Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math
Subject: Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 23:39:55 -0500
Organization: Modern Human
Message-ID: <vta6es$11ega$1@solani.org>
References: <67EF682D.135A@ix.netcom.com> <67F01AE8.5A1A@ix.netcom.com>
 <ItidnXXXTbPXrm36nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <IiqdnXqB2r2KqG36nZ2dnZfqn_QAAAAA@giganews.com> <vt9m79$53ot$1@dont-email.me>
 <ISudnbcBF58mFWX6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 04:39:57 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="1096202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8sgDSf2sDt2HOCLs8yugWVOXqyY=
X-User-ID: eJwNzAEBwCAIBMBKIDxoHNCnf4TtAhwsNG56IByDObZFaVyogMlosmL5TmY9ZJcdxIht8FEKDbLPsOv6/NEHQSIV/g==
In-Reply-To: <ISudnbcBF58mFWX6nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Content-Language: en-US, fa-IR
Bytes: 9751
Lines: 203

On 4/10/25 10:12 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 04/10/2025 05:02 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
>> On 4/4/25 2:37 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>> On 04/04/2025 12:29 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's sort of like Born's "Restless Universe",
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hehe :) That book is not that unfamiliar to me. What a coincidence.
>>
>>
>> And now that I think about it, I can kind of make informed guesses as
>> what caused him to write it.
>>
>> Born deserved a Nobel earlier but they hadn't given him one by 1935
>> while one of his students (Heisenberg) had got it. Who knows, Born may
>> have even been the one who gave the right idea to Heisenberg, letting
>> him do the job.
>>
>> He had done, way earlier, the same thing with Einstein's GR too. Born is
>> the one who was supposed to develop GR and he had started it too, but
>> soon found out Einstein is working on it also, so in a favor to Einstein
>> he stopped his own work on GR.
>>
>> He later said he could finish it much earlier than Einstein did, if he
>> had not stopped the work.
>>
>> I think the same thing may've happened with Heisenberg.
>>
>> Anyway, without a doubt, Born was a top physicist of his time, at the
>> least at the level of Einstein and Heisenberg. This is my point. Yet, he
>> hadn't gotten a Nobel.
>>
>> So he decided to make money in some other way, I guess. But how?
>>
>> Jews had already successfully shoved communism up cro-magnons' asses to
>> fuck those bastards up for treating them bad for centuries, and this had
>> destroyed the appeal that cro-magnons' "religion" had for them. And the
>> 1800's cro-magnons who had sold crap to people in the name of new
>> religions were also fast dying off in the 1930s. No market value. So a
>> kind of niche must've formed in those years to use cro-magnons
>> imagination and desire for strange baloney and make money by that. Some
>> chose writing science fiction stories and were successful.
>>
>> But what would Jewish scientists do to make money off of the
>> cro-magnons? The lousy ones resorted to write psychology books packed
>> with bogus theories about sexuality and fucking, just so to sell well,
>> and made good money too. But top scientists would not do that sort of
>> things. That kind of fraudulent work was beneath their dignity.
>>
>> So what would a man like Born do now that he was being denied the Nobel
>> Prize money? I think he chose to write this book, The Restless Universe.
>> I get a hint at least by the title of it. It is for selling something to
>> the maximum number of ordinary people hungry for stuff that are to some
>> degree strange to them and are true as well :)
>>
>> I happened to read this book way back in early 1970s cause someone had
>> translated it to Persian and one copy of that was for reasons unknown to
>> me in our house, I think purchased by one of my elder brothers falling
>> for its title. The book was being spotted by me here and there in the
>> house for at least a decade, along all sorts of other books and
>> magazines that I had nothing to do with them.
>>
>> In the 1960s, we high schoolers would see much more of George Gamow's
>> popular physics books which almost all of them had been translated to
>> Persian in late 1950s. But somehow, somebody in the same period of years
>> had chosen this book also to translate. I don't know why. I cannot
>> imagine Born was a known figure in Tehran as a top physicist. I
>> personally heard of his work only in early 1970s when studying physics
>> at Tehran University. And only then, it had clicked in me that this same
>> man was also the author of this "  جهان ناآرام  " book that here and
>> there I'd seen in the house for years.
>>
>> So after starting physics in university, and soon after my physics
>> background got strengthened a bit, I naturally began reading it at last.
>> I don't remember much, but the impression that the book had made on me
>> was that it was like a long story but in physics concepts, spoken to the
>> reader in a friendly manner, which was a great relief compared to how
>> physics was covered in the university - our physics texts in the
>> university were mostly translations of French physics books which were
>> all quite rigorous and formal and presented in somewhat sadistic ways
>> for students who were being exposed to them for the first time. The
>> French usually first treat everything rigorously, and only then may do
>> the explanations. It is not so in the United States, and thanks god for
>> that!
>>
>> That's the only expression of the Born's book that I still remember.
>> Gamow books were a bit too informal and for a wider audience. We had
>> begun reading them in high school.
>>
>> Anyway, when you referred to it, it took me a quite a few seconds to
>> realize and remember all that about it and make sure the book was the
>> same thing we had back then in the house :-) Still don't know who bought
>> it. Both my brothers are still alive, I can ask them that; they may
>> remember.
>>
>> Hehe :) I read that before even you were in existence :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> Same words / different lens
> 
> 
> A lot of it is about his consideration and for Born what was
> a sort of dread of the continuous, as that being too rigid
> to make for chance, that then his shaky sort of lens made
> all the chance, or opportunity and possibility, that mostly
> he was about being able to make branches, instead of addressing
> the issue of why the origin's everywhere/anywhere/everywhere,
> that chance and uncertainty are constantly being created and
> destroyed, and otherwise his straight-and-narrow sort of
> linear narrative yet couched in the language of quantum
> mechanics, has he was missing out on a continuum mechanics,
> and things like the Zollfrei, and Poincare plane, as
> with regards to what later and further is about the continuous
> manifold, yet pretty about that mathematics _owes_ physics
> more and better mathematics about continuity and infinity.
> 
> 
> Then, Born rule and then the Copenhagen conference and that,
> arriving at a probabilistic explanation instead of things
> like Bohm and de Broglie and super-classical models of real
> wave mechanics, with probabilistic observables, has that
> pretty much for Bohm and de Broglie is the real wave collapse
> to fill the particle conceit, then that functional freedom
> is sort of like for a model of Dirac/Einstein's positron/white-hole
> sea, i.e. like Zollfrei metri, i.e. like Poincare's rough plane,
> i.e. like super-string theory.
> 
> I.e., continuum mechanics. (Super-classical, super-standard.)
> 
> 
> Born ends "The Restless Universe" with something like "under
> our observables, the universe quivers", yet, on the one hand
> it's full of potential, on the other, not a theory of potentials.
> 
> So, a potentialistic theory with things like Bohmian mechanics
> is considered a wider world though that Born rule is what it is.
> 
> 



Yes, different lens, and of course I couldn't detect any personal touch 
Born had made in that book. I may not do that even if I read it now 
cause the lens is the same lens.

I just looked the book up (the English version) and remembered that it 
was full of images and interesting drawings, etc, probably what made it 
to our house in the first place. With that title, and such strange, 
amusing images inside, my artist brother _would_ fall for it. You know, 
kind of like Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach way of making the book 
sell to a large audience.

It was sweet to read.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========