Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!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 23:57:57 -0500
Organization: Modern Human
Message-ID: <vta7gm$11ega$2@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> <vta6es$11ega$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 04:57:58 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="1096202"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sxto8pmdVO3G2uz+gY5NdzVT0iU=
Content-Language: en-US, fa-IR
In-Reply-To: <vta6es$11ega$1@solani.org>
X-User-ID: eJwFwYEBwCAIA7CXVim4ngMo/59g4haI3gwP+vhAQyltTGNzL/fK81eLjqpcYGB/6avqJpkTp5s8AlQiHl+RFcE=
Bytes: 10255
Lines: 203

On 4/10/25 11:39 PM, Physfitfreak wrote:
> 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.
> 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========