On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 7:16:33 AM UTC-8, pva...@yahoo.com wrote:
> "The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true." http://hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
>
> Still Einsteinians have been reconciling Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time for a very long time, in a search for a theory of everything (in Big Brother's world theoreticians reconcile 2+2=4 and 2+2=5):
>
> Natalie Wolchover: "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
>
> Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
>
> After wasting a colossal amount of mental energy and money (Einstein cult has been immeasurably more wasteful than any other cult), Einsteinians now find it profitable to announce "The End of Everything":
>
> "Is philosophy and science's obstinate search for a theory of everything a fundamentally biased expression of a particular culture? @michaelshermer, @bgreene, Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh and @EricRWeinstein will explore 'The End of Everything' - January 10th." https://twitter.com/IAI_TV/status/1476912277060296731
>
> https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1475778043717292032/E6q9RtCD?format=jpg&name=900x900
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

It's like a huge echoing canyon in here.

"https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Hensel/"

"The odd thing about the present moment
is that arguing that our well-established successful theories
can provide a solid basis for further unification
makes one a contrarian, with the “establishment” position
that a revolution sweeping such theories aside is needed." -- Woit

On Saturday, January 1, 2022 at 2:10:37 PM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Friday, December 31, 2021 at 7:16:33 AM UTC-8, pva...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > "The concepts of time (spacetime) in quantum theory and GR are thus drastically different and cannot both be fundamentally true." http://hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2013/509316/
> >
> > Still Einsteinians have been reconciling Newton's absolute time and Einstein's relative time for a very long time, in a search for a theory of everything (in Big Brother's world theoreticians reconcile 2+2=4 and 2+2=5):
> >
> > Natalie Wolchover: "The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional "space-time" fabric." https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201-quantum-gravitys-time-problem/
> >
> > Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?" https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
> >
> > After wasting a colossal amount of mental energy and money (Einstein cult has been immeasurably more wasteful than any other cult), Einsteinians now find it profitable to announce "The End of Everything":
> >
> > "Is philosophy and science's obstinate search for a theory of everything a fundamentally biased expression of a particular culture? @michaelshermer, @bgreene, Sabine Hossenfelder @skdh and @EricRWeinstein will explore 'The End of Everything' - January 10th." https://twitter.com/IAI_TV/status/1476912277060296731
> >
> > https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1475778043717292032/E6q9RtCD?format=jpg&name=900x900
> >
> > See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> It's like a huge echoing canyon in here.
>
> "https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Hensel/"
>
> "The odd thing about the present moment
> is that arguing that our well-established successful theories
> can provide a solid basis for further unification
> makes one a contrarian, with the “establishment” position
> that a revolution sweeping such theories aside is needed." -- Woit

It's like a huge echoing canyon in here.

"https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Hensel/"

The odd thing about the present moment is that
arguing that our well-established successful theories
can provide a solid basis for further unification
makes one a contrarian, with the “establishment” position
that a revolution sweeping such theories aside is needed. -- Woit

Basically putting together a theory of gravity and with QM and Relativity,
for QM it's the statistical ensemble with parastatistics, for relativity is
that there's the charge and current framed in SR statics and kinetics in GR
statics, which are point-wise local and SR is local and GR is global, with
gravity being a supergravity that is a fall gravity, a quantum gravity,
then there for that models supersymmetry, then it is also the usual
string theory for what are fields and occupation numbers what is a
field theory and gauge field theory, that's all one theory, which is quite
mostly altogether for "SR and GR units", where the static optoelectric
charge, also has for under its units, what are made into a table, that
illustrates where the units are for the angular besides the linear,
makes for replacing edge conditions with boundary conditions.

I.e. some "foundations of physics" is usually enough a theory:
just altogether strong enough that all science agrees to hold it up.

If you ask me it has to be a mathematical foundations also.

Then it's an SU^N gauge theory of a sort which as infinite-dimensional
is novel, over SU^3 and special unitarity, down to a space-time hologram.

Which in a mathematical foundations is a plain resource.

Continuum mechanics of course are more than less the most successful
way to understood what may be real-valued mathematical objects.

Then phase transitions are as usually under what results from the
compressible and incompressible and the superfluid and not superfluid.

I feel lucky because what baggage I have all fits in this theory.

Though, addressing how modern theories can be all constant, consistent,
complete, concrete, involves formal methods and usual fundamental
results both in the combinatoric, and what are the fundamentally geometric
or so organized as reverse-combinatoric, results, how that having that
organized mostly then in kinematics in flow, makes one true modern theory
encompassing physics with a mathematics and logic as addenda.