Re: E. Noether contra B. Carter

On 09/19/2024 02:46 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:

On 09/18/2024 03:16 PM, JanPB wrote:

BTW, I have no idea why the lines are wrapped so badly.
It never happened before.
>
--
Jan

>
I was reading some theory in the spectral analysis
of molecular weights, and they get into a similar
sort of ansaetze with regards to the quantities.
>
There where for example you get small-angle
approximation and the nil-square and Laplacian,
instead they have resonance theory and molecular chemistry.
>
So it's sort of like you're missing a constant, or term,
sort of like the cosmological constant, which of course
everybody knows as both vanishing yet non-zero.
>
I.e., it's sort of like your linearisations and
dimensionless analysis, have sort of resulted
that your coordinate mapping has not-enough-information.
>
Anyways other fields have similar sorts of setups
and have made do with more sorts of non-linear
and non-standard analysis, yet what all works up
just fine as resonance theory as more than the
sum of harmonic functions, or that Laplacians
don't look good from every angle.
>
>

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01412752
"The idea of consistently averaging the hydrodynamic interaction
and its various consequences for Hookean dumbbells are reviewed."