Is there a support group for spouses of physicists?

[arivero]

Originally posted by marcus

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/980202
"Incerto tempore, incertisque loci":
Published in "Foundations of Physics" 28 (1998) 1031-1043

Actually, the main clue is the title itself. Sorry the pedantic mode, but as you can know, I like very much to overuse some classics.
With this quote, Rovelli refers to a late anarchist author, Titus Lucretius

corpora, quom deorsum rectum per inane feruntur
ponderibus propriis, incerto tempore ferme
incertisque locis spatio depellere paulum
tantum quod momem mutatum dicere possis

Er... did I say an-archist? Well it is true that Lucretius's book was used last December in a bomb sent from Bologna to Brussels EuroJustice department, and it is also true that the current translation to Spanish is due to an anarchist-biased philologist. But I probably mean to say a-tomist. Really, it is the only whole surviving text on ancient atomic theory, although it does not work out the mathematical issues.

Also Lee Smoolin chooses this word to title his divulgation article in Scientific American this January: Atoms of Geometry

Ancient atomic theory has two variants. A static one, devised to calculate volume of any figure, and a dynamical one, aimed to absorb the arguments of Zeno without requiring the limit procedure Newton uses. To this end, the world is considered to be a foam or lattice of vacuum separated by atoms, or a set of atoms separated by vacuum, and then a lost rule to refine the lattice. The only information contained in atoms is rhythm (?), contact and direction, so -I guess- they can not be divided because they do not carry, by themselves, spatial information. Duality is important to Democritus, and he uses a wordplay to remark it, calling sometimes "muth-on" and "on", say no-zing and zing, to vacuum and atoms respectively. Note that we have respected the nomenclature "-on" to name elementary particles.

LQG postulates a intriguing quantum of area, because it is not a solid chunk of space, but simply the fact that if you measure an area, the result will always be above this value. Just as in special relativity any measurement of speed is always below c.

Speaking of that, old atomic theory also tells that there is a maximum speed, anhyperbleton and that atoms should move freely at this speed but that a hidden cause, perhaps a sort of imperceptible interaction with vacuum or with other atoms, will ultimatelly cause the bouncing and scattering that let us to define matter. This imperceptible deviation, or clinamen, is the one alluded in the verses used by Rovelli

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by Tsunami
...Let me ask you this, though. If science finally decides that 'this' (ST or M-Theory or LQG) is 'the one' - what's that going to tell us? How the universe began? What banged? Did God do it or is it just random-chance chaos at work? The recipe for primordial soup? WHAT?

I am still mulling over what it was Alejandro meant when he
pointed you to the table on page 60 of
"How far are we from the theory of quantum gravity?"

I believe it was because Smolin has thought deeply about
just what it is that a quantum theory of gravity (if we finally
settle on one) should tell us.

What questions should a satisfactory theory of gravity answer?

Smolin thinks carefully about this and lays out the questions.

that is what allows him to compare progress at answering them and to judge "How far" we still are.
-------------

Smolin also has a short 4-page section right at the beginning
"Physical questions the theories should answer"
this is pages 10-14
it says what questions a satisfactory quantum theory of gravity]
should answer

so hey! that answers your question, Tsunami!
Alejandro's link was very much to the point, which i did not see
immediately (par for the course, I often have to look twice at things)
------------------

 

[arivero]

Originally posted by marcus
I am still mulling over what it was Alejandro meant when he
pointed you to the table on page 60 of
"How far are we from the theory of quantum gravity?"

Well, I can be dark, but I am not Heraclitus! The table shows an evaluation of the questions that Loop Quantum Gravity actually aims to answer, and Tsunami was just asking what's that [theory] going to tell us?

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by arivero


Also Lee Smoolin chooses this word to title his divulgation article in Scientific American this January: Atoms of Geometry

...
LQG postulates a intriguing quantum of area, because it is not a solid chunk of space, but simply the fact that if you measure an area, the result will always be above this value. Just as in special relativity any measurement of speed is always below c.

Speaking of that, old atomic theory also tells that there is a maximum speed, anhyperbleton and that atoms should move freely at this speed but that a hidden cause, perhaps a sort of imperceptible interaction with vacuum or with other atoms, will ultimatelly cause the bouncing and scattering that let us to define matter. This imperceptible deviation, or clinamen, is the one alluded in the verses used by Rovelli

the mediterranean world is at the root of science and we will not be surprised if Lucretius said some things that again Rovelli says

but Smolin's article was "Atoms of Space and Time" I think and
not geometry---although spacetime and geometry is maybe the same thing.

thanks for the latin text. it is amazing that there was an ancient idea of a speed limit
because the modern speed limit idea only goes back to AE's paper of
1905---an-hyper-bleton is a funny word
"not-more-speedy(entity)"?

 

[arivero]

You are right, Atoms of Space and Time. I was quoting from memory.

The atomist abhors infinity even more strongly that Aristotle abhors vacuum. So for them it was logical to put a maximum to speed, but they looked for this funny name to avoid paradoxes, I supposse. The word appears in an extant letter of Epicurus, if I remember well.

I have brought here Lucretius because he partly tryes to answer the more metaphysical questions of Tsunami, which obviously are not going to be addressed in a paper of physics.

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by arivero

Ancient atomic theory has two variants. ... The only information contained in atoms is rhythm (?), contact and direction, so -I guess- they can not be divided because they do not carry, by themselves, spatial information. ...


LQG postulates a intriguing quantum of area, because it is not a solid chunk of space, but simply the fact that if you measure an area, the result will always be above this value. Just as in special relativity any measurement of speed is always below c.

...

it seems to me to be a good idea to compare ancient physics theory
(Lucretius c.100BC to c.50BC?) to LQG

I think by "rythm" you mean rhythm, peculiar English spelling.

I did not know that Lucretian atoms contained rhythm information, associating existence with vibration frequency, on some level. an idea also associated with modern physics.
lots of surprises this morning.

the key word always seem to be "measurement"
if one part of the universe measures another part, then...
every puzzle seems sometime to come down to this

so for example: space is not made of lumps, but if you
measure the surface area or volume of something the result must be from
a discrete set of possibilities
like drops of dew on the spider's thread

 

[marcus]

always exciting to read and think about your posts A.R.
now I feel as if I have drunk too many cups of coffee
but it is just the philosophical considerations not the caffeine

must attend to mundane chore and return to this later

 

[arivero]

crosslink

A subthread on Lucretius and family has been open at
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14281

 

[glitterboi]

G-day. I read through all the posts and ah have quantized your mind. ;)

You're natually people-oriented and curious about them [pyschology I wager]. You may be better off learning a unpopular protoscience - Numerology. this way you gain an insightful understanding of the differences between you and the physics freaks and labcoats. then you could also be more educated in realizing how important numbers and symbols (which are embedded numbers also) in the world around us and related it is to everything.

Brain hard-"wired" differently: From my impression, you need finely tuned processing speed, laser precision focus, and specialized perception depth to really comprehend [theoretical] physics or the mysteries of life. Some people can be taught to understand it while others are naturally capable and will exceed those who can only be taught.

this capability belongs to a number in Numerology - 7. Theoretical physics exemplify this vibration. here's a snippet:

7-Mind, you are the searcher and the seeker of the truth.
You have a clear and compelling sense of yourself as a spiritual being. As a result, your life path is devoted to investigations into the unknown, and finding the answers to the mysteries of life.
You are well-equipped to handle your task. You possesses a fine mind; you are an analytical thinker, capable of great concentration and theoretical insight. You enjoy research, and putting the pieces of an intellectual puzzle together. Once you have enough pieces in place, you are capable of highly creative insight and practical solutions to problems.
-Decoz master numerology program 6.0

Notice, it mentioned "great" concentration. a highly understatement. It is the best and unmatched among the basic numbers from 1 - 6 and 8- 9.

If you're interested, I'll provide more information.

Marcus: Would you indulge me? I gather you have this vibration somewhere in your birthdate or your names or both. I like to test Numerology's postulates given above because I rarely run across 7s except from reading their theophysics.

later

Originally posted by Tsunami
I think, pretty much - never mind. I tried to watch Integral's link to the PBS video, but I need to use Ivan's computer with the high-speed connection and that just isn't going to happen any time soon. I have so many questions, even I can't get them sorted out enough to make sensible posts. I can try to find more basic info about LQG and string theory somewhere on the net. Guess I'll first google "LQG for Dummies" first... Also probably "String Theory for Dolts". Once I have that all figured out, I'll be back with some questions. Maybe in my next life I'll be hard-wired for this stuff... (GOOD LORD! WHAT AM I WISHING FOR?)

Can anyone guide me to some sites about these two theories where they don't speak Greek? (you know, Greek - like 'sumthinorother diffeomorphism' - What the h*** IS THAT?)

Thanx anyway...

i should seek professinal help... i marry a nerd and i hang out with him and all his friends who just scramble my brains... YOU'RE ALL OUT TO GET ME, AREN'T YOU?! IT'S A CONSPIRACY! hmm... professional help it IS... Is there a 12-step group for physics wives?

 

[Nereid]

Welcome to Physics Forums glitterboi!

Would you mind if I suggest that there's a very good sub-forum here for Numerology and related topics? It's called Theory Development, and if you post there I'm sure you'll find many folk who are interested in discussing your ideas (and they can be quite energetic about it too).

Personally, I'd prefer that this thread remains on the topic of LQG and/or ST, and unless I'm mistaken, numerology is not part of either.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 

[Tsu]

Originally posted by glitterboi
G-day. I read through all the posts and ah have quantized your mind. ;)

Now THAT'S darn scary! I didn't feel a thing!

Update: still studying (sporadically though, as work has finally started taking up my free time at work!).