What ever happened to Scale Relativity?

[Fra]

I can only comment on my own posts.

My apologees if I have violated any rules on here!

From my perspective I was making a from my view non-random association between what might be the "scaling" Nottale talkes about, and the scaling of complexity that I think in terms of. I basically consider a microstructure (complexion) and I associate the scale to the complexion number or the number of distiniguishable microstates. Nottale seems to consider the scale a parameter in identifiying the observer (reference frame). This is also how I think of it. The observer has a complexion number too. Why I think so is more a philosophical and interpretational question.

How does whatever construction of science we choose, scale as the observational scale does? As I see it the problem is that this scaling adds or removes information. This is where I think evolution comes in. Maybe there is no old-style one-2-one transformation that connects the scales? that might suggest that the "nature of law" is different that we thought in the past.

Initially I agree it's apples and oranges, but since I am looking for hints to my own quest, I was probing wether Nottales apples can be seen as peeled oranges

It's associative, but I thought that we were reflecting over Nottales ideas here, and I have no choice but to reflect from my personal perspective (which defines my context), and I always try to restrain myself and to only post reflections that relate to current thinking, but I try to at least some small element of personal reasoning that adds a new perspective, otherwise my posts would be totally redundant?

/Fredrik

 

[Chronos]

I sympathize with your argument, humanino, but, renomalization is not 100% sound either. It is more an effective theory. I think we are missing something more fundamental. Nottale is not quite right, but, maybe closer than we suspect.

 

[Fra]

but, renomalization is not 100% sound either. It is more an effective theory.

I agree.

I expect that when there will be a deeper understanding of the foundations of physical theory the notion of renormalization will be understood in a much deeper way and probably come more naturally and be treated at some level on the same footing as other interactions.

/Fredrik

 

[humanino]

interactions.

renormalization is not an interaction...

It is more an effective theory.

Renormalisation itself is not what we call "effective theory". Ironically, you get effective theories once you have integrated out short distance stuff, so it does not matter whether an effective theory is renormalizable or not.

You seem to repeat 50 years old words from Dirac and/or Feynman as if they were still considered true. The effective mass assigned to an electron in a lattice, or to a ball underwater, those are the same processes as renormalization in QFT.

 

[Fra]

renormalization is not an interaction

I know that, but when I pick on that it also means I pick on QFT as a formalism. Noone will deny it's success, but neither can anyone prove it's a fundamentally right formalism. It's somehow a formalism for how to ask questions, which constrains the possible answers. Due to the problems QFT had originally, renormalisation was developed. Perhaps first as a fix, where many people had doubts. But now it more accepted. But somehow QFT needs renormalisation to make sense. So the theory or technique of renormalization seems to be pretty much entangled up on the QFT.

I'm one of those oddballs that think that more efficient progress will come with a new formalism and new logic.

/Fredrik