Re: Energy?

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.