On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:56:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
> >>> revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
> >>> another rotten sausage.
> >> There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.
> >
> > No, again you put words into my mouth. I'm NOT saying QFT is "obvious garbage".
> Well, “rotten sausage” seems like garbage to me.
> > All I'm saying is that the actual experimental evidence for QFT is a far
> > cry from the usual claims that SM/QCD/QFT is "a thoroughly confirmed
> > theory". Read Unzicker's book, "Bankrupting Physics" and you'll get a
> > whole new perspective regarding such claims.
> First off, as others have pointed out, it’s not black and white and no one
> knowledgeable claims it is, except maybe in gee-whiz popularizations. If
> someone like Unziger publishes a book that has as its buzz line “You’ve
> been told this whole time it’s White and it’s Not White at all!”, well,
> that’s not really a revelation. Of COURSE there are issues with QCD, not
> the least of which that perturbation calculations blow up pretty badly
> because of the size of the coupling constant, and so the calculation method
> that worked admirably for QED won’t work for QCD, but that does not really
> address whether it is a good representation of reality but rather makes it
> more challenging to produce predictions in some energy domains. That
> doesn’t mean it’s rotten sausage at all.
>
> Likewise in QED there was back in the 60s a lot of agonizing over
> renormalization to handle the infinities of bare charge and bare mass of
> point leptons, and whether that was mathematically rigorous. Feynman’s
> famous argument here is that mathematical rigor is something you can
> establish after the fact, once it’s agreed by all that it works to high
> precision. And it’s true that not ALL predictions of QED are good to 12
> digits. Who cares? That was never the claim. The Lamb shift calculation is
> good to six digits, but the fact is that competing models didn’t get it
> right to two. So does pointing out that twelve-digit confirmation is
> perhaps a limited statement or could even be interpreted as an
> overstatement and indication that it’s rotten sausage? No, it just means
> that gee-whiz popularizations should always be taken with a grain of salt
> and used as a springboard for deeper readings at a more precise (and
> technically demanding) level.
> >
> >>> Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
> >>> experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
> >>> another thoroughly confirmed theory.
> >>>
> >>> String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
> >>> does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
> >>>
> >> If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
> >> theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
> >> physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
> >> made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
> >> difference?
> >
> > My point, put another way, is that the difference between String theory
> > and SM, QED is a matter of degree: String Theory has not a single
> > experimental prediction confirmed to-date (and more importantly possibly
> > never will), while QCD/QED supposedly have "excellent" experimental
> > confirmation, but when examined more closely, the experimental support is
> > found to be a far cry from the standard narrative.
> Again, that depends on what you consider “standard narrative”. If you
> thought the standard narrative is that the Standard Model is bulletproof,
> without any historical reservations, without any open questions, and with
> unassailable precision that proves that it is THE answer, then that
> narrative is indeed false — but so what?
>
> There is a fundamental difference between string theory and the Standard
> Model. String theory lacks any firm predictions, aside from accessible low
> energy supersymmetric partners that have not been seen. The Standard Model
> has made scores of predictions ranging from 3-jet collider events at the
> right rate and right angular distributions, to the W/Z mass ratio, which
> have been validated to solid precision. Certainly better than any other
> candidates.
> >
> > By contrast, the experimental evidence for SR/GR, in terms of predictions
> > matching observations can be called excellent. My problem with SR/GR is
> > different. I think these theories are physically ABSURD and there is very
> > likely a physically meaningful (and very likely more complex) theory that
> > can explain these results based on a RATIONAL aether.
> >
> Fine, propose a rational aether theory that competes. Otherwise, what’s to
> be gained by complaining that it doesn’t “feel right” to you? Think back to
> Dirac’s comment about renormalization not feeling right. Does it have to?
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

There's an example about "1+2+3+.. =, - 1/12", you have to remember
that it's only like "i^2 = -1, roots of unity and complex analysis", that
the analysis "resulting that the expression results the value" is only
some "small negative constant in the restitutive".

Or, "re-normalization is de-re-normalization, for normalization".

Whether "g-factor" or "path integral constant: 1.000..xxx", is for
scattering and tunneling what usually would add back out the
things in curves in straight lines.

Then he ends with "Winter is coming". That's always forboding,
though usually people with four seasons under that mean
"it's not winter yet".

I don't see what the problem is, "old physics" already has
that people include QCD and QED in an at least combined theory.

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:56:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
>>>>> revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
>>>>> another rotten sausage.
>>>> There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.
>>>
>>> No, again you put words into my mouth. I'm NOT saying QFT is "obvious garbage".
>> Well, “rotten sausage” seems like garbage to me.
>>> All I'm saying is that the actual experimental evidence for QFT is a far
>>> cry from the usual claims that SM/QCD/QFT is "a thoroughly confirmed
>>> theory". Read Unzicker's book, "Bankrupting Physics" and you'll get a
>>> whole new perspective regarding such claims.
>> First off, as others have pointed out, it’s not black and white and no one
>> knowledgeable claims it is, except maybe in gee-whiz popularizations. If
>> someone like Unziger publishes a book that has as its buzz line “You’ve
>> been told this whole time it’s White and it’s Not White at all!”, well,
>> that’s not really a revelation. Of COURSE there are issues with QCD, not
>> the least of which that perturbation calculations blow up pretty badly
>> because of the size of the coupling constant, and so the calculation method
>> that worked admirably for QED won’t work for QCD, but that does not really
>> address whether it is a good representation of reality but rather makes it
>> more challenging to produce predictions in some energy domains. That
>> doesn’t mean it’s rotten sausage at all.
>>
>> Likewise in QED there was back in the 60s a lot of agonizing over
>> renormalization to handle the infinities of bare charge and bare mass of
>> point leptons, and whether that was mathematically rigorous. Feynman’s
>> famous argument here is that mathematical rigor is something you can
>> establish after the fact, once it’s agreed by all that it works to high
>> precision. And it’s true that not ALL predictions of QED are good to 12
>> digits. Who cares? That was never the claim. The Lamb shift calculation is
>> good to six digits, but the fact is that competing models didn’t get it
>> right to two. So does pointing out that twelve-digit confirmation is
>> perhaps a limited statement or could even be interpreted as an
>> overstatement and indication that it’s rotten sausage? No, it just means
>> that gee-whiz popularizations should always be taken with a grain of salt
>> and used as a springboard for deeper readings at a more precise (and
>> technically demanding) level.
>>>
>>>>> Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
>>>>> experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
>>>>> another thoroughly confirmed theory.
>>>>>
>>>>> String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
>>>>> does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
>>>>>
>>>> If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
>>>> theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
>>>> physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
>>>> made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
>>>> difference?
>>>
>>> My point, put another way, is that the difference between String theory
>>> and SM, QED is a matter of degree: String Theory has not a single
>>> experimental prediction confirmed to-date (and more importantly possibly
>>> never will), while QCD/QED supposedly have "excellent" experimental
>>> confirmation, but when examined more closely, the experimental support is
>>> found to be a far cry from the standard narrative.
>> Again, that depends on what you consider “standard narrative”. If you
>> thought the standard narrative is that the Standard Model is bulletproof,
>> without any historical reservations, without any open questions, and with
>> unassailable precision that proves that it is THE answer, then that
>> narrative is indeed false — but so what?
>>
>> There is a fundamental difference between string theory and the Standard
>> Model. String theory lacks any firm predictions, aside from accessible low
>> energy supersymmetric partners that have not been seen. The Standard Model
>> has made scores of predictions ranging from 3-jet collider events at the
>> right rate and right angular distributions, to the W/Z mass ratio, which
>> have been validated to solid precision. Certainly better than any other
>> candidates.
>>>
>>> By contrast, the experimental evidence for SR/GR, in terms of predictions
>>> matching observations can be called excellent. My problem with SR/GR is
>>> different. I think these theories are physically ABSURD and there is very
>>> likely a physically meaningful (and very likely more complex) theory that
>>> can explain these results based on a RATIONAL aether.
>>>
>> Fine, propose a rational aether theory that competes. Otherwise, what’s to
>> be gained by complaining that it doesn’t “feel right” to you? Think back to
>> Dirac’s comment about renormalization not feeling right. Does it have to?
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>
>
> There's an example about "1+2+3+.. =, - 1/12", you have to remember
> that it's only like "i^2 = -1, roots of unity and complex analysis", that
> the analysis "resulting that the expression results the value" is only
> some "small negative constant in the restitutive".
>
> Or, "re-normalization is de-re-normalization, for normalization".
>
> Whether "g-factor" or "path integral constant: 1.000..xxx", is for
> scattering and tunneling what usually would add back out the
> things in curves in straight lines.
>
> Then he ends with "Winter is coming". That's always forboding,
> though usually people with four seasons under that mean
> "it's not winter yet".
>
> I don't see what the problem is, "old physics" already has
> that people include QCD and QED in an at least combined theory.
>

Wow. Physics jabberwocky.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 7:00:28 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:56:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
> >>>>> revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
> >>>>> another rotten sausage.
> >>>> There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.
> >>>
> >>> No, again you put words into my mouth. I'm NOT saying QFT is "obvious garbage".
> >> Well, “rotten sausage” seems like garbage to me.
> >>> All I'm saying is that the actual experimental evidence for QFT is a far
> >>> cry from the usual claims that SM/QCD/QFT is "a thoroughly confirmed
> >>> theory". Read Unzicker's book, "Bankrupting Physics" and you'll get a
> >>> whole new perspective regarding such claims.
> >> First off, as others have pointed out, it’s not black and white and no one
> >> knowledgeable claims it is, except maybe in gee-whiz popularizations. If
> >> someone like Unziger publishes a book that has as its buzz line “You’ve
> >> been told this whole time it’s White and it’s Not White at all!”, well,
> >> that’s not really a revelation. Of COURSE there are issues with QCD, not
> >> the least of which that perturbation calculations blow up pretty badly
> >> because of the size of the coupling constant, and so the calculation method
> >> that worked admirably for QED won’t work for QCD, but that does not really
> >> address whether it is a good representation of reality but rather makes it
> >> more challenging to produce predictions in some energy domains. That
> >> doesn’t mean it’s rotten sausage at all.
> >>
> >> Likewise in QED there was back in the 60s a lot of agonizing over
> >> renormalization to handle the infinities of bare charge and bare mass of
> >> point leptons, and whether that was mathematically rigorous. Feynman’s
> >> famous argument here is that mathematical rigor is something you can
> >> establish after the fact, once it’s agreed by all that it works to high
> >> precision. And it’s true that not ALL predictions of QED are good to 12
> >> digits. Who cares? That was never the claim. The Lamb shift calculation is
> >> good to six digits, but the fact is that competing models didn’t get it
> >> right to two. So does pointing out that twelve-digit confirmation is
> >> perhaps a limited statement or could even be interpreted as an
> >> overstatement and indication that it’s rotten sausage? No, it just means
> >> that gee-whiz popularizations should always be taken with a grain of salt
> >> and used as a springboard for deeper readings at a more precise (and
> >> technically demanding) level.
> >>>
> >>>>> Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
> >>>>> experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
> >>>>> another thoroughly confirmed theory.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
> >>>>> does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
> >>>>>
> >>>> If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
> >>>> theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
> >>>> physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
> >>>> made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
> >>>> difference?
> >>>
> >>> My point, put another way, is that the difference between String theory
> >>> and SM, QED is a matter of degree: String Theory has not a single
> >>> experimental prediction confirmed to-date (and more importantly possibly
> >>> never will), while QCD/QED supposedly have "excellent" experimental
> >>> confirmation, but when examined more closely, the experimental support is
> >>> found to be a far cry from the standard narrative.
> >> Again, that depends on what you consider “standard narrative”. If you
> >> thought the standard narrative is that the Standard Model is bulletproof,
> >> without any historical reservations, without any open questions, and with
> >> unassailable precision that proves that it is THE answer, then that
> >> narrative is indeed false — but so what?
> >>
> >> There is a fundamental difference between string theory and the Standard
> >> Model. String theory lacks any firm predictions, aside from accessible low
> >> energy supersymmetric partners that have not been seen. The Standard Model
> >> has made scores of predictions ranging from 3-jet collider events at the
> >> right rate and right angular distributions, to the W/Z mass ratio, which
> >> have been validated to solid precision. Certainly better than any other
> >> candidates.
> >>>
> >>> By contrast, the experimental evidence for SR/GR, in terms of predictions
> >>> matching observations can be called excellent. My problem with SR/GR is
> >>> different. I think these theories are physically ABSURD and there is very
> >>> likely a physically meaningful (and very likely more complex) theory that
> >>> can explain these results based on a RATIONAL aether.
> >>>
> >> Fine, propose a rational aether theory that competes. Otherwise, what’s to
> >> be gained by complaining that it doesn’t “feel right” to you? Think back to
> >> Dirac’s comment about renormalization not feeling right. Does it have to?
> >> --
> >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >
> >
> > There's an example about "1+2+3+.. =, - 1/12", you have to remember
> > that it's only like "i^2 = -1, roots of unity and complex analysis", that
> > the analysis "resulting that the expression results the value" is only
> > some "small negative constant in the restitutive".
> >
> > Or, "re-normalization is de-re-normalization, for normalization".
> >
> > Whether "g-factor" or "path integral constant: 1.000..xxx", is for
> > scattering and tunneling what usually would add back out the
> > things in curves in straight lines.
> >
> > Then he ends with "Winter is coming". That's always forboding,
> > though usually people with four seasons under that mean
> > "it's not winter yet".
> >
> > I don't see what the problem is, "old physics" already has
> > that people include QCD and QED in an at least combined theory.
> >
> Wow. Physics jabberwocky.
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

"Supersymmetry not dead, again."

On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:33:58 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 7:00:28 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:56:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
> > >>>>> revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
> > >>>>> another rotten sausage.
> > >>>> There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.
> > >>>
> > >>> No, again you put words into my mouth. I'm NOT saying QFT is "obvious garbage".
> > >> Well, “rotten sausage” seems like garbage to me.
> > >>> All I'm saying is that the actual experimental evidence for QFT is a far
> > >>> cry from the usual claims that SM/QCD/QFT is "a thoroughly confirmed
> > >>> theory". Read Unzicker's book, "Bankrupting Physics" and you'll get a
> > >>> whole new perspective regarding such claims.
> > >> First off, as others have pointed out, it’s not black and white and no one
> > >> knowledgeable claims it is, except maybe in gee-whiz popularizations.. If
> > >> someone like Unziger publishes a book that has as its buzz line “You’ve
> > >> been told this whole time it’s White and it’s Not White at all!”, well,
> > >> that’s not really a revelation. Of COURSE there are issues with QCD, not
> > >> the least of which that perturbation calculations blow up pretty badly
> > >> because of the size of the coupling constant, and so the calculation method
> > >> that worked admirably for QED won’t work for QCD, but that does not really
> > >> address whether it is a good representation of reality but rather makes it
> > >> more challenging to produce predictions in some energy domains. That
> > >> doesn’t mean it’s rotten sausage at all.
> > >>
> > >> Likewise in QED there was back in the 60s a lot of agonizing over
> > >> renormalization to handle the infinities of bare charge and bare mass of
> > >> point leptons, and whether that was mathematically rigorous. Feynman’s
> > >> famous argument here is that mathematical rigor is something you can
> > >> establish after the fact, once it’s agreed by all that it works to high
> > >> precision. And it’s true that not ALL predictions of QED are good to 12
> > >> digits. Who cares? That was never the claim. The Lamb shift calculation is
> > >> good to six digits, but the fact is that competing models didn’t get it
> > >> right to two. So does pointing out that twelve-digit confirmation is
> > >> perhaps a limited statement or could even be interpreted as an
> > >> overstatement and indication that it’s rotten sausage? No, it just means
> > >> that gee-whiz popularizations should always be taken with a grain of salt
> > >> and used as a springboard for deeper readings at a more precise (and
> > >> technically demanding) level.
> > >>>
> > >>>>> Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
> > >>>>> experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
> > >>>>> another thoroughly confirmed theory.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
> > >>>>> does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
> > >>>> theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
> > >>>> physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
> > >>>> made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
> > >>>> difference?
> > >>>
> > >>> My point, put another way, is that the difference between String theory
> > >>> and SM, QED is a matter of degree: String Theory has not a single
> > >>> experimental prediction confirmed to-date (and more importantly possibly
> > >>> never will), while QCD/QED supposedly have "excellent" experimental
> > >>> confirmation, but when examined more closely, the experimental support is
> > >>> found to be a far cry from the standard narrative.
> > >> Again, that depends on what you consider “standard narrative”. If you
> > >> thought the standard narrative is that the Standard Model is bulletproof,
> > >> without any historical reservations, without any open questions, and with
> > >> unassailable precision that proves that it is THE answer, then that
> > >> narrative is indeed false — but so what?
> > >>
> > >> There is a fundamental difference between string theory and the Standard
> > >> Model. String theory lacks any firm predictions, aside from accessible low
> > >> energy supersymmetric partners that have not been seen. The Standard Model
> > >> has made scores of predictions ranging from 3-jet collider events at the
> > >> right rate and right angular distributions, to the W/Z mass ratio, which
> > >> have been validated to solid precision. Certainly better than any other
> > >> candidates.
> > >>>
> > >>> By contrast, the experimental evidence for SR/GR, in terms of predictions
> > >>> matching observations can be called excellent. My problem with SR/GR is
> > >>> different. I think these theories are physically ABSURD and there is very
> > >>> likely a physically meaningful (and very likely more complex) theory that
> > >>> can explain these results based on a RATIONAL aether.
> > >>>
> > >> Fine, propose a rational aether theory that competes. Otherwise, what’s to
> > >> be gained by complaining that it doesn’t “feel right” to you? Think back to
> > >> Dirac’s comment about renormalization not feeling right. Does it have to?
> > >> --
> > >> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > >
> > >
> > > There's an example about "1+2+3+.. =, - 1/12", you have to remember
> > > that it's only like "i^2 = -1, roots of unity and complex analysis", that
> > > the analysis "resulting that the expression results the value" is only
> > > some "small negative constant in the restitutive".
> > >
> > > Or, "re-normalization is de-re-normalization, for normalization".
> > >
> > > Whether "g-factor" or "path integral constant: 1.000..xxx", is for
> > > scattering and tunneling what usually would add back out the
> > > things in curves in straight lines.
> > >
> > > Then he ends with "Winter is coming". That's always forboding,
> > > though usually people with four seasons under that mean
> > > "it's not winter yet".
> > >
> > > I don't see what the problem is, "old physics" already has
> > > that people include QCD and QED in an at least combined theory.
> > >
> > Wow. Physics jabberwocky.
> >
> > --
> > Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> "Supersymmetry not dead, again."

I figured all this out from a usual education,
then, studying mathematics, keeping it all easy
and simple in mathematics, learning the course
of development what is the concept of continuity,
mathematically, what results these great properties
of the numbers, with, mathematics I need for physics,
in infinities, that solve and work up for all the mathematics,
the continuous and discrete, basically that then notions
like renormalizable gauge components, which I just made
up but only from putting the words together, that, ...,
there is an approach from mathematics to help _derive_
the path integral constant, for the usual successful path integral
approach, that for statistics and what are numbers, this way
then with the usual models of physical laws, their closures
in what are the limits and extremes, find all their classical
apparatus, and, sit fair from what I know are the utterest
foundations of continuum mechanics. (What I writ.)

Ross A. Finlayson <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:33:58 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
>> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 7:00:28 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:56:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
>>>>>>>> revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
>>>>>>>> another rotten sausage.
>>>>>>> There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, again you put words into my mouth. I'm NOT saying QFT is "obvious garbage".
>>>>> Well, “rotten sausage” seems like garbage to me.
>>>>>> All I'm saying is that the actual experimental evidence for QFT is a far
>>>>>> cry from the usual claims that SM/QCD/QFT is "a thoroughly confirmed
>>>>>> theory". Read Unzicker's book, "Bankrupting Physics" and you'll get a
>>>>>> whole new perspective regarding such claims.
>>>>> First off, as others have pointed out, it’s not black and white and no one
>>>>> knowledgeable claims it is, except maybe in gee-whiz popularizations. If
>>>>> someone like Unziger publishes a book that has as its buzz line “You’ve
>>>>> been told this whole time it’s White and it’s Not White at all!”, well,
>>>>> that’s not really a revelation. Of COURSE there are issues with QCD, not
>>>>> the least of which that perturbation calculations blow up pretty badly
>>>>> because of the size of the coupling constant, and so the calculation method
>>>>> that worked admirably for QED won’t work for QCD, but that does not really
>>>>> address whether it is a good representation of reality but rather makes it
>>>>> more challenging to produce predictions in some energy domains. That
>>>>> doesn’t mean it’s rotten sausage at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise in QED there was back in the 60s a lot of agonizing over
>>>>> renormalization to handle the infinities of bare charge and bare mass of
>>>>> point leptons, and whether that was mathematically rigorous. Feynman’s
>>>>> famous argument here is that mathematical rigor is something you can
>>>>> establish after the fact, once it’s agreed by all that it works to high
>>>>> precision. And it’s true that not ALL predictions of QED are good to 12
>>>>> digits. Who cares? That was never the claim. The Lamb shift calculation is
>>>>> good to six digits, but the fact is that competing models didn’t get it
>>>>> right to two. So does pointing out that twelve-digit confirmation is
>>>>> perhaps a limited statement or could even be interpreted as an
>>>>> overstatement and indication that it’s rotten sausage? No, it just means
>>>>> that gee-whiz popularizations should always be taken with a grain of salt
>>>>> and used as a springboard for deeper readings at a more precise (and
>>>>> technically demanding) level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
>>>>>>>> experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
>>>>>>>> another thoroughly confirmed theory.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
>>>>>>>> does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
>>>>>>> theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
>>>>>>> physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
>>>>>>> made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
>>>>>>> difference?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point, put another way, is that the difference between String theory
>>>>>> and SM, QED is a matter of degree: String Theory has not a single
>>>>>> experimental prediction confirmed to-date (and more importantly possibly
>>>>>> never will), while QCD/QED supposedly have "excellent" experimental
>>>>>> confirmation, but when examined more closely, the experimental support is
>>>>>> found to be a far cry from the standard narrative.
>>>>> Again, that depends on what you consider “standard narrative”. If you
>>>>> thought the standard narrative is that the Standard Model is bulletproof,
>>>>> without any historical reservations, without any open questions, and with
>>>>> unassailable precision that proves that it is THE answer, then that
>>>>> narrative is indeed false — but so what?
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a fundamental difference between string theory and the Standard
>>>>> Model. String theory lacks any firm predictions, aside from accessible low
>>>>> energy supersymmetric partners that have not been seen. The Standard Model
>>>>> has made scores of predictions ranging from 3-jet collider events at the
>>>>> right rate and right angular distributions, to the W/Z mass ratio, which
>>>>> have been validated to solid precision. Certainly better than any other
>>>>> candidates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By contrast, the experimental evidence for SR/GR, in terms of predictions
>>>>>> matching observations can be called excellent. My problem with SR/GR is
>>>>>> different. I think these theories are physically ABSURD and there is very
>>>>>> likely a physically meaningful (and very likely more complex) theory that
>>>>>> can explain these results based on a RATIONAL aether.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Fine, propose a rational aether theory that competes. Otherwise, what’s to
>>>>> be gained by complaining that it doesn’t “feel right” to you? Think back to
>>>>> Dirac’s comment about renormalization not feeling right. Does it have to?
>>>>> --
>>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There's an example about "1+2+3+.. =, - 1/12", you have to remember
>>>> that it's only like "i^2 = -1, roots of unity and complex analysis", that
>>>> the analysis "resulting that the expression results the value" is only
>>>> some "small negative constant in the restitutive".
>>>>
>>>> Or, "re-normalization is de-re-normalization, for normalization".
>>>>
>>>> Whether "g-factor" or "path integral constant: 1.000..xxx", is for
>>>> scattering and tunneling what usually would add back out the
>>>> things in curves in straight lines.
>>>>
>>>> Then he ends with "Winter is coming". That's always forboding,
>>>> though usually people with four seasons under that mean
>>>> "it's not winter yet".
>>>>
>>>> I don't see what the problem is, "old physics" already has
>>>> that people include QCD and QED in an at least combined theory.
>>>>
>>> Wow. Physics jabberwocky.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>> "Supersymmetry not dead, again."
>
> I figured all this out from a usual education,
> then, studying mathematics, keeping it all easy
> and simple in mathematics, learning the course
> of development what is the concept of continuity,
> mathematically, what results these great properties
> of the numbers, with, mathematics I need for physics,
> in infinities, that solve and work up for all the mathematics,
> the continuous and discrete, basically that then notions
> like renormalizable gauge components, which I just made
> up but only from putting the words together,

Ross A. Finlayson wrote:

>> "Supersymmetry not dead, again."
>
> I figured all this out from a usual education,
> then, studying mathematics, keeping it all easy and simple in
> mathematics,
> learning the course of development what is the concept of continuity,
> mathematically, what results these great properties of the numbers,
> with, mathematics I need for physics,

you dont undrestand my *Divergent_Matter* (of the Moving Objects model).

On Thursday, November 4, 2021 at 7:12:34 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 2, 2021 at 10:33:58 PM UTC-7, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> >> On Monday, November 1, 2021 at 7:00:28 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Ross A. Finlayson <ross.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:56:45 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Engr. Ravi <ravic...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Friday, March 12, 2021 at 11:40:33 PM UTC+5:30, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>> As is well known, things only got worse for physics since QED. The
> >>>>>>>> revered Standard Model/QCD/QFT, when examined more closely turns out be
> >>>>>>>> another rotten sausage.
> >>>>>>> There you go. QFT is obvious garbage, according to you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No, again you put words into my mouth. I'm NOT saying QFT is "obvious garbage".
> >>>>> Well, “rotten sausage” seems like garbage to me.
> >>>>>> All I'm saying is that the actual experimental evidence for QFT is a far
> >>>>>> cry from the usual claims that SM/QCD/QFT is "a thoroughly confirmed
> >>>>>> theory". Read Unzicker's book, "Bankrupting Physics" and you'll get a
> >>>>>> whole new perspective regarding such claims.
> >>>>> First off, as others have pointed out, it’s not black and white and no one
> >>>>> knowledgeable claims it is, except maybe in gee-whiz popularizations. If
> >>>>> someone like Unziger publishes a book that has as its buzz line “You’ve
> >>>>> been told this whole time it’s White and it’s Not White at all!”, well,
> >>>>> that’s not really a revelation. Of COURSE there are issues with QCD, not
> >>>>> the least of which that perturbation calculations blow up pretty badly
> >>>>> because of the size of the coupling constant, and so the calculation method
> >>>>> that worked admirably for QED won’t work for QCD, but that does not really
> >>>>> address whether it is a good representation of reality but rather makes it
> >>>>> more challenging to produce predictions in some energy domains. That
> >>>>> doesn’t mean it’s rotten sausage at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Likewise in QED there was back in the 60s a lot of agonizing over
> >>>>> renormalization to handle the infinities of bare charge and bare mass of
> >>>>> point leptons, and whether that was mathematically rigorous. Feynman’s
> >>>>> famous argument here is that mathematical rigor is something you can
> >>>>> establish after the fact, once it’s agreed by all that it works to high
> >>>>> precision. And it’s true that not ALL predictions of QED are good to 12
> >>>>> digits. Who cares? That was never the claim. The Lamb shift calculation is
> >>>>> good to six digits, but the fact is that competing models didn’t get it
> >>>>> right to two. So does pointing out that twelve-digit confirmation is
> >>>>> perhaps a limited statement or could even be interpreted as an
> >>>>> overstatement and indication that it’s rotten sausage? No, it just means
> >>>>> that gee-whiz popularizations should always be taken with a grain of salt
> >>>>> and used as a springboard for deeper readings at a more precise (and
> >>>>> technically demanding) level.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Alexander Unzicker does a great job of exposing how unreliable the
> >>>>>>>> experimental confirmation of SM/QCD/QFT is, despite claims that the SM is
> >>>>>>>> another thoroughly confirmed theory.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> String theory is of course the emperor parading naked, and Peter Woit
> >>>>>>>> does an excellent job playing the role of the child.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If you read Woit — actually read him — recall his complaint that string
> >>>>>>> theory makes no definitive testable predictions, and hence is not even a
> >>>>>>> physics theory. This is much different than the standard model, which has
> >>>>>>> made hundreds of definitive predictions validated in experiment. See the
> >>>>>>> difference?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My point, put another way, is that the difference between String theory
> >>>>>> and SM, QED is a matter of degree: String Theory has not a single
> >>>>>> experimental prediction confirmed to-date (and more importantly possibly
> >>>>>> never will), while QCD/QED supposedly have "excellent" experimental
> >>>>>> confirmation, but when examined more closely, the experimental support is
> >>>>>> found to be a far cry from the standard narrative.
> >>>>> Again, that depends on what you consider “standard narrative”. If you
> >>>>> thought the standard narrative is that the Standard Model is bulletproof,
> >>>>> without any historical reservations, without any open questions, and with
> >>>>> unassailable precision that proves that it is THE answer, then that
> >>>>> narrative is indeed false — but so what?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is a fundamental difference between string theory and the Standard
> >>>>> Model. String theory lacks any firm predictions, aside from accessible low
> >>>>> energy supersymmetric partners that have not been seen. The Standard Model
> >>>>> has made scores of predictions ranging from 3-jet collider events at the
> >>>>> right rate and right angular distributions, to the W/Z mass ratio, which
> >>>>> have been validated to solid precision. Certainly better than any other
> >>>>> candidates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> By contrast, the experimental evidence for SR/GR, in terms of predictions
> >>>>>> matching observations can be called excellent. My problem with SR/GR is
> >>>>>> different. I think these theories are physically ABSURD and there is very
> >>>>>> likely a physically meaningful (and very likely more complex) theory that
> >>>>>> can explain these results based on a RATIONAL aether.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Fine, propose a rational aether theory that competes. Otherwise, what’s to
> >>>>> be gained by complaining that it doesn’t “feel right” to you? Think back to
> >>>>> Dirac’s comment about renormalization not feeling right. Does it have to?
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> There's an example about "1+2+3+.. =, - 1/12", you have to remember
> >>>> that it's only like "i^2 = -1, roots of unity and complex analysis", that
> >>>> the analysis "resulting that the expression results the value" is only
> >>>> some "small negative constant in the restitutive".
> >>>>
> >>>> Or, "re-normalization is de-re-normalization, for normalization".
> >>>>
> >>>> Whether "g-factor" or "path integral constant: 1.000..xxx", is for
> >>>> scattering and tunneling what usually would add back out the
> >>>> things in curves in straight lines.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then he ends with "Winter is coming". That's always forboding,
> >>>> though usually people with four seasons under that mean
> >>>> "it's not winter yet".
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't see what the problem is, "old physics" already has
> >>>> that people include QCD and QED in an at least combined theory.
> >>>>
> >>> Wow. Physics jabberwocky.
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> >> "Supersymmetry not dead, again."
> >
> > I figured all this out from a usual education,
> > then, studying mathematics, keeping it all easy
> > and simple in mathematics, learning the course
> > of development what is the concept of continuity,
> > mathematically, what results these great properties
> > of the numbers, with, mathematics I need for physics,
> > in infinities, that solve and work up for all the mathematics,
> > the continuous and discrete, basically that then notions
> > like renormalizable gauge components, which I just made
> > up but only from putting the words together,
> Yup. (Stops reading)
> > that, ...,
> > there is an approach from mathematics to help _derive_
> > the path integral constant, for the usual successful path integral
> > approach, that for statistics and what are numbers, this way
> > then with the usual models of physical laws, their closures
> > in what are the limits and extremes, find all their classical
> > apparatus, and, sit fair from what I know are the utterest
> > foundations of continuum mechanics. (What I writ.)
> >
> > Here it's a residue as it were and "oo = -1/12" under a branch,
> > a usual notion of braking radiation as let out, i.e. that "this
> > line under that is 1 twelvth specifically that is as 3 and 2x2
> > why these components add up and the path integral constant is
> > 1.000...".
> >
> > One might imagine an inverse square setup for what results
> > why the equilibriation is for the "sum-of-histories" here
> > "course-of-passage", makes for some reasonable definitions
> > for QED what let out those of QCD and vice versa.
> >
> > I.e., that in the other branch it's as much "oo = 0/12".
> >
> > Here that that's to result the input components, both in
> > its pressure component and its relaxation or attenuation,
> > ..., underpressure, is as for that the magnetic for the
> > charge and state for QED and kinetics up in QCD,
> > under the magnetic for example E->C or as magnetic C->E,
> > is for a usual theorem including both QED and QCD and
> > the natural apparatus as of for example singular forms,
> > what makes for neat theorems in balance and exchange.
> >
> > For example all the ones there already are as so set.
> >
> > So, I've found it easier to understand physics as "theoretical".
> >
> > Where it's practical....
> >
> > ... which for theoretical physics it is.
> >
> >
> --
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables