Re: Langevin's paradox again

Am Sonntag000014, 14.07.2024 um 21:33 schrieb Paul.B.Andersen:

Den 14.07.2024 19:40, skrev Richard Hachel:

Le 14/07/2024 à 19:07, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :

Den 14.07.2024 04:02, skrev Richard Hachel:

 it seems that apart from me, no one in the world has had the trigger for the complete explanation of the Langevin traveler.

 

What do you mean by "complete explanation"?

>
By this I mean that the explanation given by physicists is correct, but very incomplete.

 Physicists don't explain (in the sense you use the word) anything.
They tell you what physics theories predict.

Not quite.
Physicist build physical theories in the first place, before they can use them for predictions.
To build a valid theory, you need to understand the observed phenomena correctly.
Based on correct understanding of the universe, you can build correct theories.
And based on correct theories, you can build useful approximations, which can eventually be used for predictions.
The approximations are necessary, because nature does not support predictions and uses means, which we cannot immitate.
E.g. nature has infinite time and calculation power, because nature uses an infinite amout of 'calculators' and parallel processing for eons.
This is hard to imitate, hence we need simplified modells, which are somehow valid, too.
These simplified modells are hard to find, but are actually not based on natural principles, because nature is not an approximation of itself.
In any case, it is good to understand the phenomena described in the first place, even if we cannot use this understanding directly in modells.
But good modells follow from good understanding, while bad modells follow from lack of understanding.
TH