Hi Neil, So you're in business of marketing Wilczek's book. Hope it pays. Blague apart, I was a bit disappointed. I told you that I appreciated your original thoughts and disliked your tendency to quote degrading you to the level of common quoting parrots. However, this time you seem to quote something less asinine than usually. BTW are there any online excerpts of his book? I personally don't like his adherence to the supersymmetry-driven Planck-scale grand unification. I am rather obsessed with 10 dimensions of string theories as support of the unification, because recently the 10d concept allowed me to answer following questions: -Why are there 2 types of "matter". -Why one is dark and the other luminous. -Why is the ratio of dark-to-luminous 0.04/0.96. I submit my reasoning as the acid test to my astrophysicist daughter, who, as daughters would be, is sharply critical of her dad. If it stands it, I'll upload it to my site.
As you decently say, you are not a physicist, so you could slip a bit and I'll try to put you upright. E=mc2 was not a discovery, because you discover phenomena and you deduce theorems of theories from axioms. The only discovery of SR was the MM experiment. All the rest are three axioms and a lot of deduced theorems, like E=mc2. BTW, Einstein considered his 1905 derivation as quick and dirty and not rigorous. Within the scope of my research in Einstein-Infeld team I tried to improve it and cooked up a derivation, which Einstein found rigorous and used in his last lectures and letters. Can be seen in http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/D_OUTLINE_OF_EINSTEINS_RELATIVITY/DB_SPECIAL_RELATIVITY/dbe_emc2.html or indirectly: http://findgeorges.com/index.html DB SPECIAL RELATIVITY dbe E=MC^2 Georges. ==================== --- On Fri, 9/5/08, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [epistemology 9399] Re: johnreed take 25 - August 17, 2008 > To: "Epistemology" <[email protected]> > Date: Friday, September 5, 2008, 10:37 AM > Nature abhors a vacuum; physicists are none too keen on it > either. > However, conceptual attempts to fill it up, most famously > with ether > as a hypothetical medium, have regularly created more > problems than > they solved. This is because whatever occupies empty space > would have > to be somehow different from the tangible stuff the world > is made of. > Modern physics challenges the ancient dichotomy between > substance and > void. What is perceived as empty space turns out to be a > new kind of > ether, a patchwork of quantum fields teeming with > spontaneous > activity, and the fundamental building block of nature. > Subject to > random disturbances, this “grid” creates stable packets > of energy > which, by dint of Einstein’s most famous discovery, > expressed in the > equation E=mc2, account for the mass of ordinary matter. > Wilczek draws on recent developments in the special theory > of > relativity, quantum field theory and quantum chromodynamics > to probe > the origin of mass and the prospects for a unified theory > that would > account for all its seemingly disparate aspects. “The > Lightness of > Being” began as a series of public lectures given by the > author at > different institutions. Not the easiest read, this book > does cover > the ground about to be tested at CERN. I’ll see if I can > find a > sensible review I can codge into the basic claims about > more recent > work. I am not and never have been a physicist. This > collection of > papers did help me understand more than I have in the past. > > > > On 5 Sep, 09:35, archytas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I do, in some senses, believe we are waiting for > 'things to pop up'. > > Travel in the solar system may be fantastic in > engineering terms, yet > > also reveals how limted we still are against concepton > of vastness. > > Metaphors are subject to manifold interpretation as > Carlos points to. > > Even the most studied research leaves us with > approximation in our > > theories (Ludwig - horrible to read). CERN cranks > over in the next > > few days and will no doubt conclusively prove we need > a bigger home > > for the bouys and girls playing in it. > > > > On 4 Sep, 19:34, Georges Metanomski > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > --- On Thu, 9/4/08, einseele > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > From: einseele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Subject: [epistemology 9391] Re: johnreed > take 25 - August 17, 2008 > > > > To: "Epistemology" > <[email protected]> > > > > Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 6:50 PM > > > > > =============== > > > > > G: > > > > > I don't know about magic and > religion, but science > > > > does > > > > > not look into "objects", > ignoring this naive > > > > realism's > > > > > term, but observes events and > coordinates them in > > > > > abstract maps called models. > > > > > That deals also with yours below, so I > finish here. > > > > > > > Georges. > > > > > =============== > > > > > > You ignore about the term object. > > > > And science yes deals with objects. Because > after all that > > > > is just > > > > matter of the word use > > > > Computer Science is "object > oriented" And that... > > > > believe me, has > > > > nothing to do with any naive realism's > term. > > > > > ====================== > > > G: > > > Let me clarify my point, muddled by the multitude > of > > > homonyms of "object". First, there is > "object" of the > > > observation polarity "subject/object". > Science deals of > > > course with that, it's its main fabric. But > we did not > > > talk about that, but about "real objects - > things", like > > > tree or car. It's Technology that deals with > them and > > > also low level derived sciences like > bio-chemistry. > > > But science opened into the ocean of Newton's > allegory, > > > viz. fundamental physics and astro-physics > observes > > > exclusively events and coordinates them in > abstract models > > > in which the concept of "object-thing" > never appears. > > > > > As to "computer science" it's no > science at all, but > > > technology and it is not "object > oriented", but has > > > programming procedures called > "languages" crudely misnamed > > > as "object oriented" instead of > "class oriented". > > > C++ is C with classes. Java is a class structure. > > > Computer science is my professional competence > area. > > > I taught it at a Uni, I designed some greatest > systems > > > ever and conceived an Artificial Intelligence > system > > > which has been used in the Gemini project > (sending the man > > > to the moon). Believe me, I never noticed any > trees, cars > > > or frogs pop up amidst the computer science. > > > > > Georges. > > > ======================- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
