Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-4.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 03:39:06 +0000 Subject: Re: Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math References: <67EF682D.135A@ix.netcom.com> <67F01AE8.5A1A@ix.netcom.com> From: Ross Finlayson Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2025 20:39:02 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: Lines: 176 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-neDvhXpDbpFJnn+Ly541TGzJRBRsfEIR2W2ylwlHvsCMjAS67RlNwpjmIOS+sc47vPQmy6oqLJ6xaCF!CjXAG+BSdMCUQvL8L7yanwqhVXeFh+w/cc/sJI6Oaz95XOwYJq3vlBYUHWMW9dD2fQ4qtlZeLx4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 9063 On 04/10/2025 08:12 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. > > Consider, for example, Schaefer's "A response to Carl Helrich". https://www.zygonjournal.org/article/id/13448/#! https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHART-8 "As to the power of authority, when Helrich can quote Max Born for the metaphysical stance that “the wavefunction itself has no physical mean- ing” (p. 554), Werner Heisenberg ([1958] 1962) can be quoted for the opposite metaphysical stance." ========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========