Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #468249

Re: 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	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why haven't we had another scientific revolution in physics yet? Hasn't it been long enough since general relativity and quantum mechanics? - Quora
Date	2018-08-18 17:51 +0200
Message-ID	<ftqtjiFk843U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(1 earlier) <pkf7o2$2jb$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ftbebuF3fntU2@mid.individual.net> <e1eea3c4-7f4d-48a1-8519-94e8e524ffc0@googlegroups.com> <ftodepF2qp2U1@mid.individual.net> <f2cb6122-34a8-478e-ba3e-634f681b8ac2@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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

Thread

csiph-web