usenet weirdness

The idea of "asymptotic freedom" or as after Salam and Weinberg who had to apply the idea to their theory since the data didn't otherwise fit, so Gross and Wilczek got a prize, is a super-classical notion, since it defines otherwise induction and is furthermore anti-inductive.

So, add that to other contrived accounts keeping the ivory tower on its pedestal.

That's not all that precisely formulated. If the applied force moves the object to which the force was applied in the direction in which the force was applied, then work was done.

A planet in orbit is in motion, but the movement is at right-angles to the force applied by gravity, so that force isn't doing any work.

It hasn't got it yet. It took quite a while for us to realise that electric charge is quantised, because the quanta of charge are pretty small. We may need much more fine-grained instruments before we can see any sign of quantisation in gravitational effects

You don't have a very clear idea of what might constitute work.

You don't seem to have any idea how you might calculate an energy budget.

You may think so.

Why? Tidal forces are steadily moving the moon away from the earth, not towards it.

The nucleus of an atom doesn't accommodate tidal movement so there's no reason why an electron orbital would decay. Because the energies involved are all quantised the electrons can't lose small amounts of energy - they can only move into higher orbits (or get captured by the nucleus in an inverse beta decay).

You can't even define work accurately.

But you don't seem to have had an adequate acedemic education.

And you clearly don't.

Lee Smolin wrote

Actually the measurement of the quantity of an electron isn't exactly charge by itself so much as a charge/mass ratio.

Gravity according to the oldest law is always doing work, whenever it can.

I have a mathematics degree. I got a 1520/1600 on the SAT and 1500/1600 on the GRE and 170/180 on the LSAT, back when those were top scores, so, theoretically I'm at least _ready_ for higher education.

I even found somebody who's made a greater account of continuity and infinity in mathematics for Foundations. It's me, though, ....

Solving "the measure problem" involves matters of measure, and measure theory belongs to mathematics.

String theory or superstring theory is a great idea, "atoms as indivisible quanta is a great idea and corresponds with the elements of chemistry, make another quantum scale as far beneath that as chemistry's atoms are beneath us".

The ivory tower is a bit heavy at the top, what it needs is some particularly dense individuals at the Foundations keeping it from floating off.

Theoretically, all we should need is one good theory of all of it.

Anything else, you know, "isn't".

One particular aspect of research in foundations is a sort of reverence for books or papers, or after since the term was introduced by Montaigne "essays", as from essaier "to try", with regards to Yoda and "to do", is the collection of a researcher in foundations of a library, a collection of books that are to make for a bibliographic account of citation, so that the authority belongs to the words their durable form, vis-a-vis given individuals able to emit words freely.

Then, sometimes people are more easily finding it relatable and as a model of the relayable, i.e. communication with comprehension and the command of the conveyance of the conceit of the concepts of the communication, in the spoken word.

Then, for examples, besides my 10,000's posts to Usenet, each with its little message-id that makes the unique part of its URL and URN, among usual matters of bibliographic citation having usual matters of bibliographic identity, I record some

It might not seem much, yet I regularly see the counters roll backwards, so, there's perhaps a bit more to it than the casual researcher might otherwise notice.

About science and physics, there's that "Logos 2000: physics today", I pasted a bunch of back-and-forth from the AIs of the day into the comments, so, readily find material. Thusly also generally you can find from the descriptions mentions of the titles and there's a rather thorough account of analysis and an original analysis for the mathematics, mechanics and a rather thorough account for the mechanics, then quite a talk on the logic and the language, all quite usually carrying the canon, dogma, and doctrine, or, "the authorities".

Don Quixote of La Mancha of Miguel Cervantes since about the 1500's some centuries after "El Cid", or the knight of the sad countenance or knight of the lions, serialized and novelized in two great parts, besides being called the first novel in literature, often most familiar with its first few pages where Quixote girds up and relates to his companion Sancho Panza as to why the windmills are in allegory giants against which to test, has at least a few points of interest besides Panza's brief governorship and Quixote's experience in the cave.

For example, one theory includes that Sancho Panza is actually Quixote's own illegitimate son with the maid. This isn't outright declared, while though, about 3/4 through Quixote starts declaring Panza as his son, and at the end bequeaths his estate to the maid and the Panza's, after his niece.

There are several and many stories contained in the hundreds upon thousands of pages of Cervantes' great classic, a gentle and touching and thoughtful comedy about the idealism of chivalry and the chivalric, and the ideals of beauty and devotion.

The page or two on tilting windmills, and its various mentions later, are before even Quixote has a helmet. ... Which he fashioned from a barber's wash-bowl.

The second section beginning as it does with the lambasting of the plagiarists and charlatans to Quixote's account makes for that today all editions of it are much alike, while though many treatments as so inspired make for many variations, like Welles'.

A foolish hobgoblin's consistency is yet a little mind.

What became of Quixote's library? Cervantes makes an account of it.

And, largely, its _idealisms_.

On, Rocinante.

Chivalry's not dead, it's just curled up in the corner weakly kicking it with Conversation.

Super-symmetry's not dead, again, ....

Quantum Mechanics, if never wrong, is just a perspective on Continuum Mechanics.

The _energy_ always lives in the _entelechy_. The _point_ is always of the _space_.

The point, local, global, and total, make for usual reflection about particles and resonances: waves, models of change, in time, in an open system.

Physics: it's an open system. (The science.)

Technicolour is the idea that it's quarks all the way down.

The asymptotic freedom of the strong nuclear making for reasoning that fall-gravity is the perfect explanation of gravity, speaks quite directly to the complementary concepts of "flow", and, "flux", when they're different at all.

There's a definition of entropy: Aristotle's and Leibnitz'. They're opposites.

The dynamis and dunamis, power and potential, are similar, originally being one word, yet readily enough distinguished by theoretical physicists since antiquity, in fragments.

Geometry as axiomless geometry of points and spaces a dialectic after axiomless natural deduction about voids and universals, makes for matters of perspective and projection, for an account after constancy and change of geometry and motion, being along the Testaments Old and New, the Vedas, Zeno's classical expositions of the super-classical, and other sorts widely published and maintained works of whatever sort of an authoritative philosophical position. Hegel's Wissenschaft der Logik, "The Science of Logic", or "insightful beams", makes for that Hegel, like Duns Scotus, was a fair and full sort of Aristotlean, moreso than usual sorts of partial, half accounts.

A full account, ....

Sort of like "gravitic", vis-a-vis, "gravific", force, neither one quite whole without the other, while though yet the "gravitic" is more easily found and it's called the classical, about the "point" and "local", while the "gravific" is of the wider sort of potentialistic account, the "global" and "total", then that there's the idea that the potential fields _are_ the real fields, and that the classical is an individual's perspective, while the fuller potentialistic view makes for the theory's, perspective, as it were.

For from being "unknown", these sorts of accounts are the best-known, to historians of physics and science, the theoretical physicists, the reasoning behind why the usual standard linear curriculum's narrative is given, quite thoroughly and over time.

Einstein has his "spatial" and "spacial" as different terms, with different definitions, for GR and SR, another usual sort of example, easy to miss and of the carefully didactic to keep straight, and, not exactly explicit besides the merest difference.

So, it is as _we_ say, and, we care a lot.

These days the online conversational report generators are quite adept at consuming material like this.

Cats? Oats. (Describing a difference for example the "categorical" and "objective", in "agents and actors in the ecosystem and economy of a large language model, and for the entire.)

oon-is-changing-the-length-of-our-days-and-our-tides/

Millikan doesn't agree with you.

So you learned the lessons, did some excercises, perhaps, and in the end you didn't understand a thing,

Jan

Millikan was a studious and able technician who ran with what he had.

He's not Thomson or Rutherford, ....

"In 1897, [ Thomson ] showed that cathode rays were composed of previously unknown negatively charged particles (now called electrons), which he calculated must have bodies much smaller than atoms and a very large charge-to-mass ratio."

"William Rutherford (1798–1871) was an English mathematician famous for his calculation of 208 digits of the mathematical constant π in 1841. Only the first 152 calculated digits were later found to be correct; but that broke the record of the time, ...."

"[Ernest Rutherford] has been described as "the father of nuclear physics" and "the greatest experimentalist since Michael Faraday.""

I think Thomson bears more than a passing resemblance to Planck.

Sort of like Einstein and Carl Neumann.

Feynman was famous for his calculation, ..., about whether his records ever broke.

Electrical current is not "a fine mist of charged oil droplets in the fields of gravity and electromagnetism".

These days besides the usual model with a fixed and finite charge to mass ratio, and what makes "Higgs" theory, there are quite altogether various accounts of where the ratio is infinite, and another where it vacillates. "Little Higgs" and "higgsinos" is not Higgs theory, and neither is "charginos".

"Super-symmetry: not dead, again."

Everybody who sat physics/chemistry class through Millikan and for what's given as electron orbital theory and later about Lienard-Wiechert and the account of the sum of, "potentials", the usual account, has often it was never introduced these other ideas and their theoretical and experimental backing, for example that there are other derivations than Lienard-Wiechert, with a usual account of "test particles" and "electron holes".

O.W. Richardson has a great account of at least three ways to look at the particle conceit besides laying out the entire standard narrative in "The Electron Theory of Matter". O.W. Richardson: just another "Nobel prize winner". Also he gives three different constants 'c'.

He even has more than one where Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born don't even get included.

Of course, Faraday is really pretty great, and "Faraday Rotation" is up again almost as much as "supplementary variables".

Copenhagen: grasping at straws.

I don't have much for "understanding" and "compromise" when there are "knowledge/wisdom" and "science/decision".

Practice draws one's attention to the fact that devising good theories is difficult, and isn't worth the effort until you have lots of observations to make sense of

Einstein wasted a lot of his life on a premature attempt to find a unified field theory. He had had enough early successes to make him a little too optimistic.

Sadly, publishing the same nonsense repeatedly makes you a noise source, rather than a source of information.

Good scientific papers do cite earlier work, but they get to be seen as good when they reinterpret that information in a way that lets the reader integrate it with other, not obviously related work.

It's quality, not quantity, that matters. The peer-peer review system blocks a lot of nonsense from publication, but it's less effective against the tedious me-too replication of other peoples work in minimally different areas.

Mensa exists to demonstrate that you can do well on IQ tests. but still be so dull that only way you can pass as intelligent is by joining Mensa.

The prize example is the UK engineer and inventor, Clive Sinclair who was chairman of Mensa UK for many years. When I worked in Cambridge I got to hear many stories of how Clive managed to subvert his considerable intelligence by doing really stupid things.

The one example that sticks in my mind was his insistence on always using the cheapest parts available, which frequently included transistors "rescued" from the reject bins at the Texas Instrument semiconductor factory just up the road from Cambridge in Bedford.

What he saved on the cost of parts he lost on product yield. One transistor that didn't work would put the whole device that incorporated it into his own reject bin.

He got the 1923 Nobel Prize in Physics for the work.

True, but not far behind.

But it can be carried by charged oil droplets, and the oil droplets were small enough that the difference between one electron and two electrons of charge was perceptible and measurable. That's what experimental physicists exist to exploit.

But not in the least useful.

I was certainly taught about Millikan in my elementary physics courses. Lienard-Wiechert didn't feature.

Richardson looked at the thermal emission of electrons from heated cathodes. Schottky added in the effect of negative bias in increasing the emission.

Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born wouldn't have missed that.

The Copenhagen interpretation may be intellectually lazy, but it evaded a lot of pointless rationalisation.

Why would you? All four skills seem to be out of your reach.

I'll leave it to an electrical engineer to explain the significance of Lienard-Wiechert, "test particles", and "electron holes", to you.

(With regards to what "electrical current" is and the usual derivation of the formalism, and about statistical mechanics into entropy and information. I.e., it's an integral. These, or those, days, current was electron-holes not electrons themselves, and electrons a usual spatter or beam live more in cloud chambers than conductors.)

One interesting thing about current across an area is that if the vector field is a magic square instead of unit vector field, it still looks uniform any way you slice it.

Without getting all into it, ....

This helps explain how things can result about the non-adiabatic w.r.t. the usual adiabatic.

Lots of fields use very similar formalisms, while also there are very many derivations for applications and studies.

Inverse square comes to mind, about the quadratic, the triangle inequality of course, the Laplacian, thus the Lorentzian, second-order partials. Then Gauss-Bonnet or Gauss-Ostrogradsky can see adding a model of magic squares and making for that Ampere's law and Faraday's law don't kill each other.

For examples, ....

Neither of which much care about Ohm or Kirchhoff law, both those about passive and active RLC circuits being derivable from one or the other of Ampere and Faraday, given either of E x B or D x H.

Super-symmetry for the convolutive setting shows right up in for example antenna function.

Since I am an electronic engineer, I do happen to know that you don't have to know about Lienard-Wiechert to work on stuff like electron microscopes - as I did for nine years - though electron microscopes do rely on a steady stream of electrons as test particles.

The average speed on an electron in a conductor is walking pace. This doesn't stop electromagnetic waves from propagating at about 70% of the speed of light across printed circuit boards, and if you want to get a half-nanosecond wide pulse of electrons out of a stroboscopic electron microscope you can end up exploiting this.

U.K. patent 2139411 "Moving Plate" (also US patent 4614872) on an improved blanking system for charged particle beams, easily adjusted to match a wide range of particle velocities; assigned to Cambridge Instruments in 1983.

That's not nonsense, that's the mathematics of the mathematical physics of the electricity (and some of the magnetism), "the theory".

Pretty much all that, and that's all is necessary for the usual formalisms.

Of course there's Coulomb's law, ....

Then also I added some more, about the magic squares.

Don't shoot the messenger.

How about the measurement of the electron being charge/mass ratio?

How about the charge/mass ratio its character being variable under considerations?

You kind of left the point without being agreeable, so, ..., I figure then you updated your mind about it.

Or, you know, didn't.

I suppose I'd be interested if your moving plate was piezoelectric, or as with regards to the solid-state. If so you might be interested in something like G.A. Maugin's "Nonlinear Electromechanical Effects and their Applications".

What???

I observe things and make up my mind about how they function.

But I don't need approval of the observed thigs for my assumptions.

Instead I adjust my assumption, until they fit to the observed things.

I didn't talk about my mental capacity, but about an assumed mechanism, which natur might eventually use on a very low level.

'low level' requires actually 'pointlike elements' (of spacetime).

Supposed spacetime would exist, than it should be composed from something equivalent to point, though with higher dimensions.

I had assumed, that the best know construct would be so called 'complex four vectors' (aka 'bi-quaternions').

This is about it (my set of axioms).

Now I take these 'elements' and connect them 'sideways', similar to how quaternions are mutliplied.

Then I had started to replicate known phenomena like fields and particles with a very small set of assumptions.

And it worked quite well.

(In case you are interested, please have a look at my 'book':

Sure, but I'm not a physicist and I wasn't interested in what physicists regard as 'simple explanation'.

I had a goal and that was finding a connection between QM and GR.

I started at the GR side and went from there roughly into the direction of QM, until I had found something fitting to the description of my target.

The concept is actually simple, but a little unusual: make matter 'relative' and base everything on spacetime of GR.

Well, we'll see.

TH