Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.physics    |    Physical laws, properties, etc.    |    178,769 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 177,497 of 178,769    |
|    Physfitfreak to Physfitfreak    |
|    Re: Why does the universe go to all the     |
|    10 Apr 25 23:57:57    |
      XPost: sci.physics.relativity, sci.math       From: physfitfreak@gmail.com              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              [continued in next message]              --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca