Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news.szaf.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Most of physics fields are dead. Proof: 2024 Nobel on AI
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2024 09:02:54 +0200
Lines: 109
Message-ID: <lmul8rF5spvU2@mid.individual.net>
References: <092811508d125e2f370c13560eae1630@www.novabbs.com>
 <c2e303fffa6c8e3ca79a94e63445266d@www.novabbs.com>
 <vY2cncW-0rHPyZT6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net xK+W3tg16dnzQrkbkx3YzwDrcC91Rmh6EqFvaU52ZWFMJjBuh+
Cancel-Lock: sha1:llxymPOn4Q0xuXa3/SGqyBA5rKM= sha256:HbupXYmMDQODJWBJrQaIvkaHI+s85tBqZ8mAhlhn1fE=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <vY2cncW-0rHPyZT6nZ2dnZfqnPudnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 5749

Am Freitag000011, 11.10.2024 um 18:37 schrieb Ross Finlayson:
> On 10/11/2024 02:37 AM, ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 3:25:32 +0000, rhertz wrote:
>>
>>> I've been sustaining for years that what is known as physics is DEAD, at
>>> least since the 70s.
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBIvSGLkwJY
>>>
>>> I want to share this video that Google presented to me (very new), with
>>> a rant of Sabine Hossenfelder about the current state of physics.
>>>
>>> I invite reading some of the 9,000+ comments, many of them made by
>>> physicists very critical of what physics means today and in the last 50
>>> years.
>>>
>>> Also, as a proof of the confusion (and corruption) in physics, the fact
>>> that the 2024 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to two pioneers in
>>> neural networks (the foundation of OpenAI, ChatGPT, etc.) BECAUSE it
>>> used tools of STATISTICAL PHYSICS, among many other branches, in their
>>> work.
>>
>> Only the cutting edge of fundamental particle physics appears to be
>> "dead" as you put it. The "easy" problems were all resolved by the
>> middle of the last century and in subsequent years have been amply
>> verified by experiment. This includes parts of physics that you
>> despise like SR, GR and QED. Verified, re-verified and re-verified.
>> No grand conspiracy, just good science, despite your incorrect gut
>> feelings.
>>
>> For the past four decades, theoreticians working in fundamental
>> particle physics have found themselves in a situation where experiment
>> is incapable of validating or definitively rejecting their theories
>> and speculations, and it is this unpleasant situation that
>> Hossenfelder describes.
>>
>> Fundamental particle physics, however, is only a small part of the
>> entire field termed "Physics". Huge areas are vibrant with astounding
>> progress. Simply browse through any issue of Physics World or Physics
>> Today. The 2024 Nobel Prize was awarded to researchers in a subfield
>> of physics that didn't even exist four decades ago, which today
>> embodies a close collaboration between theory and experimental science
>> and technology, precisely the sort of collaboration which leads to
>> amazing progress in the field.
> 
> The inflationary epoch and cosmological models have been
> pretty roundly paint-canned by JWST, though of course
> the WMAP finding infrared and 2MASS establishing blueshift
> for at least several decades already built "Hubble tension".
> 
> Heh, giving physics prizes for Hopfield or Kohonen or the
> various contributors into neural nets, and calling that
> "experimental" physics, has that they're experimenting
> on their sims I suppose - heh.
> 
> The prevalent "apparent dark matter" and "apparent dark energy"
> means usual theory today is, ..., "wrong".
> 
> The, "apparent super-luminal", is another sort of example,
> that thankfully the sky survey and its huge variety of
> apparent configurations and energies of experiment,
> makes it so that anybody invoking "apparent illusions"
> or "apparent missing things" is invoking "non-science",
> and furthermore SR is local and there are Aspect/Bell
> type experiments, Lense-Thirring appears real, and
> otherwise the coterie of coat-tailing paper-hangers
> getting a bigger mainframe is about as useful as
> giving a janitor a mechanical car-wash.
> 
> I.e., some have that as "not doing physics" any-more.
> 
> "Were you able to reproduce their results?"
> "Well yeah we downloaded the code they gave
> and it runs just fine."

Since big-bang theory must be wrong, there is actually no need for 
inflation periods.

The 'real deal' is usually upsetting for too many physicists, that most 
just 'duck aand cover', once they hear about it.

The main point is: 'to geometricise time'.

If we assume a certain spacetime-configuration as universally valid, 
where we have local time and in the adjecent space a (also local) 
'hypersheet of the present', than we would expect some kind of 
'light-cone configuartion' everywhere and on all scales.

(This is really difficult to understand, but fortunately my 'book' can help:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing 
)

Now imagine the so called 'big-bang' is actually a transition, where 
time passes through the hypersheet of the present from past to future on 
a very large scale.

But we can have smaller bangs, too, which are, what we usually call 
'white holes'. These are the time reverted versions of what we call 
'black hole'.

This is summed over all scales and builds actually kind of a fractal and 
that is how the universe apparently functions.


TH