This is an approach to Physics that I have been looking forward to for years. Do not know how to express how much I love this!
@gcarcassi
8 ай бұрын
>Do not know how to express how much I love this! By telling other people! 😁
@JoeHo-vp2wn
8 ай бұрын
@@gcarcassi A much more efficient means for students of Physics to pick up the basic concepts, without wasting time circling in the jungle, will end up speeding up the advancement of Physics.
@mattphillips538
9 ай бұрын
Don't forget the fundamental theorem of Physics: '≅' = '='... approximately
@gcarcassi
9 ай бұрын
😊
@DudaJarek
9 ай бұрын
I am just watching, for relation between statistical and quantum mechanics take a look at "Maximal Entropy Random Walk" (MERW) - standard RW turns out to only approximate the (Jaynes) maximal entropy principle required by statistical physics models. MERW does it right - leading to the same stationary probability distribution as QM ground state. E.g. for [0,1] infinite potential well, standard RW predicts rho=1 stationary density, while QM and MERW predict rho~sin^2.
@gcarcassi
9 ай бұрын
Thanks! I gave a quick look around, and this is something I clearly have to look at. I saw you have a channel, and you have a video on this, so I'll start from there!
@DudaJarek
9 ай бұрын
@@gcarcassi Thanks, would gladly discuss - the basic remark is that instead of considering Boltzmann ensembles in space, it is more appropriate to consider Boltzmann path ensembles in spacetime - maximizing mean entropy (instead of local), and becoming in agreement with thermodynamical predictions of quantum mechanics (-> ground state).
@gcarcassi
9 ай бұрын
@DudaJarek I got that, and it got me excited because it is along the lines of what I am doing in other places. In the video I do show how putting a measure on the space of possible evolutions is something that has coming up from multiple places. What I need to understand is exactly the details, and then how to square with the rest. A discussion would be very helpful! Thanks for proposing. How about this: I'll start looking at some material, so that I get at least familiar with the terminology and general idea, and then we can have a zoom session? How does that sound?
@gcarcassi
9 ай бұрын
@DudaJarek I hadn't opened my e-mail yet... Just saw it now... 😂
@syedabuthahirkaz
9 ай бұрын
Received the shock of my life when I read 'Mass corresponds to number of states per unit velocity interval' . I have been working along similar lines but a bit different and I can account for space-time curvature and entanglement too. Math turned out to be elusive, but I got the Physics correct, simple and direct. I believe I could explain that to my Grandma if she were alive, that simple. If you're willing to collaborate we can correspond. THANKS FOR THE WONDERFUL VIDEOS.
@gcarcassi
9 ай бұрын
@syedabuthahirkaz It goes to show that there are no real new ideas! As for collaborating, given this video, you should have a general idea of what is or is not in scope... if you have pieces that may fit or help, do reach out. My work e-mail is not hard to find... 😁
@syedabuthahirkaz
9 ай бұрын
@@gcarcassi Yeah, Certainly , Thanks.
@86congtymienbac80
9 ай бұрын
You should start by re-evaluating physics experiments. Consider conclusions and mathematical expressions.
@86congtymienbac80
9 ай бұрын
Great! That is scientific work.
@ghostrecon3214
9 ай бұрын
Wasn't there something like the cosmological constant that was artificially added to preserve the assumed static universe, then it was discovered the universe is expanding but the cosmological constant remains?
@gcarcassi
9 ай бұрын
That was Einstein insistence on the universe being static (e.g. at equilibrium). His equations didn't work, so he added the cosmological constant to have static solutions. Issue is: even those solutions are unstable... if you introduce a small variation in the energy-matter field, you get something that never changes. It's interesting because, in his paper (which I happen to have read and discussed quite recently... with people that know this a lot more than me) he assumed that small variations of initial conditions would give small variations on the solution... which is not really true for non-linear equations such as his. So, anyway, yes, the cosmological constant now is used to get the expansion, and it can be interpreted (if I understand correctly) as either a modification of the equation or as a contribution to mass-energy from the vacuum. Note that my interest is not any of this: my interest is in really understanding why do we have those equations to begin with.
@ghostrecon3214
9 ай бұрын
I love to see this, fundamentally reviewing/testing the assumptions is such a great idea, it nothing else for young people to catch up to where math/physics is and how it got here. I have always had an affinity for physics , many years ago i really tried to start with the fundamentals and learn as much as i could, and it felt like i was going in circles. Not sure if it is just my inability to understand or the models are just needlessly complex because they are not accurate idk.
@gcarcassi
9 ай бұрын
>Many years ago i really tried to start with the >fundamentals and learn as much as i could, >and it felt like i was going in circles. The main issue for me is that modern theories just postulate a "bunch of math", with no particular motivation. It felt like going in circle to me because the explanation for "some math" was just "other math". But the math cannot tell you what are the physical assumptions/approximations you need to take for the model. YMMV
@ghostrecon3214
8 ай бұрын
@@gcarcassi And things like Up spin and down spin and a few other flavors of spin, and from what I recall it had nothing to do with spin. So what physical phenomenon is the math pointing to, if any, or is it ad hoc?
@gcarcassi
8 ай бұрын
@ghostrecon3214 For spin, and other "charges", I still do not have a clear picture. That's all stuff that would require fully "reversing" field theories. From the pieces I do have, spin does come out, at least in the non-relativistic case, from simply adding an independent directional degree of freedom. I do think that, when all is said and done, we will find that fields have to couple in very prescribed ways... but that's just a hunch. There is too much math that, at this point, is missing...
Пікірлер: 24