Re: Energy?

On 08/04/2024 12:38 PM, gharnagel wrote:

On Sun, 4 Aug 2024 18:33:54 +0000, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
On 08/04/2024 11:03 AM, gharnagel wrote:

>
"String Theory isn't complete or perfect, and may never become either.
It may eventually come to be understood as merely a step, or more

likely

a collection of important steps and some missteps that were still
inevitable in our quest for a unified theory.
>
"But branding it 'nonsense' is just ignorant. Whatever it is –
almost the whole truth, a glimpse of the truth, or a beautiful
non-truth which miraculously manages to come ever so close to
the truth – one thing it cannot be is nonsense. It's a
magnificent, shining edifice of such internal cohesiveness and
beauty that it almost doesn't matter if it doesn't describe
our own universe: the universe it does describe deserves our
attention and exploration.  -- Alon Amit
>
“Relativity and quantum mechanics were not invented because someone
thought it would be a good idea for the universe to obey these rules;
rather, these revolutionary ideas were forced upon us by nature.”
-- Lawrence M. Krauss

>
Oh, why are there exactly only three space dimensions
and a ray of time for the field formalism the continuous
manifold what is the Space-Time?
>
It's as some Linear Continuum it's infinities and infinitesimals
making for orthogonality and two right-hand turns makes a complete
revolution, or the old
>
time goes back forever / space goes on forever
>
then as with regards to that Brane Theory and adding dimensions
to the theory, is just making extra paper for book-keeping,
for example the 3 + 0.5 making for a 3 (x3) + 1 "ten dimensions",
and all continuous, that the extras or "curled up" are just
exactly only to balance in account the others, the less, the one.
>
I.e. the hologrammatic is both continuous and preserves
continuity everywhere, while being a minimal resource,
which jives (or, jibes) well with least-action and the
sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials.
>
These days the Beta Decay is being seen again a continuous
mechanism, and larger molecules aren't exactly as of course
what's a beautiful and profound and useful theory of the
occupation of electron orbitals, for the stoichiometric,
and of course there's Bohm-deBroglie which makes sure that
it's not just particles.
>
If your theory is fundamentally grainy and discrete,
it might as well be empty.

>
Why wouldn't continuity be just as empty?  The human mind
just can't grasp action-at-a-distance, so fields were --
invented.  In Q.E.D., Feynman asserted that light is --
particles.  Particles communicate between discrete grains
over distances, but the math for that is very complicated.
That's why fields (and QFT) were invented.  They are
simplistic (?) approximations to reality.

According to Archimedes Plutonium it's one big dot a plutoniom atom, ....
The "object sense" is to be cultivated, with regards to Zeno,
as the classical exposition of continuous and infinitely-divisible
quantities, in time, the universal parameter of the continuous
and infinitely-divisible, quantities.
The "object sense", is a complement to the usual phenomenological
senses or Sens which comprise the detecters of observables, to
extend it merely to the notion of reason and rationality of the
numbers the infinite and infinitely-divisible, numbers, of a
continuum, as with regards to individua and continua, a continuum.
So, the "word sense", "number sense", object sense, as making
for a "continuum sense" and a sense of _time_, is this minimal
sort of apparatus, then, to equip phenomenology, with this
rational sense, of otherwise the "apeiron" of the infinite
a plain true rational real infinite numbers.
Consider d'Espagnat and his philosophy of physics and the
position of realism as with regards to the modern day and
the Aspect-type experiments and otherwise that since Fresnel
and Huygens at least light was waves and optical not merely
geometric, that equipping the model physicist with a merest
object-sense with one real infinity, changes the entire picture.
Are we not Men?