> On 13 Jan 2019, at 00:28, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 12, 2019 at 4:17:56 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > On 1/12/2019 2:51 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 7:19:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 1/11/2019 1:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Friday, January 11, 2019 at 2:46:35 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1/11/2019 6:01 AM, John Clark wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 8:18 PM Brent Meeker <meek...@verizon.net <>> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > The fine structure constant is e^2/hbar*c. Those three values are >>>> > measured independent of any Feynman diagrams >>>> >>>> Absolutely correct. So if you use Feynman diagrams to predict what some >>>> physical system is going to do, such as a physical system of 2 electrons >>>> being hit by a photon of light with a wavelength small enough to contain >>>> enough energy to prevent the electrons >>>> repulsion, then you'd better get a number very close to the Fine Structure >>>> Constant. If you don't then Feynman Diagrams aren't any good. >>>> >>>> They didn't use 12,672 Feynman Diagrams because they wanted to know what >>>> the Fine Structure Constant was, they already knew what that number was to >>>> many decimal places from exparament, they used 12,672 Feynman Diagrams >>>> because they wanted to see if Feynman Diagrams worked. And it turned out >>>> they worked spectacularly well in that situation, and that gives >>>> scientists great confidence they can use Feynman Diagrams in other >>>> situations to calculate what other physical systems will do that involve >>>> the Electromagnetic Force. >>> >>> There's always an interplay between theory and experiment. It's completely >>> analogous to Maxwell's discovery that light is EM waves. There were already >>> experimental values of the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum and >>> there were values for the speed of light. Maxwell showed that his theory >>> of EM predicted waves and using the permittivity and permeability values >>> the speed of the waves matched that of light. Now the speed of light is a >>> defined constant and so are the permittivity and permeability of the >>> vacuum. So the connecting of the three values by a theory allows their >>> values to be defined. In the case of the anomalous magnetic moment of the >>> electron, hbar and c are already defined constants. So quantum field >>> theory (for which Feynman diagrams are just a calculational tool) linked >>> them and e to g. >>> >>> Brent >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> If Feynman Diagrams (tools) are sufficient (to match experimental data) >>> then Quantum Field Theory can be thrown in the wastebasket. >> >> ?? Feynman Diagrams are just a mathematical trick for summing up terms to >> approximate the propagator of QFT. >> >> Brent >> >> >> You just make Feynman Diagrams the fundamental elements of the theory, and >> propagators derived from them. > > How many diagrams? The propagator has a clear interpretation as connecting > the field at x with the field at y. Feynman showed that his diagrams > provided a good mnemonic for the infinite number of terms that would sum to > the propagator. If you take the diagrams as fundamental you then need to > specify how many. > >> >> Just like histories are made fundamental, and Hilbert Spaces are derived >> from them. > > Hilbert spaces are infinite dimensional vector spaces. So you have the same > problem: How many histories? > > Brent > >> >> https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589 >> <https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0589> >> >> Theories do not come from Mount Olympus. >> >> - pt > > > As many histories/diagrams as you need. There are supercomputers now. > > > But what do physicists really think is closer to actual reality? Something > closer to Histories/Diagrams or to a Hilbert Space. Do some really think that > in fact material reality is actually an infinite-dimensional Hilbert Space? > > That is so freaking bizarre, isn't it, when you think about it.
Reality is freaking bizarre, but we get used to it. When I learned that Earth was round, and the the movement of the sun was due to the spinning of the Earth, I found that freaking bizarre. Then, when a man walked on the moon, I was already unable to not find the idea very natural, almost obvious. With mechanism, the physical reality is not an Hilbert space, but it (should) looks like that (or close) when seen from the set-referentially (in the arithmetical sense) correct internal views of arithmetic or any universal system. Bruno > > - pt > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > <mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org > <mailto:email@example.com>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.