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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #397569

Re: Penrose's new book

Show all headers | View raw

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

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

csiph-web