Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?

On 04/10/2025 08:12 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/10/2025 05:02 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:

On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

>
>
It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe",
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>

>
>
Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.
>
>
And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as
what caused him to write it.
>
Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935
while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may
have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting
him do the job.
>
He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is
the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but
soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein
he stopped his own work on GR.
>
He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he
had not stopped the work.
>
I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.
>
Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the
least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he
hadn't gotten a Nobel.
>
So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?
>
Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to
fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had
destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the
1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new
religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a
kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons
imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some
chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.
>
But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the
cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed
with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well,
and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of
things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.
>
So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel
Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe.
I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to
the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some
degree strange to them and are true as well :)
>
I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had
translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to
me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling
for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the
house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and
magazines that I had nothing to do with them.
>
In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's
popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to
Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years
had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot
imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I
personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics
at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same
man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and
there I'd seen in the house for years.
>
So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics
background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last.
I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me
was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the
reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how
physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the
university were mostly translations of French physics books which were
all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways
for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The
French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do
the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for
that!
>
That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember.
Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had
begun reading them in high school.
>
Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to
realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the
same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought
it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may
remember.
>
Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>
Same words / different lens
>
>
A lot of it is about his consideration and for Born what was
a sort of dread of the continuous, as that being too rigid
to make for chance, that then his shaky sort of lens made
all the chance, or opportunity and possibility, that mostly
he was about being able to make branches, instead of addressing
the issue of why the origin's everywhere/anywhere/everywhere,
that chance and uncertainty are constantly being created and
destroyed, and otherwise his straight-and-narrow sort of
linear narrative yet couched in the language of quantum
mechanics, has he was missing out on a continuum mechanics,
and things like the Zollfrei, and Poincare plane, as
with regards to what later and further is about the continuous
manifold, yet pretty about that mathematics _owes_ physics
more and better mathematics about continuity and infinity.
>
>
Then, Born rule and then the Copenhagen conference and that,
arriving at a probabilistic explanation instead of things
like Bohm and de Broglie and super-classical models of real
wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that
pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse
to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom
is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole
sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,
i.e. like super-string theory.
>
I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)
>
>
Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under
our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand
it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.
>
So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics
is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.
>
>

>
Consider, for example, Schaefer's "A response to Carl Helrich".
>
https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/13448/#!
>
https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHART-8
>
"As to the power of authority, when Helrich can quote Max Born for the
metaphysical stance that “the wavefunction itself has no physical mean-
ing” (p. 554), Werner Heisenberg ([1958] 1962) can be quoted for the
opposite metaphysical stance."
>
>
Then, both of those can be put to the side, explaining both, as one.
>
>