E8 - Ever heard of it? I hadn't until this morning

Adios string theory… say hello to quasicrystals.

https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070319/full/070319-4.html

…and watch this -

…and only because I “saw” this (or shall we say, “was compelled by that which I know not as to what ‘it’ is,”)…

2 to the 8th power is 256

subtracting 8 from 256 is 248

so that’s how I completed my Journey to the 248th dimension.

And I needed less than 77 seconds to see it (much less 77 hours of computer power).

Ohhh and today is the 11th of July (the 7th month) - 11 x 7 = 77 (haha)

Many sufficiently complex forms of mathematics/magic can claim to emulate some aspects of reality, without necessarily providing any insight into how reality actually works.

This is “science” as a religion, with high priests chanting the inscrutable, in a language more foreign than Latin, to their “flock”.

1 Like

…and I am very vulnerable to things “magical.”

They call this “theoretical physics” - hummmm. Your view and warning is something I always value, thanks, ThePythonicCow.

A perceptive blogger who calls himself Vexman discusses this misdirection of science over the last century in this post of his:


Here’s the part of his post that’s most relevant to our current discussion (bold is Vexman’s, not mine):

Methodically, these disgruntled German physicists proceeded to define how German physics differed from Jewish physics. The essential difference, accord­ing to the Germans, resides in each group’s fundamental approach to the study of physics. The traditional approach to the study of physics in Germany has been classical, pragmatic, empirical, and experimental. Jewish physics, on the other hand, was considered dogmatic, intuitive, overly abstract and theoretical. Generally speaking, Jewish scientists tended to rely on mathematical rather than observed physical laws, on inductive leaps rather than on the laborious accumulation of empirical evidence. The two divergent schools of research, many thought, reflected the innate ethnic attributes of the physicists.

In 1941 Stark, who was by then a member of the National Socialist Party, condemned the dogmatic approach as practiced by Einstein and other Jewish physicists:

The dogmatic approach seeks to extract scientific knowledge from the human mind. It builds thought systems based on human concepts of the outside world and sees in these only manifestations of their own thoughts and formulas. Our pragmatic approach draws its knowledge from careful observations and planned targeted experiments. Our own imagination is used only as a means of planning the experiment. If the plan does not confirm the experiment, then it is replaced by another concept that better corresponds to reality. The dogmatic approach believes that new knowledge can be obtained by means of desktop mathematical operations. The dogmatists then spin out their formulas into great theories and propagate them in books and on the lecture circuit. A prime example of this is the worldwide aggressive propagandizing of Einstein’s theories of relativity. The pragmatic approach seeks to understand reality in patient, often yearlong laboratory work and limits itself to the publication of the results so obtained.

Because the pragmatic German physicists rely chiefly on careful, instrument-based, direct observations of experimental data, their approach is occasionally referred to as “brass machine physics” because of the many tools and instruments employed in their investigations. The dogmatists, on the other hand, chose to derive their knowledge of the laws of physics through mathematical operations and formulas that then formed the basis of the grand theories spun by Einstein and other members of that school of physics. Further irritating the Germans was the disproportionately approbative publicity accorded such dogmatic theories by the print and electronic media, which the Germans believed was managed and promoted by fellow Jews.

2 Likes