"Crisis" in physics

Liste des GroupesRevenir à p relativity 
Sujet : "Crisis" in physics
De : ross.a.finlayson (at) *nospam* gmail.com (Ross Finlayson)
Groupes : sci.physics.relativity
Date : 10. Nov 2024, 00:58:45
Autres entêtes
Message-ID : <ISednfykpKyuarL6nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@giganews.com>
User-Agent : Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
It's like when somebody says "multiple universes"
and it's like "that's a contradiction in terms, and
entirely non-scientific, and furthermore merely specious",
or "dark (luminous) matter", same difference.
Then, do those disqualify QM and GR respectively,
yeah in a sense they do, the _extensions_ of those,
that are so wrong.
Following some of the recent back-and-forth bits
about "crisis" in physics, and here it's that the
old ultraviolet catastrophe, a perestroika,
a singularity, see, people read that as "a catastrophe
means a terrible crisis", yet it's merely a mathematical
thing meaning singularity. Then the ultraviolete
catastrophe & electron physics, is a mere thing.
Then these days the "new crisis" is that the contradictions
in terms like "functional freedom" in QM and "missing
required" in GR have reached not merely statistical
significance, but saying they're _not_ wrong has
reached statistical _in_-significance.
So, the crisis in physics is, real, and, needs a sort
of "infrared catastrophe" to arrive at the needful
neutrino & muon & hadron physics, and that's about
that there _is_ a continuum mechanics for QM,
and, a fall-gravity for GR, and with separating
the linear and rotational.
Of course it has to fit "all" the data and
have nothing wrong with it.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
10 Nov 24 * "Crisis" in physics4Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24 `* Re: "Crisis" in physics3Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24  `* Re: "Crisis" in physics2Ross Finlayson
10 Nov 24   `- Re: "Crisis" in physics1Ross Finlayson

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal