Re: Humans can't observe time. Even less, the pass of time. Science is an illusion.

On 04/24/2025 08:34 PM, gharnagel wrote:

On Fri, 25 Apr 2025 3:07:37 +0000, Physfitfreak wrote:

>
On 4/23/25 7:03 PM, gharnagel wrote:

>
I've been reading an old book (1999) by Brian Green, "The Elegant
Universe" where he was preaching string theory.  I'm reading about
Calabi-Yau spaces.  Admittedly, these would be models of reality
at best, but I got to thinking: WHAT are they modeling?  And that
led me to think about zero point fields.  We usually mean virtual
electron-positron sea, but there's a sea of each and every virtual
particle pair.  And then Hertz asks the question: what is space?
Space is filled with these virtual particle pairs.  So the question
is: which came first?

>
Sorry, didn't know you'd responded to my dick.
>
A few questions:
>
1- For what audience did Green write the book?

>
I would say, interested amateurs.
>

2- Is he British or American?

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene
>

3- What do you mean, saying he "was preaching" something?

>
When he wrote the book, string theory had just undergone its
third revival.
>

As you see, my dick doesn't even want to look them up, cause
he isn't sure its worth it.

>
It should have more faith.  Or not.
>

Number 2 question is for my dick to find out whether, say, if
the author wants to tell the readers someone micro-manages,
which one of the following two ways he chooses to express it:
>
American way:  "He micromanages."
>
British way:   "His ascendancy over everybody is quite curious:
the extent to which every officer and man feels the slightest
rebuke or praise, would have been before seeing him,
incomprehensible..."
>
So my dick naturally finds it prudent to know that important fact in
advance.

>
Ya lost me there.

Greene and Verlinde the other day, or this past week,
got into a reminiscence about string theory then 2nd
thermo law and how it's inside out at the black-hole
horizon and about "cube-wall" of the areal versus the
volumetric since the Gauss-Bonnet or Ostrogradsky is
what delivers thermo 2nd law as for entropy what all
the statistical mechanics is made up of it, instead of
making for micro/macro or microscopic/emergent as it was put,
that long since Bekenstein and either way Hawking that
still physics doesn't have any gravity and then since
there's no infinity they're stuck with singularities
then assume they don't exist and thusly the "cube-wall"
about the areal the boundary of the horizon versus
the volumetric of the region with its metric or its
coordinates, "Is Dark Matter the Wrong Idea?", then
I'm not sure where they went with it since I only
watched about a half hour or so, that I imagine though
if they don't make for a super-string theory where
actually it has to be that the open and closed strings
have their various dispositions instead of ever introducting
any "anti" deSitter space, that super-string theory needs
a de-conflation of open and closed strings, since about
entropy "always increasing" that's not quite so singularly.
Also unless they mention "fall gravity" then it's sort
of doomed, and Green seemed to hint that the cosmological
constant was measured about flat while Verlinde said
"oh well obviously the cosmological constant is positive"
and implying positive and finite instead of positive and
infinitesimal, anyways without a proper "fall gravity"
and unifying that with the nuclear force, or at least
re-defining different kinds of open and closed strings,
for super-string theory which is continuum mechanics
"second quantization" after atomic theories, that,
at least they both seem to aver that dark matter and
dark energy long ago paint-canned naive coffee-table theory.
Some outfit said Rydberg packets at least make an extra-local
clock or a timebase as it were that since all human beings
have a sense of time and continuity, that it's a greater
object sense and matters of perspective and projection,
that SI and the SM are quite partial and incomplete.
(And change regularly with running constants running them out.)