Re: "Crisis" in physics

On 11/10/2024 09:56 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 11/09/2024 03:58 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
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.
>
>

>
>
Anything "loop-quantum" is pretty much "dupe-quantum".
It's imaginary, to be generous, and as under-defined
as to be un-physical.
>
The geodesy, is always instantaneous, everywhere.
>
>
The sky survey, has that instead of Hubble's "expanding
universe", it's not. Neither the Big Bang nor Steady State
hypothesis is falsifiable, and science without falsifiable
is not science.
>
The real wave collapse, gives Heisenberg certainty.
>
The Higgs boson, is a doublet. These days there's
also Little Higgs, and for making "Medium Higgs: the atom".
>
>
String theory, is just whatever is "continuum mechanics",
as just a grainier-grain than the atomic scale -
it is what it is, and can fit in 3 + 1/2, and in 1.
>
Supersymmetry, is alive as ever, and, not merely
high-energy nor merely low-energy nor merely meso-scale,
yet each.
>
The "ultraviolet catastrophe" as about blackbody radiation
and "ultraviolet cutoff" as about finite-element-analysis,
are two different things, and QED does not get a pass to
say that's anything other than finite-element-analysis.
>
The "ultraviolet catastrophe" then for the "infrared catastrophe"
to make for purple/indigo/violet, the other way, is that a
great opportunity to fit with the success of spectroscopy
and electron physics, is neutrino/muon/hadron physics,
because beta decay is a continuous process, AND because
electron discreteness stops working in larger atoms,
why "infrared catasrophe" is a great idea because there's
another crisis in physics since the last one,
"ultraviolet catastrophe".
>
Statistics, is not necessarily Bayesian.
>
>
>
I enjoyed listening this 4-hour Carroll lecture
"It's not a crisis ..." yet don't all agree,
and the 15 or 20 some theories mentioned none
of them get into _all_ the configurations and
energies of experiment. I feel asleep for about
an hour, it's a good survey, of the physics ward.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MTM-8memDHs
>
>
Then, the "infrared catastrophe", is about low energy
and high energy, also with regards to "not-unification",
and symmetry-flex not symmetry-breaking, and running
constants, and more and better mathematics of convergence.
>
>
One of physics' big problems today is about momentum,
and the angular and linear and rotational and spiral,
because as Einstein puts it "the physics is an _inertial_
system", and, the classical definition of "resistance
to motive force the impetus the motion", is as of
the inertial, and besides, active force is evident
in footballs, or for example rifling, and merely
the gyroscopic, or nutation of a top, mechanics.
>
>
>
Then, physics needs a thoroughly holistic account,
and much of it is fixing about 0/1/infinity,
and what mathematics _owes_ physics in probability
theory and statistics, convergence, and even
models of mechanics, and motion.
>
Now see here: 0 meters per second, is infinity seconds per meter.
>
>

>
>
>
It's like, remember last year when the science news
went, "find somewhere not overcome by light pollution
and point your telescope here, and on this day, you'll
see a brand-new supernova".
>
Know how they got that? The gravitational-wave
observatory has that c_g equals in-finity.
>
>
"Doesn't GR predict gravitational-waves?"
Yeah, sure it does, they also range from
c_g down to c.
>
>