Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #467290 > unrolled thread

Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

Started by	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
First post	2018-08-08 06:21 -0700
Last post	2018-08-09 02:48 +0200
Articles	20 on this page of 72 — 17 participants

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

Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →

#467290 — Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-08 06:21 -0700
Subject	Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora
Message-ID	<4010cac5-8f40-4ff3-9442-581b8fc72afa@googlegroups.com>

The following questions were asked in Quora:
Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 

My Answer:
Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.

The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:

It offers a realistic origin of the universe.

It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.

It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.

It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.

It can be validated experimentally.

It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).

It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)

It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.

It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.

It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.

It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.

It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.

It explains the structures of atoms.

A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/20...

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#467292

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 07:23 -0700
Message-ID	<6b20e38b-520b-476b-834e-40e633f521f6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467290

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 6:21:28 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 
> 

Because there hasn't been a revolution in mathematics?

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

#467343

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-08 15:04 -0700
Message-ID	<29251b8e-c314-416a-a3b9-2481e2109ffd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467292

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 10:23:11 AM UTC-4, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 6:21:28 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> > The following questions were asked in Quora:
> > Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 
> > 
> 
> Because there hasn't been a revolution in mathematics?

No, in fact, the revolution in math is what caused the lack of progress in physics revolution. The rapid development of abstract math leads to unphysical non-existing processes and, in turn, leads to an unphysical universe.

The way to find a physical revolution is by assuming a physical model of the universe such as I did with Model Mechanics. See Chapter 2 of my book in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

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

#467406 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

From	Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn>
Date	2018-08-09 13:24 +0000
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution
Message-ID	<pkhfa8$1nat$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467343

kenseto wrote:

>> Because there hasn't been a revolution in mathematics?
> 
> No, in fact, the revolution in math is what caused the lack of progress
> in physics revolution. The rapid development of abstract math leads to
> unphysical non-existing processes and, in turn, leads to an unphysical
> universe. 
> The way to find a physical revolution is by assuming a physical model of
> the universe such as I did with Model Mechanics. See Chapter 2 of my
> book in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2016ibook.pdf

Thanks. If I may add, a model of the universe would necessary be 
incomplete. As the governing tensors and partial differential equations 
would constitutes a circumspection from outside. (of this universe)

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

#467297 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

From	Owen Scharff <nehh@fenohw.hn>
Date	2018-08-08 15:33 +0000
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution
Message-ID	<pkf2g3$1of7$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467290

kenseto wrote:

> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> 
> My Answer:
> Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and
> cosmology.

Abs. But there are no really revolutions in physics. There can't be. But 
only wrong interpretation. Too bad The Model Mechanics is just a subset.

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

#467412 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-09 08:29 -0700
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution
Message-ID	<080d366e-2a12-4c30-8142-11c49559a1ba@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467297

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:33:27 AM UTC-4, Owen Scharff wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> 
> > The following questions were asked in Quora:
> > Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
> > it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> > 
> > My Answer:
> > Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and
> > cosmology.
> 
> Abs. But there are no really revolutions in physics. There can't be. But 
> only wrong interpretation. Too bad The Model Mechanics is just a subset.

You are clueless.

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

#467299

From	Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 17:46 +0200
Message-ID	<pkf39l$1q4r$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467290

Op 08-aug-2018 om 15:21 schreef kenseto:
> The following questions were asked in Quora: Why haven't we had
> another scientific revolution in physics yet? 

It is due to a tragic failure of communication: Ken Seto,
the only real physics genius we have, cannot formulate a
proper sentence.

Dirk Vdm

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

#467414

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-09 08:31 -0700
Message-ID	<4eeffe88-f35e-4ac4-828e-24b32bd120f1@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467299

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:47:04 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 08-aug-2018 om 15:21 schreef kenseto:
> > The following questions were asked in Quora: Why haven't we had
> > another scientific revolution in physics yet? 
> 
> It is due to a tragic failure of communication: Ken Seto,
> the only real physics genius we have, cannot formulate a
> proper sentence.
> 
> Dirk Vdm

Idiot.....It was not I who formulated the question.

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

#467415

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-09 15:39 +0000
Message-ID	<pkhn6m$eir$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467414

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 11:47:04 AM UTC-4, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 08-aug-2018 om 15:21 schreef kenseto:
>>> The following questions were asked in Quora: Why haven't we had
>>> another scientific revolution in physics yet? 
>> 
>> It is due to a tragic failure of communication: Ken Seto,
>> the only real physics genius we have, cannot formulate a
>> proper sentence.
>> 
>> Dirk Vdm
> 
> Idiot.....It was not I who formulated the question.
> 

The question is fine. It’s your thoughts in response that show you are
incoherent. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#467304

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 17:02 +0000
Message-ID	<pkf7o2$2jb$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467290

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 

Well, let’s see. 
Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten: 
- quantum field theory in 1950s
- electroweak unification in 1960s
- inflationary cosmology in 1980s

All of which have been exquisitely validated in experimental tests in
subsequent decades. 

How often do you think a scientific revolution should happen?

> 
> My Answer:
> Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.
> 
> The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> 
> It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
> 
> It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
> 
> It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
> 
> It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.
> 
> It can be validated experimentally.
> 
> It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
> 
> It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
> 
> It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
> 
> It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
> 
> It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
> 
> It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
> 
> It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.
> 
> It explains the structures of atoms.
> 
> A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/20...
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#467311

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-08-08 11:04 -0700
Message-ID	<5b41ef07-9fde-4cbb-8ee0-a8221b0f815c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467304

On Wednesday, 8 August 2018 19:03:02 UTC+2, Odd Bodkin  wrote:

> Well, let’s see. 
> Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten: 
> - quantum field theory in 1950s
> - electroweak unification in 1960s
> - inflationary cosmology in 1980s
> 
> All of which have been exquisitely validated in experimental tests in
> subsequent decades. 


Every fanatic idiot  can say "validated in experimental tests".

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

#467344

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-08-08 15:17 -0700
Message-ID	<90bc3338-df88-4dbe-9463-4429e88f14a2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467304

On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 1:03:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > The following questions were asked in Quora:
> > Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
> > it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 
> 
> Well, let’s see. 
> Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten: 
> - quantum field theory in 1950s

QFT cannot be a scientific revolution because it does not include a quantum field theory of gravity.

> - electroweak unification in 1960s

That’s not a scientific revolution.

> - inflationary cosmology in 1980s

This is not a scientific revolution. It is an assumption to explanation the observed behavior of the universe. Model Mechanics eliminated the inflationary cosmology.

> 
> All of which have been exquisitely validated in experimental tests in
> subsequent decades. 
> 
> How often do you think a scientific revolution should happen?
> 
> > 
> > My Answer:
> > Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.
> > 
> > The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
> > 
> > It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
> > 
> > It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
> > 
> > It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
> > 
> > It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.
> > 
> > It can be validated experimentally.
> > 
> > It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
> > 
> > It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
> > 
> > It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
> > 
> > It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
> > 
> > It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
> > 
> > It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
> > 
> > It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.
> > 
> > It explains the structures of atoms.
> > 
> > A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/20...
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#467347

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-08 22:28 +0000
Message-ID	<pkfqqn$1269$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#467344

kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 8, 2018 at 1:03:02 PM UTC-4, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>> The following questions were asked in Quora:
>>> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
>>> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? 
>> 
>> Well, let’s see. 
>> Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten: 
>> - quantum field theory in 1950s
> 
> QFT cannot be a scientific revolution because it does not include a
> quantum field theory of gravity.

You don’t get to set that bar. QFT has been an ENORMOUS scientific
revolution even if there are some open questions about it. Darwin’s
evolution was also a scientific revolution though it was not the complete
answer and still isn’t. 

> 
>> - electroweak unification in 1960s
> 
> That’s not a scientific revolution.

The hell it isn’t. The successful unification of two different fundamental
interactions that led to a HALF DOZEN Nobel prizes is most certainly a
scientific revolution. 

> 
>> - inflationary cosmology in 1980s
> 
> This is not a scientific revolution. 

The hell it isn’t. You obviously know nothing of its impact or the puzzles
it has solved. 

> It is an assumption to explanation the observed behavior of the universe.
> Model Mechanics eliminated the inflationary cosmology.

No one accepts that. 

> 
>> 
>> All of which have been exquisitely validated in experimental tests in
>> subsequent decades. 
>> 
>> How often do you think a scientific revolution should happen?

Answer!?

>> 
>>> 
>>> My Answer:
>>> Model Mechanics could be the next scientific revolution in physics and cosmology.
>>> 
>>> The main features of Model Mechanics are as follows:
>>> 
>>> It offers a realistic origin of the universe.
>>> 
>>> It offers realistic processes for the origin of all visible matters.
>>> 
>>> It explains the cell division and the consciousness processes.
>>> 
>>> It provides a mechanism to amalgamate all the forces of nature.
>>> 
>>> It can be validated experimentally.
>>> 
>>> It gives rise to an Improved Relativity Theory (IRT).
>>> 
>>> It gives rise to a new theory of gravity called Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG)
>>> 
>>> It includes Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity as subsets.
>>> 
>>> It provides physical models for all the math of Quantum Mechanics.
>>> 
>>> It postulates a new repulsive fifth force identified as the CRE force.
>>> 
>>> It gives a physical explanation for the charge of a particle.
>>> 
>>> It gives physical explanations all the weird results of all quantum experiments.
>>> 
>>> It explains the structures of atoms.
>>> 
>>> A book on Model Mechanics is available in the following link:
>>> http://www.modelmechanics.org/20...
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#467651

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-08-12 20:59 +0200
Message-ID	<ftbebuF3fntU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467304

Am 08.08.2018 um 19:02 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>> The following questions were asked in Quora:
>> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
>> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> 
> Well, let’s see.
> Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten:
> - quantum field theory in 1950s
> - electroweak unification in 1960s
> - inflationary cosmology in 1980s

You forgot to mention 'climate change' (invented by Al Gore and the IPCC).

(proof was by 'Knuth' the little polar bear).


TH

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

#467664

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-12 17:23 -0700
Message-ID	<e1eea3c4-7f4d-48a1-8519-94e8e524ffc0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467651

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 11:59:13 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 08.08.2018 um 19:02 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> >> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> >> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
> >> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> > 
> > Well, let’s see.
> > Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten:
> > - quantum field theory in 1950s
> > - electroweak unification in 1960s
> > - inflationary cosmology in 1980s
> 
> You forgot to mention 'climate change' (invented by Al Gore and the IPCC).
> 
> (proof was by 'Knuth' the little polar bear).
> 
> 
> TH

If string theory is suppposed to be about 
some "quantum mechanics" for "quantum 
mechanics" then it seems due to find 
full-circle again "continuum mechanics".

The "problems of infinity" weren't 
put away, just put aside.

Einstein's famous formula for kinetic 
energy (and mass-energy equivalency) 
is just a first term of a series expansion, 
and then resolving why the following terms 
don't even have units right then for 
what this projection of these units over 
all the infinite dimensions are to be, 
this would seem to require attention 
for a reasonable systematic approach 
to "improvements" in the models of physics 
as what necessarily support the classical 
while fully supporting this "polydimensional" 
of the "holographic".

The Feynman path integral is another example 
of how the model of transport sees requirement 
for some super-classical super-wave model as 
to so support wave besides geometric optics.

There's quite a bit going on in Ramsey theory 
in mathematics about behavior in the infinite 
and usual dispersive besides centralizing tendencies 
and that there's quite a bit of novel (to physics) 
mathematics that has to be lined up and match with 
what's kept and discarded in "normalization" and 
"safety" in theories physics about the "uniformization" 
and "freedom" in physics, that it has and experimentally, 
too.

Mathematics owes physics mathematics of infinity, 
and infinitesimals, and the polydimensional, and 
super-classical waves, and physics owes physics 
that, too.

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

#467740

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-13 11:23 -0700
Message-ID	<8a72b3b1-a3b3-425e-8c72-07e640a78437@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#467664

On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 5:23:57 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 11:59:13 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 08.08.2018 um 19:02 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> > > kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> > >> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> > >> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
> > >> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> > > 
> > > Well, let’s see.
> > > Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten:
> > > - quantum field theory in 1950s
> > > - electroweak unification in 1960s
> > > - inflationary cosmology in 1980s
> > 
> > You forgot to mention 'climate change' (invented by Al Gore and the IPCC).
> > 
> > (proof was by 'Knuth' the little polar bear).
> > 
> > 
> > TH
> 
> If string theory is suppposed to be about 
> some "quantum mechanics" for "quantum 
> mechanics" then it seems due to find 
> full-circle again "continuum mechanics".
> 
> The "problems of infinity" weren't 
> put away, just put aside.
> 
> Einstein's famous formula for kinetic 
> energy (and mass-energy equivalency) 
> is just a first term of a series expansion, 
> and then resolving why the following terms 
> don't even have units right then for 
> what this projection of these units over 
> all the infinite dimensions are to be, 
> this would seem to require attention 
> for a reasonable systematic approach 
> to "improvements" in the models of physics 
> as what necessarily support the classical 
> while fully supporting this "polydimensional" 
> of the "holographic".
> 
> The Feynman path integral is another example 
> of how the model of transport sees requirement 
> for some super-classical super-wave model as 
> to so support wave besides geometric optics.
> 
> 
> There's quite a bit going on in Ramsey theory 
> in mathematics about behavior in the infinite 
> and usual dispersive besides centralizing tendencies 
> and that there's quite a bit of novel (to physics) 
> mathematics that has to be lined up and match with 
> what's kept and discarded in "normalization" and 
> "safety" in theories physics about the "uniformization" 
> and "freedom" in physics, that it has and experimentally, 
> too.
> 
> 
> Mathematics owes physics mathematics of infinity, 
> and infinitesimals, and the polydimensional, and 
> super-classical waves, and physics owes physics 
> that, too.

There's a basic notion that the irreducible in 
physical theories is the direct placement in 
mathematical theories, and not just conventions 
of notation and above just expressitivity in 
values, that here physics deserves final cause 
(and for placement in the theory) from first 
principles that are mathematical, here then 
for the importance of finding results in the 
continuum mechanics and then the super-wave 
models as relevant to, for example, explaining 
the physical interpretation of the error term 
(all the following terms) of the mass-energy 
equivalency formula famous per Einstein.

This was already introduced as well the path 
integral and about what "sum-of-histories" 
"is" for these "particle" geodesies and their 
being some "super-wave" (i.e. pilot/ghost wave 
and with extra-classicality, i.e., neatly reversed 
behavior about duals that falls out as the 
classical, geometric, and linear from this 
super, optical, and angular).

Then this "irreducibility" is the goal of 
"unification", here of forces and about fields 
then about gravity as force and field, that 
then there's to be worked up inverse square 
(for example) as that matter may well be passive 
and kinetic and inertial that instead of a 
local "pull" that it's a global "fall", here 
that in unification the other forces follow 
quite neatly from that (and of course all the 
classical and its derivations sit quite neatly 
in that).

Whither unification?

Another example is for the statistical mechanics, 
which would just be statistical analysis but there 
are effects to explain beyond the standard analysis, 
here as about Bose and Fermi statistics and the 
parastatistics, and their framing altogether in 
a usual Bayesian:  mathematics owes probability 
theory that the analysis finds all the mechanics.

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

#468153

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-08-17 19:03 +0200
Message-ID	<ftodepF2qp2U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467664

Am 13.08.2018 um 02:23 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson:
> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 11:59:13 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 08.08.2018 um 19:02 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>> The following questions were asked in Quora:
>>>> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
>>>> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
>>>
>>> Well, let’s see.
>>> Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten:
>>> - quantum field theory in 1950s
>>> - electroweak unification in 1960s
>>> - inflationary cosmology in 1980s
>>
>> You forgot to mention 'climate change' (invented by Al Gore and the IPCC).
>>
>> (proof was by 'Knuth' the little polar bear).
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> If string theory is suppposed to be about
> some "quantum mechanics" for "quantum
> mechanics" then it seems due to find
> full-circle again "continuum mechanics".
> 

Eventually you like my 'book', since it is essentially about "continuum 
mechanics".

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

The idea is to take spacetime of GR and 'make' particles out of it.

This was my proposal about how to connect GR to QM.

To model spacetime I wanted to use quaternions at first, because I 
wanted relativity more compatible to QM concepts.

The connection was a formula for rotation with quaternions, that looks a 
little similar to the bra/ket formalism.

But it turned out, that bi-quaternions behave even better (aka: 
complex-four-vectors).

With complex numbers in 3+1 d it is apparently possible to model all 
sort of interesting stuff in physics with a single framework.

TH

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

#468162

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-17 11:25 -0700
Message-ID	<f2cb6122-34a8-478e-ba3e-634f681b8ac2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#468153

On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:03:24 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 13.08.2018 um 02:23 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson:
> > On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 11:59:13 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 08.08.2018 um 19:02 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> >>>> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> >>>> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
> >>>> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> >>>
> >>> Well, let’s see.
> >>> Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten:
> >>> - quantum field theory in 1950s
> >>> - electroweak unification in 1960s
> >>> - inflationary cosmology in 1980s
> >>
> >> You forgot to mention 'climate change' (invented by Al Gore and the IPCC).
> >>
> >> (proof was by 'Knuth' the little polar bear).
> >>
> >>
> >> TH
> > 
> > If string theory is suppposed to be about
> > some "quantum mechanics" for "quantum
> > mechanics" then it seems due to find
> > full-circle again "continuum mechanics".
> > 
> 
> Eventually you like my 'book', since it is essentially about "continuum 
> mechanics".
> 
> (
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
> 
> The idea is to take spacetime of GR and 'make' particles out of it.
> 
> This was my proposal about how to connect GR to QM.
> 
> To model spacetime I wanted to use quaternions at first, because I 
> wanted relativity more compatible to QM concepts.
> 
> The connection was a formula for rotation with quaternions, that looks a 
> little similar to the bra/ket formalism.
> 
> But it turned out, that bi-quaternions behave even better (aka: 
> complex-four-vectors).
> 
> With complex numbers in 3+1 d it is apparently possible to model all 
> sort of interesting stuff in physics with a single framework.
> 
> 
> TH

You might find some interesting features of 
the "continuum" for "continuum analysis" for 
"continuum mechanics" as about Ramsey theory 
and here about differences between '2' and '3' 
about duality vis-a-vis triality.

Being about "fundamental physics" then it seems 
rather clear that "fundamental mathematics" plays 
a very central role.

"Nature is assumed to behave on a fundamental level 
like spacetime and not in the way we usually look at 
things.  The assumed mechanism is relatively simple. 
So we invert the introduction of complexity and try 
to show, that nature acts on a very low level very simple."

This here is that if there are richer features of the linear 
continuum as the basis for spacetime, then it automatically 
so equips the model, then that you should find these 
features in the mathematics there.

"The counting is dependeing on our state of movement."

One might disambiguate "numbering" and "counting", 
fundamentally in numbers.  (This is very much about 
measure besides congruence.)

"It seems unlikely, but nature shows precisely this 
behavior.  So we assume a multiplicative connection ...."

"Time is now some counting on that worldline.  What 
are counted are events in a clock.  So we get time-units 
and assign the rhythm of causality to our counting."

"Both behaviours are in a way extremal points of a 
continuous field."

Why not have "infinity" in your 'natural' numbers?
What's not "extremal" about that?

"Real vectors are the tool...."

"Some systems have advantages in usuability or 
performance, but none would behave exactly like 
nature does, since we have a continuum and the 
calculations could not be done with infinite precision, 
because that would require infinitely many calculations."

It seems then the role for the analyst to find the 
mathematics as about what "infinite limits" are 
next to be discovered after the usual standard 
integral calculus as about what the real "nature's 
relations" are.

Whither unification?

"(To actually figure out the future would be hindered 
by the problem, that we could never have all needed 
data and infinite time to do the calculations.)"

It seems that mathematics _owes_ physics this.

"We couldn't look into this direction, but we could 
imagine a new would exist, connected through something 
with infinite velocity.  Light can't do that, but a static field 
could."

"If we flip that over, we generate a space, where our 
timeline is a spacelike axis."

"That worldline ... described by two ... a more general 
case would need three...."

"We see how those 'influences' distribute over spacetime."

"This indicates, that c would be just an arbitrary constant."

"Trialities have a specific symmetry...."

"Particles are observed structures of small size."

"Spacetime itself is not 'quantized', but smooth."

"So for smaller structures we would expect 
gravity to be stronger because of higher curvature, 
only we usually don't call it gravity then."

"The 'unpleasant' aspect of this model is, that 
it is not quantized, because phenomena could be 
turned into each other and it is assumed to be a 
continuum.  This sets strong limits upon the use 
for calculations.  As a prerequisite, the entities 
or structures have to be defined properly."

"The aim was, to find a way to model an ensemble 
(of things, that act 'dumb, simple and local') with 
something compatible to GR."

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

#468249

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-08-18 17:51 +0200
Message-ID	<ftqtjiFk843U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#468162

Am 17.08.2018 um 20:25 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson:
> On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:03:24 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 13.08.2018 um 02:23 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson:
>>> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 11:59:13 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 08.08.2018 um 19:02 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The following questions were asked in Quora:
>>>>>> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
>>>>>> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, let’s see.
>>>>> Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten:
>>>>> - quantum field theory in 1950s
>>>>> - electroweak unification in 1960s
>>>>> - inflationary cosmology in 1980s
>>>>
>>>> You forgot to mention 'climate change' (invented by Al Gore and the IPCC).
>>>>
>>>> (proof was by 'Knuth' the little polar bear).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> TH
>>>
>>> If string theory is suppposed to be about
>>> some "quantum mechanics" for "quantum
>>> mechanics" then it seems due to find
>>> full-circle again "continuum mechanics".
>>>
>>
>> Eventually you like my 'book', since it is essentially about "continuum
>> mechanics".
>>
>> (
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
>>
>> The idea is to take spacetime of GR and 'make' particles out of it.
>>
>> This was my proposal about how to connect GR to QM.
>>
>> To model spacetime I wanted to use quaternions at first, because I
>> wanted relativity more compatible to QM concepts.
>>
>> The connection was a formula for rotation with quaternions, that looks a
>> little similar to the bra/ket formalism.
>>
>> But it turned out, that bi-quaternions behave even better (aka:
>> complex-four-vectors).
>>
>> With complex numbers in 3+1 d it is apparently possible to model all
>> sort of interesting stuff in physics with a single framework.
>>
>>
>> TH
> 
> You might find some interesting features of
> the "continuum" for "continuum analysis" for
> "continuum mechanics" as about Ramsey theory
> and here about differences between '2' and '3'
> about duality vis-a-vis triality.
> 
> Being about "fundamental physics" then it seems
> rather clear that "fundamental mathematics" plays
> a very central role.
> 
> 
> "Nature is assumed to behave on a fundamental level
> like spacetime and not in the way we usually look at
> things.  The assumed mechanism is relatively simple.
> So we invert the introduction of complexity and try
> to show, that nature acts on a very low level very simple."
> 
> This here is that if there are richer features of the linear
> continuum as the basis for spacetime, then it automatically
> so equips the model, then that you should find these
> features in the mathematics there.
> 
> "The counting is dependeing on our state of movement."
> 
> One might disambiguate "numbering" and "counting",
> fundamentally in numbers.  (This is very much about
> measure besides congruence.)
> 
> "It seems unlikely, but nature shows precisely this
> behavior.  So we assume a multiplicative connection ...."
> 
> "Time is now some counting on that worldline.  What
> are counted are events in a clock.  So we get time-units
> and assign the rhythm of causality to our counting."
> 
> "Both behaviours are in a way extremal points of a
> continuous field."
> 
> Why not have "infinity" in your 'natural' numbers?
> What's not "extremal" about that?
> 
Infinity is not a number.

The reason is the word 'a'.

IOW if there would be a number 'infinity', then there infinitely many 
infinities.

(e.g. infinity times x for all x in R)

You could hardly call that A (single) number.

Infinity is more like a concept.


> "Real vectors are the tool...."
> 
> "Some systems have advantages in usuability or
> performance, but none would behave exactly like
> nature does, since we have a continuum and the
> calculations could not be done with infinite precision,
> because that would require infinitely many calculations."
> 
> It seems then the role for the analyst to find the
> mathematics as about what "infinite limits" are
> next to be discovered after the usual standard
> integral calculus as about what the real "nature's
> relations" are.

If we are able to identify a certain mathematical pattern at the core of 
natures behavior, then it would be certainly useful to explore the 
pattern and research, whether or not nature utilizes such a method (or not).

But unfortunately I have limited means and am only a single person.

So I try to convince other from the idea, who eventually have more means 
and more abilities.

To my disappointment this didn't work.

So I'm still trying to convince people about the idea.

And you are among the few (until now), who apparently had a look at my 
'book'.

> 
> Whither unification?
> 
> "(To actually figure out the future would be hindered
> by the problem, that we could never have all needed
> data and infinite time to do the calculations.)"
> 
> It seems that mathematics _owes_ physics this.

Well, if mathematicians like to help, this is certainly welcome.

TH

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

#468364

From	"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com>
Date	2018-08-19 10:59 -0700
Message-ID	<95fd860b-0fa7-43cb-acc3-705d35ce3c0a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#468249

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 8:51:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.08.2018 um 20:25 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson:
> > On Friday, August 17, 2018 at 10:03:24 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Am 13.08.2018 um 02:23 schrieb Ross A. Finlayson:
> >>> On Sunday, August 12, 2018 at 11:59:13 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>>> Am 08.08.2018 um 19:02 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> >>>>> kenseto <setoken@att.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> The following questions were asked in Quora:
> >>>>>> Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't
> >>>>>> it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, let’s see.
> >>>>> Scientific revolutions you may have forgotten:
> >>>>> - quantum field theory in 1950s
> >>>>> - electroweak unification in 1960s
> >>>>> - inflationary cosmology in 1980s
> >>>>
> >>>> You forgot to mention 'climate change' (invented by Al Gore and the IPCC).
> >>>>
> >>>> (proof was by 'Knuth' the little polar bear).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> TH
> >>>
> >>> If string theory is suppposed to be about
> >>> some "quantum mechanics" for "quantum
> >>> mechanics" then it seems due to find
> >>> full-circle again "continuum mechanics".
> >>>
> >>
> >> Eventually you like my 'book', since it is essentially about "continuum
> >> mechanics".
> >>
> >> (
> >> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6 )
> >>
> >> The idea is to take spacetime of GR and 'make' particles out of it.
> >>
> >> This was my proposal about how to connect GR to QM.
> >>
> >> To model spacetime I wanted to use quaternions at first, because I
> >> wanted relativity more compatible to QM concepts.
> >>
> >> The connection was a formula for rotation with quaternions, that looks a
> >> little similar to the bra/ket formalism.
> >>
> >> But it turned out, that bi-quaternions behave even better (aka:
> >> complex-four-vectors).
> >>
> >> With complex numbers in 3+1 d it is apparently possible to model all
> >> sort of interesting stuff in physics with a single framework.
> >>
> >>
> >> TH
> > 
> > You might find some interesting features of
> > the "continuum" for "continuum analysis" for
> > "continuum mechanics" as about Ramsey theory
> > and here about differences between '2' and '3'
> > about duality vis-a-vis triality.
> > 
> > Being about "fundamental physics" then it seems
> > rather clear that "fundamental mathematics" plays
> > a very central role.
> > 
> > 
> > "Nature is assumed to behave on a fundamental level
> > like spacetime and not in the way we usually look at
> > things.  The assumed mechanism is relatively simple.
> > So we invert the introduction of complexity and try
> > to show, that nature acts on a very low level very simple."
> > 
> > This here is that if there are richer features of the linear
> > continuum as the basis for spacetime, then it automatically
> > so equips the model, then that you should find these
> > features in the mathematics there.
> > 
> > "The counting is dependeing on our state of movement."
> > 
> > One might disambiguate "numbering" and "counting",
> > fundamentally in numbers.  (This is very much about
> > measure besides congruence.)
> > 
> > "It seems unlikely, but nature shows precisely this
> > behavior.  So we assume a multiplicative connection ...."
> > 
> > "Time is now some counting on that worldline.  What
> > are counted are events in a clock.  So we get time-units
> > and assign the rhythm of causality to our counting."
> > 
> > "Both behaviours are in a way extremal points of a
> > continuous field."
> > 
> > Why not have "infinity" in your 'natural' numbers?
> > What's not "extremal" about that?
> > 
> Infinity is not a number.
> 
> The reason is the word 'a'.
> 
> IOW if there would be a number 'infinity', then there infinitely many 
> infinities.
> 
> (e.g. infinity times x for all x in R)
> 
> You could hardly call that A (single) number.
> 
> Infinity is more like a concept.
> 
> 
> > "Real vectors are the tool...."
> > 
> > "Some systems have advantages in usuability or
> > performance, but none would behave exactly like
> > nature does, since we have a continuum and the
> > calculations could not be done with infinite precision,
> > because that would require infinitely many calculations."
> > 
> > It seems then the role for the analyst to find the
> > mathematics as about what "infinite limits" are
> > next to be discovered after the usual standard
> > integral calculus as about what the real "nature's
> > relations" are.
> 
> If we are able to identify a certain mathematical pattern at the core of 
> natures behavior, then it would be certainly useful to explore the 
> pattern and research, whether or not nature utilizes such a method (or not).
> 
> But unfortunately I have limited means and am only a single person.
> 
> So I try to convince other from the idea, who eventually have more means 
> and more abilities.
> 
> To my disappointment this didn't work.
> 
> So I'm still trying to convince people about the idea.
> 
> And you are among the few (until now), who apparently had a look at my 
> 'book'.
> 
> > 
> > Whither unification?
> > 
> > "(To actually figure out the future would be hindered
> > by the problem, that we could never have all needed
> > data and infinite time to do the calculations.)"
> > 
> > It seems that mathematics _owes_ physics this.
> 
> Well, if mathematicians like to help, this is certainly welcome.
> 
> TH


Atomism as the "indivisible", 
related to mathematics is like 
the points of the line.  This is 
for a continuous divisible, and 
resultingly some discrete indivisible.

A usual opposite perspective is 
that atoms are elements and 
some "continuous" their collection.

Here with atoms (Democritan, 
chemical) about 25 orders of 
magnitude smaller than us (by 
mass), with Planck's length another 
10 or so (by length), then superstrings 
about 25 orders smaller than atoms 
(by length), this is "quantum" then
"quantum" again, then about, 
"where's the continuous?"

Mathematics (usually) has a "field 
continuity" for a linear continuum 
of the elements as "equivalence classes 
of sequences that are Cauchy (i.e. 
convergent sequences)".  Having 
atoms instead of elements or 
"infinitesimals" is not the usual 
way (it's "non-standard", where 
"standard" here is usually referring 
to "is having the Archimeden property 
of no infinites and no infinitesimals"), 
or about some "line continuity" and 
"standard infinitesimal".

atoms: wholes :: elements :: aggregates


About unification of physics, which is 
on one side the unification of fundamental 
forces and on another the unification of 
theories, there's a great article in Hawking 
and Penrose's "The Nature of Space and 
Time" or Penrose's "Chapter 4", "Quantum 
Theory and Spacetime", about the 
perceived requirements of unification 
of theories.  (This is the thirteenth printing 
2010.)


In terms of that having a unified theory of 
mathematics (i.e., a foundation) the usual 
received paradigm is ZF set theory, with 
algebraic geometry and category theory 
(building formal methods, combinatorics, 
real analysis, topology, having geometry, 
and so on).  There is though to be figured 
out more about continuity in mathematics, 
too.

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

Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →

csiph-web

Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

Contents

#467290 — Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora

#467292

#467343

#467406 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

#467297 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

#467412 — Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution

#467299

#467414

#467415

#467304

#467311

#467344

#467347

#467651

#467664

#467740

#468153

#468162

#468249

#468364