >
> > There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> > symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> > the conservation laws of nature.
> >
> 
> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
> 
> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
> 
> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> 
> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
> think, the concept is correct.
> 
> TH


The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.

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

#430313

Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
..
>>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
>>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
>>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
>>> fabric OF space and time.
>>>
>>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
>>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
>>> the conservation laws of nature.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
>> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
>>
>> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
>>
>> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
>>
>> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
>> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
>> think, the concept is correct.
>>
>> TH
>
>
> The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
>


??

Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:

I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to 
replicate QM from the 'GR side').

This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the 
equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements 
are kind of points with features.

These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.

By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds 
'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.

IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.

As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.

So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.




TH

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

#430349

Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> Am 28.08.2017 um 21:22 schrieb The Starmaker:
> ..
> >>> In a very brief nutshell, all "things" have been replaced by fields
> >>> which extend over ALL space and time. They don't live IN space and time
> >>> like you imagine particles or ping pong balls. They are part of the
> >>> fabric OF space and time.
> >>>
> >>> There are ripples in these fields, which have behavior constrained by
> >>> symmetries of nature, which are more fundamental in a deep sense than
> >>> the conservation laws of nature.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well, I do in fact agree upon most parts. But I am an amateur and have
> >> written about , what you think, that amateurs are unable to understand.
> >>
> >> It's mainly my own invention, (thou influenced by a couple of people).
> >>
> >> I call it 'structured spacetime' and you can read about it here:
> >>
> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6
> >>
> >> I have written this 'book' about eight years ago and have since then
> >> tried to find some audience for my idea. Didn't really work. But I still
> >> think, the concept is correct.
> >>
> >> TH
> >
> >
> > The Big Dipper and the little dipper is an example of...'structured spacetime'.
> >
> 
> ??
> 
> Actually I had tried to connect GR and QM in this way:
> 
> I take spacetime of GR for granted and build particles out of that (to
> replicate QM from the 'GR side').
> 
> This is actually possible. I assume, that spacetime consists of the
> equivalent of a point, called 'elements' (of spacetime). These elements
> are kind of points with features.
> 
> These elements are connected similar to how quaternions are multiplied.
> 
> By this the state of an element is conserved in time. This builds
> 'timelike stable patterns' and those are, what we call matter.
> 
> IOW particles are not real, but more like patterns or structures.
> 
> As proof of concept I wanted to use 'Growing Earth'.
> 
> So I spent a good part of the last year in the attempt to prove GE.
> 
> TH


If you're seeking an audience for 'Growing Earth...

you have to use search and replace to redo it
and replace keywords with 'climate change',
explaining how climate change is causeing a
'Growing Earth'.

Then send it to Al Gore and his compadres.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web