Re: The failure of the unified field theory means general relativity fails.

On 07/07/2024 03:39 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 07/06/2024 12:56 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 07/05/2024 12:00 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 07/04/2024 12:29 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 06/26/2024 12:24 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
>

On 06/24/2024 11:49 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:

Am Dienstag000025, 25.06.2024 um 05:57 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>

Nope. YOU have imposed specific units onto the
formula/equation. The equation itself does not impose any
particular units on its variables and constants [@], it merely
requires that they be self-consistent.
>
        [@] There are many systems of units in common use. You
        seem to think there is only one.

>
A forteriori, any result that depends on any particular choice
of units (or dimensions) is unphysical.

>
Yes, of course. Good point. Similarly, any result that depends on
choice of coordinates is unphysical.
>

>
Not quite...
>
Because velocity is 'relative' (relative in respect to what you
regard as 'stationary'), kinetic energy is frame dependent.
>
Since the used coordinate system defines 'stationary', you need a
coordinate system for kinetic energy and that for practically
everything else.
>
TH

>
When I hear "unphysical" I think it means "in the mathematical
representation and having no attachment to the physical
representation, in the system of units of the dimensional
analysis in the geometric setting".
>
The dimensional analysis and attachment to geometry and
arithmetic usually is about the only "physical" there is.

>
Dimensional analysis has nothing to do with physics. Dimensions
are man-made conventions. Nothing would change if the whole
concept had never been invented.
>

(Geometry and arithmetic and the objects of analysis and so on.)
>
Things like "negative time" and "anti-deSitter space" are
unphysical, as are the non-real parts of complex analysis,
usually, though for example if you consider the Cartanian as
essentially different from the Gaussian-Eulerian, complex
analysis, then the Majorana spinor makes an example of a
detectable observable, though, one might aver that that's its
real part, in the hypercomplex.

>
Well, yes, but that is another meaning of 'unphysical,
>
Jan
>

>
Yet, "conservation", i.e. "neither the destruction or creation",
of quantities, is exactly as according to the quantity its units.

>
Conservation laws do no depend on units and dimensions in any way.
>

The, "dimensionless", when a usual sort of "dimensional analysis"
is the Buckingham-Pi approach, is a detachment of sorts from
the "dimensional analysis".

>
Yes, standard dimensional analysis,
>
Jan
>
>

>
Oh, here that's called 'dimensionless analysis'.

>
That's either an error or a silly neologism,
>
Jan
>

>
[Higgs irrelevancies]
>

Quantities, and their derivations, have implicit units,
about them.

>
'Implicit unit' is not a physical concept,
>
Jan
>

>
The mathematically implicit, which affects that functions
parameterized by particular other functions have particular
forms about their envelopes, boundaries, and singular points,
very much does get involved in physical concepts,
here particular the concept of kinetic force,
as a function of time, with regards to the infinitely-many
orders of acceleration, from infinity on down, with
respect to time, the laws of motion.
>
The laws of motion are about the most usual "physical concept".
>
When you ask what are the infinitely-many higher orders
of acceleration, or "what is change, at all",
then mathematics rather owes physics even a model of this,
to equip physics with a physical interpretation or "concept",
or what "is physical" or "real".
>
The implicits in parameterization are a rather fundamental
concept in the differential analysis, and analysis altogether,
about the derivations that result, "quantities", algebraic
quantities, about that even though physics often enough
arrives at singularities at the edges or right outside the
bounds, that's because regular singular points like the
0, 1, infinity of the hypergeometric are "real", mathematically.
>
Then, most people's first non-standard function is the
Dirac delta, an infinite spike at the origin with area one.
Then figuring out how the infinitely many orders of
acceleration arrive at smooth starting and stopping,
is here considered with regards to "Zeno's swath",
and "a stop-derivative, a walk-integral, a pause-integral,
and a run-derivative".
>
Also "Nessie's hump".
>
>
So, implicits, definitely do have a physical concept attached,
and force, is a function of time.

>
Word salad: Yes.
Clarity about 'Implied units': No,
>
Jan
>

 From an article the other day:
https://phys.org/news/2024-07-exploring-possibility-probing-fundamental-spacetime.html
"For a long time, I was curious about the phenomenon of gravitational
wave memory and the connection of the associated low energy physics with
quantum mechanics," Boris Goncharov, co-author of the paper, told
Phys.org. "I first heard about Weinberg's soft graviton theorem from
Prof. Paul Lasky at Monash University in Australia, during my Ph.D, when
discussing gravitational wave memory. Then I learned about the so-called
"Infrared Triangle' that connects the soft theorem with gravitational
wave memory and symmetries of spacetime at infinity from gravitational
wave sources."
Heh, "gravitational wave memory".
See, going dimensionless with Buckingham-Pi, is memoryless.
So, using a word like "memory" in association with
gravitational waves, in a differential system where
everything is parameterized by a one "the time",
according to Einstein, about these, heh, "symmetries
of spacetime at infinity from gravitational wave sources",
helps to reflect that this "memory" is an introduced
framework of a system of quantities in units,
reflecting what the memoryless, dimensionless,
contextless, can not.
"The soft theorem, ...."
The theory is a sum-of-histories sum-of-potentials,
the real fields these potential fields,
and force, the vector, the classical vector:
is a function of _time_, "the", _time_.
Otherwise I'm interested in infinitely-many higher-order
derivatives of displacement with respect to time,
the higher orders of acceleration, which go to zero
in higher orders, yet, are formally non-zero in
all matters of dynamics.
Now I excuse me while I consider a belittling
condescension then refrain.