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,

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