Ronald Hyde

No, I haven't changed my view. I reason things through, here is an example of my reasoning. A long time ago I realized that even if you developed a physical theory from 'whole cloth', from first principal you would need to know how it fits into the observational picture, in other words how it describes things from our space-time viewpoint. So you would still need to make observations. If you read my signature you will understand exactly who should be the first and last arbiter in what is valid theory. I repeat, do not tell Nature how she should build her house, do not impose your philosophy on her, develop the theory however you wish, if it works, then find any philosophy in it. Pantheory has many good points, some I would have made but don't need to now. But I will say something about SR and how Einstein arrived at it. More History, every idea in Physics has a history. When he was fifteen he wondered what it would be like to ride along with a light beam. I'm not going to go through all the steps here, I don't even know exactly how he arrived at his final conclusion, but later on he realized that if one accepted the Lorentz transformation as a general law of Nature and not just applicable to Maxwell's Equations, that this notion was a physical impossibility. Now when he wrote his paper he used the format that mathematicians use to prove concepts, they postulate something, then by 'reasoning among the facts' in this case, he shows it to be true. He was very good a reasoning, first rate.

What do you mean, the words don't prove anything? It's all History, just read the History, History doesn't need to be 'proven'. The first type of transistor made was the point contact. It was pretty inevitable that all sorts of combinations of junctions would be tried, so all sorts of things would be invented. The SCR is a 4 layer device invented by GE in 1955. And I even know about Gell-Mann 'inventing' SU(3), he went through all the representations until he got to the 8-dimensional one. A funny story you can tell your grand kids. I'm not unaware of the interplay of theory and experiment, I'm just cautioning the original poster that Nature will not respect his notion that a theory be based on purely 'philosophical' considerations, especially wrong-headed ones.

How would they know that semiconductors even existed without making observations? Galena and Pyrite are common mineral semiconductors. There are others, just about any 'shiny' sulfide ore is a semiconductor. The semi-metal elements are also semiconductors, Selenium rectifiers were in use before there was a theory of semiconductors. It was discovered that Silicon was a semiconductor, during the War it was used in Radar detector diodes, even though there was no theory of it. Look up 1N21 diode. The telephone company ( I don't remember which one off the top of my head ) thought that semiconductors might replace the high maintenance 'electron tubes'. so after the War they set up a research group. They did not immediately discover the transistor after constructing the theory, the 'transistor effect' only works with very lightly doped material. Silicon and Germanium had a simpler crystal structure so they were tried first. At first Germanium had the lead because it was much easier to handle and purify. Bu in the end Silicon took over because it is much more rugged during processing and more durable in service. There are actually several types of transistors, the ones in your computer are very different from the ones in a transistor radio. There were a lot of 'what ifs' and a lot of experimentation, 'cut and try'.

I've noticed this nearly all my life. The Moon at night appears to be a Yellow-Gray. But when the Moon and Sun are both up, the Moon appears to be White. It doesn't depend of the phase of the Moon or the location of both in the sky. It's not Yellow-White, or Blue-White, it's just pure White. There can also be clouds in the sky. I've chosen to post this at a time when both are in the sky together, so you can see this. In case you want to know, this is posted in the right forum, this does involve Quantum Mechanics. I have at least a partial explanation but I'm not entirely certain it's correct. Have fun with it.

I can see that you still don't quite get this, but I'm not making statements just for you, I'm making them for anyone who might be 'taken in' by that paper. A physical theory must start with observations, measurements, etc.. This 'data' let's call it, represents a set of related observation. A mathematical model, what you call a physical theory, must connect all these observations among themselves and if possible predict new relations and sets of data that can be verified by further experiments. Now one of my very firm beliefs is that Nature is in a very deep sense, just made of mathematical relations. I've had that belief since I was fifteen years old. A physical theory of itself does not have to satisfy any conditions but the one described. It doesn't have to satisfy any philosophical, religious, cultural etc. conditions. If you want to draw philosophical conclusions from the theory, fine with me, but do not impose them on the theory. I do not know of any valid physical theory that was constructed without very close attention to the 'physical picture'. NONE! Believe me, I stay as close to the physical picture as I possibly can.

Not to be impolite but the entire thesis of the paper, and your question, is just plain wrong. The thesis: That we should only describe Nature using QM observables. This is just like those people who say we can describe Nature using only: Electricity Magnetism Electricity and Magnetism together. The more knowledgeable of us know that this is not true, and disregard these 'theories', and rightly so. The only reason I replied to this topic was this paper was presented in such a way as to lead people to believe that it had a legitimate basis. I'm going to comment on something swansont has replied to, his reply is perfectly good but I see that you still don't quite understand it. And I'll overexplain as usual, just my style, I hate to be miunderstood. I've seen some people say 'Well, Einstein wasn't a mathematician, he was a physicist and learned math later'. Nonsense, he was a mathematician and a darned good one. He used math terminology in his SR paper but it wasn't required in his other papers, they were more about the results of simple experiments. The term 'postulate' is a math concept, it represents something that you wish to prove in the process of reasoning. And Einstein was very good at reasoning, as his paper shows. That is the only meaning that attaches to the word 'postulate' in Einsteins paper, period. I'm not going to explain this in physics or math because the faulty premiss, another math term, will cause all of that to fail. No only would I not approach that paper from any direction, I would ( conceptually ) throw it as far away from me as I possibly could. Or you could do the community a service and simply shred it to pieces by reasoning through it. I'm too busy and have other things to do, they involve the concept of Entropy.

I mentioned him in my reply on this post, I described how I viewed him. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/69319-entropy/ I think he was so far ahead in his thinking that a lot of his work is simply not understood or appreciated.

How soon would you like this document shredded sir, and into how many pieces? I sometimes like to find 'slightly wrongheaded' papers and study them by faulting their reasoning. One that I remember very clearly was an article in Analog Science Fiction magazine, titled Dimensions Anyone?, written by a medical doctor. Now it wasn't really wrong in any big way, just enough to get the 'logical juices' flowing so to speak. But that article taught me so much about how to think of and use Dimensional Analysis and how not to use it too. The article you linked to is so wrong on some many levels, that it's hard to know where to start. And it begs to be thoroughly taken apart and debunked because people might be easily fooled into thinking it has something important to say. The concept of Entropy was introduced by Rudolf Clausius, with additions by others, most notably Sadi Carnot and Claude Shannon, both engineers by the way. Now it just so happens that the Second Law of Thermodynamcs is not meaningful in a classic sense, it can not be applied to 'continuous systems', they must have discrete elements. So Entropy as a thermodynamic concept is only valid for discrete systems. They must as it were 'be quantized' is some way. You can see where this is going already. Sadi Carnot applied it to 'real world' systems, steam engines and such, he belonged to that era. The 'Age of Steam', a fascinating era if you enjoy the history of technology, gives way to the 'Information Age' and a telephone company engineer named Claude Shannon develops something he calls 'Information theory'. A very beautiful theory, when I first read and understood it, chills literally went up my spine because it had such beauty and simplicity. Shannon used a concept that defined the information measure of a message or an ensemble of messages and he called it Entropy. He clearly recognized that his Entropy was related to the thermodynamic version. Now to me Claude Shannon is one of what I call the 'Golden People', every subject that he touched he bettered thereby. So if you want to study people who much improve the life and understanding of the Human race, include him in, with a lot of others I might add. Enter 'Johnny', not Jack Nicholson, but John von Neumann. Someone actually wrote that he was primarily a Logician and did not make many contributions outside of that. I coulda punched da guy in da nose. Johnny was like this amazing space alien intelligence that visited Earth and left many wonderful things that we do not yet fully understand. Imagine handing a pocket calculator to a South American native and asking them to explain it. And in all of this he's a fun loving nice guy who treats others well, not like some I've met. Johnny gave us the next step in understanding thermodynamics and Entropy, because he wrote a seminal paper ( he didn't write any other kind ) on Quantum Thermodynamics. Characteristic Johnny, clearly written, everything logically connected, just beautiful work. So if you want to understand QT start with Johnny's paper and go from there. I actually tell people this. Nature isn't like Lucy, she doesn't have any 'splainin' to do. We have to take our measurements and figure it all out for ourselves. So when I see people saying 'Nature must do this, or must do that', I think 'what a fool', who thinks that Nature must do things according to his viewpoints. So it's a very false premiss to say that Nature must not think that Entropy is important. And another of my favorite people, Mark Twain, 'Never approach a Bull from the front, and Horse from the rear, or a Fool from any direction'. I would not approach this paper from any direction.

I would be glad to do that sir if you would also do that. The thought never seems to flit past the window of your mind that there is something that you do not know, that there may be whole fields of study that you are not aware of. It just so happens that now the moon and sun appear in the sky together, and you may be able to walk outside and observe that the moon is while. Anyone reading this may be able to make that observation and report the results here. They can check my veracity against yours. I have noticed this fact nearly all my life, and you seem to have never seen it! We are not to engage in name-calling debates, maybe you think that only applies to me and not you, so I will not call you any names, but I assure you that people on this forum are perfectly capable of judging your character for themselves.

That link is exactly what should have been posted earlier in response to Nerdberg's second question. Doing so would have saved a lot of problems. Now I have 'something to draw from'. I know what to look for to figure out whether there are photons involved, it all depends on how the enzymes fit into the scheme. So there is another energy intermediate involved, that puts a new light on things, so to speak. I do not 'talk nonsense', even if I don't know all the facts or don't remember everything. Every time you actually post useful information, as opposed to making verbal assaults, things are made more clear. I still have to check your tetrachromat reference ( on another topic ) but it looks very interesting. You don't seem to have solved my 'white moon' riddle or have attempted to, yet another topic.

I'm going to accede to the notion that the Chlorophyll accepts a 2 ev photon, but I did find that the work of the process is done at .5 ev, and the work was pumping charge against the Proton gradient, which the plant uses to make ATP. The plant doesn't 'care' that it's an inefficient mechanism, it can get plenty of photons, acquiring CO^2 molecules is the limiting factor in the process. It was a long time ago that I learned about these processes, Photosynthesis, and Mitochondrial processes, in two really excellent SciAm articles, and some reading since. I just forgot some of it, takes time to recall stuff from that long ago. I regard Nerdberg's question as very important, because these processes occur in almost, if not all, living things and are fundamental to life and the well being of all living things, including ourselves. And from imatafaals post, I intuit that the second part of the processes involving ATP, how it is used in Kinase enzymes, is not properly understood. Thank you for posting that imatafaal, otherwise I would not have seen that. So I do not regard this as a trivial question 'pop quiz' sort of thing. It needs the right answer. I'm not going to accede that that is right. It's the very statement which caused me to see that the Kinase part of the processes was misunderstood, it together with Nerdberg's second post. Does the original author of that statement suppose that some kind of magic 'hocus pocus' is involved? How do you detect a 'hokey' theory, I learned that a long time ago, they have no working mechanism. The author proposes no working mechanism while rejecting summarily a possible one. As far as I know all the Kinase enzymes use a metal ion/porphyrin ring, which to my knowledge again, uses a 'photonic' mechanism. Do you start to see my point? It's crystal clear to me what must be involved here. You're all forgetting Entropy, living systems have ways of maintaining the flow of Entropy just as they do everything else needed. And things are more subtle than any of you, and possibly myself think they are. For instance there are more kinds of plants than just green plants.

I'm going to reply to this that the .5 ev has been tested in the laboratory. I see I'm going to have to do a complete workup on this before the light will dawn in anyone's eyes. This statement is an erroneous conclusion by someone: The energy release by ATP in the body is not in the form of electromagnetic radiation. ATP is used in endothermic chemical reactions (reactions which take in heat rather than produce it) - ie it provides the energy for many cellular reactions and biosynthesis that otherwise could not take place. Elsewhere in the body the energy in glucose is used to recreate the energy rich ATP ready for when it is needed. Does he believe it works by some kind of magic? Nerdfeld in his second post provided direct physical evidence, all that is needed to draw the correct conclusions. You're all forgetting about the importance of Entropy in the scheme of things. Read my signature, it tells you who I think is the first and last authority on what is physical law. I can see that I am wrong on the making of ATP, I completly forgot about the Proton gradient mechanism, and was not aware of the other. I knew about the Proton gradient mechanism, I should have remembered it. But on the using of it, I still think I am correct and Nerdberg's second post leads to the correct interpretation. But if I happen to be wrong I will admit that too.

This is a fun topic. If you notice, the bicycle is designed so that if it tends to fall to one side the front wheel turns in such a way as to 'correct' the falling motion. I doubt anyone thought of this, they just tried different things and this worked. That and angular momentum.

The plants are not using our measuring apparatus. They're using Chlorophyll. It's what the Chlorophyll 'sees' that the plant uses. More of the subtlety that comes from Quantum Mechanics. The result of an experiment is not independent of the method of measurement.

There is so much irony and humor in what you have said. Maybe I'll get a magnifying glass and read the entire book. I knew about the act of desperation. What I do when I read a book about science, or most any subject. I try to understand everything in it, and after I've done that, I figuratively 'throw it out' and rethink every argument, assertion, anything that involves reasoning, completely by myself. If someone explains some everyday event to me and gives 'their interpretation' I will almost to the point of rudeness, say 'just tell me what happened, let me figure it out'. I have learned that so many people do not have good reasoning abilities. I think it's mostly because they include an element of wishful thinking. And do you know who's reasoning I am most careful to test? Mine! If I make an argument, I do everything possible to falsify it. And when I am thinking through things I have an 'imaginary friend' that I am explaining them to. In other words, I think it as I would explain it to others and this helps me to see it better. There was a place in the Feynman biography 'Genius' where at Princeton he was 'sitting with the Mathematicians'. Around here if you propose something in anyway different than the 'accepted dogma', yeah I know cranks use that phrase a lot, you get a warm reception, to say the least. But if I proposed something to a real life Mathematician he would just ask me a polite series of questions. For how many values of you tested it, have you looked for counterexamples, that sort of things, it would be placed in a category or discarded, he would give me a perfectly good reason for discarding it if that were the case. So very, very much better than the Physics people. In that book also his wife explained why he quit the APS. He just didn't like the way those people behaved. Maybe two people would write an inane paper, and three others would 'prove' that paper was wrong. One of the inventor-physicists I know quit the academic side because he didn't like the way they treated other people. Highly successful, multimillionaire, one of the nicest, kindest people you could ever meet. And I tell people, when you look at the outside world, it's this big huge thing that goes on for billions of light years, but when you're dealing with other people in a small community, it's a very small world, and anything bad or evil that you may do, for whatever reason, my come back to bite you.

But that's at the top of the atmosphere, there are no green plants there, at sea level and in water is where they live. But I really do appreciated that link, it provides a lot of good information. Things are way more subtle than they seem to be on the surface. All the cellulose I have around me is white, almost the definition of white. Suppose the scattering of light off a water droplet, unrelated you may think, but I give it as an example anyway. The light, each individual photon, can be scattered in one of two ways, incoherently or coherently. If it scatters incoherently it interacts with ONE electron and changes the state of that one electron and is re-emitted. With visible light this is a rare occurance, water is nominally transparent. Most scattering off of water droplets is coherent, the photon scatters off ALL the electrons in the droplet. My questions to you are these, does the green color come from coherent or incoherent scattering? Is there some coherent equivalent for absorption in the case of the red? I want to know those answers, they are relevant. Every organism that uses ATP, from the smallest bacterium to the largest whale, uses it for the same 'purpose', as an intermediate for energy transfer. And everyone that I know of, my ignorance may be showing here, uses it in conjunction with a metal ion/porphyrin ring. There are two processes here, transfer energy to ATP, get energy from ATP to do some kind of work. And it has to be done rather quickly because ATP is not very stable. I'm sure that the information that I used here has been around for years, decades maybe. How can people not see how things are connected, and all work together in this? If I said I'm flabbergasted it would be an understatement.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this reply because the very next post by Nerdberg implies ( more like yells in your ear ) exactly how enzymes work. I'm not faulting you in any way because this must be some kind of 'received wisdom' from a book which has been believed and passed down as wisdom when in fact it seems to fit the category of common fallacy. I'm going to make testable predictions so this 'hypotheses' can be fully vetted. I'm including Chlorophyll and Heme as enzymes because they use the metal ion/Porphyrin ring. I'm using Chlorophyll as an example because its workings are well known. It's pretty obvious that Chlorophyll has a scattering resonance in the Green part of our visual spectrum. However it does not use that in the plant's metabolism. Sunlight 'peaks' at the 1/2 ev energy. Chlorophyll is 'tuned' by the Magnesium ion to absorb two photons with that energy ( clever plant ) and transfer that energy to one or two electrons in the Porphyrin ring. So Chlorophyll has a strong absorbtion resonance at 1/2 ev. So the excited ring should flouresce at around 1/2 or 1 ev. But if you bring a Phosphate ion and an ADP molecule together in just the right way to absorb those photons or that photon they may absorb those photons and and the Phosphate ion will be joined to the ADP and water released. Testable predictions. Chlorophyll exposed to 1/2 ev photons will flouresce at or near that energy. Dry ATP placed in water will flouresce. Heme works at around 40 mev which corresponds to body temperature. End of story.

Maybe less like Schrödinger's Cat than Lewis Carrol's Cheshire Cat. The atom changes from eigenstate to eigenstate and the wavfunction only tells us what the chances are at any time to make that change. The wavefunction is the cat, the eigenstate is the grin that you observe.

I've thrown out GR, I even made a post here a while back, but got no replies. I have several reasons for believing it will not work, which I haven't even mentioned anywhere. One reason is that you can't introduce degrees of freedom 'by hand', this happened in the electroweak interaction where when the W masses were introduced that way they caused problems. I'll write something up in a while, it involves a simple form of potential, so it's back to potential theory. And I know ( unsupported speculation, not quite ) that gravity has 'more parts' and they are visible on the large scale, because I can see them in astronomy cataloges. That counts a lot for me. So I look at it as 80 years of failed attempts to integrate GR with QM.

Thank you for that David Mermin, I will look into that. I always look into things, that's just me. The 'completely true, refers to the validity of the meaning of statement, not the valididity of the exact wording. I'm revising the Gell-Mann phrase, he used counter-intuitive, doesn't that sound more like him? The Feynman statement is exact, verbatim and it might even be in his lectures, but I have more important things to do than looking for it, it's not indexed for that kind of searching. BTW, for anyone reading this, all these 'greats' have tons of quotable phrases, not just funny but full of meaning for anyone who want to do Physics, or just likes it. So I collect them. More on the saga of "Dick and Murray". They both came from New York, from 'modest circumstances', were recognized early, were top notch at mathematics ( wish I was ) but they rose up quickly because they had what I call 'native talent'. They needed little instruction to learn anything and could figure it out themselves, and solve problems on their own, unaided. Fascinating studies in Humanity. Because Feynman's story is well documented I'll say something about Murray. Caltech was an engineering school and wanted to gain prestige in the Physics area, they only taught 'engineering level' Physics and wanted to have an accelerator and some particle physics to attract more students, etc.. So they chose to hire these two and gave them about double the going salary, and put them across the hall from each other. They pretty much kept to themselves, Feynman didn't really do much teaching or take on any students until they practically forced him to do the famous lectures ( thank you Leighton and Sands for saving them for us ) but Murray was more participative. He taught, even took his students on field trips, he was an Auduboner ( birder ), now understand that both these guys, and me too for that matter, I love Nature and the outdoors, I think real physicists are 'country boys' at heart. Understand that I've never met these two but I'm a huge collector of anything and everything to do with Physics and Math. And if anyone tells you that 'Physics is personality neutral' do not believe them. Maybe on the teaching end but on the doing it very much depends on personality. That being said, here are some of the things said by and about Murray. He's still with us BTW. Murray will forgive ignorance but not stupidity. My colleagues are afraid to use their intuition. That which is not strictly forbidden is compulsory. This quote alone is worth a page of digression. I found it linked to T.H.White but I thought it came from George Orwell. One thing you need to know about Murray is that he is a short peppery guy ( locally compact ) from New York where words might have been a form of self defense, and he is very sharp of tongue. I'm sure that I have more quotes of him but I just found the wikiquotes ( never used it before ) and there are tons of them. Anyone is welcome to question my veracity at any time, but please do it like imatfaal, politely and with a well defined question. Undue rudeness will get me to use the 'report' button, I've been instructed that that is the way to handle things, and enough reports will be handled by the staff. Likewise if I question someone's veracity I will always give a supported line of reasoning, as I have in the past. That is just they way I do things, nothing without a reason. The way that I understand this, and I could be very well wrong, but the logical chain is this. I'll give the Wigner interpretation, the 'little group' SO(3) of rotations, is a subgroup of the Poincare group, the big group, which includes rotations and boosts. However you can't have boosts alone as a group, the way you can rotations, because successive boosts generate rotations. When you introduce spin into the picture, from the outside as it were, only the values spin 1/2 and 1 are consistent with the Poincare group. Along the same lines, years ago I found that you could derive the exclusion principle from spin and rotations alone at non-relativistic speeds. And I found out that this guy Feynman had done the same thing and was quite proud of himself, but I have never seen his derivation. I would love to find it. And this is kind of funny, but I ran across a web page that had a link to another page that purported to debunk about a dozen common fallacies. Never wanting to carry around any false reasonings in my little bag of tricks, I went there to look and one of then was that you had to use relativity to derive the exclusion principle. It's going to return an amplitude, the square of which is the probability of that happening. The usual stuff. How that is interpreted may be context related, context is always important. Right now I can't say much more than that, I'm getting tired and hot and my little brain stops working then. I'll come back to this latter.

Feynman is a direct quote, Gell-Mann may be paraphrased but he said something very much like it, and the third one has been attributed to several people, but Dirac was the earliest one I saw it attributed to. I would very much like to hear who else might have said it, I would like to know who originated it.

I must say that this whole question of measurement, superposition of states, uncertainty principle, etc., is totally overlaid with a fog of confusion, and needs a thoroughgoing workup that lifts that fog. I know that Karl Popper has written a book about the measurement process that is highly regarded but I haven't read it, and even if it were relevant the language in it might need to be 'updated', words change meaning and are added in 'living languages'. I would trust almost nothing I read, as is. I would suggest that you learn the rules of Quantum Mechanics till you know them like the back of your hand, there are only a few rules, and work out every problem with them. They have NEVER proved to to be wrong in any situation. Richard Feynman said "If you don't think Quantum Mechanics is crazy, you don't understand Quantum Mechanics". Completely true. Murray Gell-Mann, who was across the hallway from Feynman, said "Well, Quantum Mechanics is non-intuitive". Completely true. Paul Dirac said "Shut up and calculate". Completely true. All three are telling you the very same thing, what it says when you do the QM calculation is what is true, not what some would be philosopher says.

I haven't been able to reference what I wanted to tell you in the Pais book, partly because it's find print and I don't see as well as I used to, but I do know these about Einstein. First, understand that I am an avid follower of the history of science and math, mention a name and I can probably give you at least a page of bio. Before he graduated he knew people who were part of the little community. Basically their first love was physics and they tutored or taught students on the side for money. People who wanted to be engineers, that sort of thing. Einstein was not popular with his professors, he studied Maxwell, which they didn't understand. When he graduated one of them wrote a scathing note saying that he was lazy and could not get an academic career. You've got to remember that in his youth, we don't have many 'young' pictures of him alas, he was very handsome, charming, bright even mesmerizing. Just look at young Einsteins eyes. And he was very people oriented too, so he had no problem gathering a group around him or joining any other group. So even before he graduated he was already part of that community. When he graduated he did indeed not appointment, I think his desired post went to Arnold Somerfeld. Somerfeld is not now so big a name as Einstein, but he was a great choice in many ways, he contributed to both the theoretical and experimental problem of the Hydrogen Atom, the big ticket item of the day, but most of all he was a great mentor. It's hard to overestimate his influence in that regard, he attracted the best students, taught them well and let them roam free to accomplish their deeds. Born and Bohr were of course excellent mentors too. Back to Einstein, when he didn't get that position, I don't know whether he knew him personally or through some of his friends, Planck tried to find Einstein a position elsewhere but could not, and then a only then did he take the patent office job. But the patent office wasn't quite the dead end you might think, because every patented item (then) must work, and thus must obey the laws of physics. That's a gimmee. I have no idea whether Einstein helped or encouraged Planck in any way, but I do know that Planck was working for a company that made light bulbs, not as a paid employee but on contract or retainer, and they are the ones who specifically wanted the solution to the black body problem. But there's another reason Planck wanted to solve it. He had solved many little problems but he was 42 and wanted to 'get his name in lights' so to speak, do something significant. He had wanted to tackle the problems of chemical thermodynamics, I'm sure he would have done well, but an American, one Josia Willard Gibbs had completely and very elegantly done that. Not until Berzelius added chemical electro-thermodynamics was anything important added. Those are things I know 'off the top of my head' but right now I don't have any links to point you to. On Noether's theorem, I think it is one of the most beautiful theories ever put forth, right along with Einstein's. Now, on all of these 'physical picture' things, I'm aware of and heard and read about them, but I'm running on a different track. I'm starting to see that there are clearly some people who understand what I am saying, that they know that I understand them too. Not everyone does, they are my 'little bad of brothers' or sisters too. Alas, you're not one of them, and it's very hard to explain something who doesn't see any part of what is going on. But it's really nice when I see that if I post something they immediately know how it fits into their scheme, and when I ask a question, I immediately get relevant answers. Because they're working on self organizing systems, emergence, organizing principles, those things. Viewing the Universe as a self organizing system is the simplest part of it. My part in this, and why I understand what they are doing so well, is that I arrived at EXACTLY the same viewpoint, but from a completely different direction, and without knowing the right names to use. But I also know that I have special things to offer that they may or may not have. I have First Principals, I've already made a post about them to 'test the water' and got the typically warm reception. I know how a lot of the math connects up, SU(3) is very important in the scheme of things, it and the concept of Color, as in everyday life and the strong interaction. What's more I can see things in the physical picture that are readily observable, have been under observation for a long time, and are well known, that connect and are explainable. So I think of the Beatle's tune: Come together, right now, over me! I have to help them all bring it together and I'm sure they will help me.

Search for self organizing systems. Tons of material. Serious subject.

I don't know about that book, but SR is really only a little above high school algebra in it's math ( I think that's why many cranks think they can refute it but don't tackle QM ). One book I really have a high opinion of is Taylor and Wheeler, it's a little paperback too, it has lots of diagrams, very clear explanations, just really beautiful.