Mike McCulloch on Why Everyone Should Care About Quantized Intertia

My comment:

I care about QI, really I do. Mostly because if you're right then there's a whole lot of stuff I have completely misunderstood about physics! I don't mean that facetiously though, even though it probably sounds like that. I'll tell you why I don't get it and it's that the whole of physics basically depends upon the duality of symmetry laws and conversation laws, including everything we think we know about the visible universe and it's size and mass and whatnot, basically everything about Cosmology depends on Noether's principle, and Unruh radiation is, as far as I know (which is not very far at all!) a vacuum fluctuation affect which is precisely where our measurement precision fails to be able to pick out the ground state because basically there's nothing there to measure anymore, so all we see is the noise: the signal is gone. And this means that the conservation laws are gone and so the symmetry principles are thrown out as well. And out of this meaningless chaos you somehow think you can produce the force of inertia? I have a weird feeling that it makes sense, just not to me!!! I'll send you some thoughts of mine by email in a few days, but there's only one equation in it, ... which is the one in Fermat's last theorem. 

He is self-funded. See his Patreon: https://patreon.com/OneSteptoTauCeti.

Subscribe to Mike McCulloch. 

From my post Physicists Talking About Physics.

Bill Unruh talking about the entropy in the Universe decreasing when stuff falls into a black hole, ... It's called The black hole information paradox.  He says that in this case, despite being a complete fantasy (7:52), GR does a good job of preserving conservation laws through space-like separation. I wonder if these guys have read William James Sidis' 1920 book The Animate and the Inanimate?

3:33 Energy has nothing to do with entropy. The way he talks about information as some sort of stuff sounds bizarre to me. Perhaps he uses information and entropy as synonyms. Or perhaps this is not actually what he himself believes, but he is willing to talk complete nonsense to try to see what other people believe? What I don't understand is how can you ever see what other people believe on the basis of nonsense. But that, in a nutshell, is why I don't understand physics. It all looks like a bunch of people talking congruent nonsense!

7:10 This is wonderful to listen to because of his attitude to the model (General Relativity in this case) "you can interpret it however you like!". That's a weird  thing about theoretical physicists. They have a special licence not to have to worry about sissy principles of empiricism. You know, the idea that in physics you are not just hand-waving like a philosopher arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You are supposed to be better than a philosopher, because you ask Nature to judge your hypotheses, and because of that, people have to believe what you say because it is egalitarian: everyone can just ask Nature. "Make the experiment and you will have the knowledge!" Well theoretical physicists don't have to do experiments, because they themselves are only theoretical, (it's very simple: their selfish genes make them like this, because otherwise they can't get food and they go extinct) but they still get to claim Nature tells them what's what. So whereas non-theoretical (i.e. actual) physicists have to put up with reality being what it damned-well is, theoretical physicists can use whatever definitions of reality they please, like Einstein's one: it's real only if the model predicts the measurement with certainty. The model however can be a complete fucking fantasy!  See David Albert Talking Complete Nonsense and Happy Birthday Raymond Solomonoff. 

Subscribe to Avshalom Elitzur.