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

"..., to _derive_ the path integral constant."

It's a regular physics.