Aristotelian Resurgence

  1. My wikipedia user space main page had about 10 ya some stuff on my then thoughts on Physics. Since then the LHC results, mainly the Higgs are in and I'm enjoying looking more deeply into the math of modern physics, which is what it mostly is at this point. This page summarizes my current thinking. I tried to take honors physics at IIT, the course used Feynman and it was a mistake, I wasn't then prepared and had to fall back to the regular course which used Halliday and Resnick and still I struggled, but now I can pursue the subject for pure pleasure which always works better.
  2. GR seems to me vacuous, just a more accurate classical theory of gravity than Newton's, with the additional drawback of being the occasion of what seem to me to be all kinds of absurd things, mainly the reification of a pure concept as a physical entity, spacetime. To the extent that GR is saying that gravitation is not a force, I reject it in toto. Provisionally accepting Quantum Loop Gravity if it is basically a restatement of my long held no concrete infinities (or infinitesmals) position rather than a reification of space and local event seriality but see #4.
  3. A similar judgment holds for the Standard Model, which does at least have the fact that it's not a classical theory and is not vacuous going for it. The fact that it can predict does not however persuade, it's like Searle's Chinese Room as far as I can tell, with next to nothing to actually say about nature, just as GR has little to really say that can stand up about gravitation. I don't really accept the reality of quarks or other unobserved particles or fields.
  4. Supersymmetry and Superstring theory are more impressive, at least in principle, but they are only intended aspects of a theory and unlike the SM not actual theories.
  5. I still accept/require multiple universes, and find Guth's notion of pocket universes cogent, although I do not buy his sizing of this one based on implications of inflation (that it is at least 10**23 larger than the observable universe) because it is based on repulsive gravity an element of GR which with reified spacetime I reject. At least a containing universe is necessary to avoid the absurdity of the creation not only of spacetime but of something from nothing. Like the late Martin Gardiner and others, I find the general notion of multiple universes incident upon quantum indeterminacy risible.
  6. I still think in terms of a single form of energy, but more clearly identify it with ordinary gravitation, and one pointing forward in time, the so-called dark energy or antigravity. I now more clearly identify the ultimate thing and distinguish it from the relatively weak thing pointing back in time but for now at least I'll still call it (all) 'gravitation'. As ever, I see it acting to restore the unity of some original single object in it's well known form (i.e. as a weak (positively charged) force that causes condensed energy to universally attract) . I don't see a graviton ever being demonstrated and am not yet convinced that waves have been although I give good faith expectation to ultimately accept the long baseline interferometer results as having done so. A similar judgment holds with respect to the Higgs field but with less faith.
  7. To be clear, the single force is seen as four or five in contemporary physics where it (the nominal one) is many orders of magnitude weaker than the epiphenomenal others developed in the 19th and 20th centuries. A unification of "dark energy/antigravity", the strong nuclear force and ordinary gravitation is suggested, given the right space model, giving a penultimate reduction to two, electroweak, and greater gravitation.
4 August 4716 公元 / 2648 BE / 2018 XE / 1439 AH