Steven Weinberg - How Do Particles Explain the Cosmos?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 сер 2022
- The cosmos is vast, the largest stuff that exists. Particles are tiny, the smallest stuff that exists. Yet the particles compose the cosmos; there is nothing in the cosmos other than the particles, and the fields and forces that are associated with them. How does the whole system composed of cosmos and particles work?
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles: bit.ly/2ZGgDcH
Steven Weinberg is an American theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate in Physics for his contributions to the unification of the weak force and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
The fact that I can sit here and gain knowledge of the amazing work these people do...there are no words to express my gratitude. Thank you.
His explanation of the electroweak symmetry (3:58) is one of the best I've seen: The electron and neutrino are one particle flipped two ways. The current universe is too cold to flip them anymore, so they mostly stay stuck. Nice!
I totally agree with you.
It is not any kind of knowledge, depending on how you define knowledge, which you cannot; you have no idea of what you mean by knowledge or what knowledge is, do you? No more are you aware that there is any difference between knowledge and information or knowledge and belief, have you? How to you(whatever you mean by) *know* that you are not being told lies or simple inaccuracies. Do you have any idea what the word " cosmos means? For example is there any difference between 'cosmos' and universe, and what does either mean?
None of those questions ever occurred to you did they? Unless you have any learning up to -let us say, degree level, there is not the slightest reason why you might, because you have not been programmed or conditioned or " educated" ever to doubt anyone that you suppose to be more learned than you; you have been trained like a performing seal never ever to doubt or ask questions, correct?
Are you aware that one of the meanings of the word "amaze" is stupefy or render stupid?Those that never ever doubt or ask questions *are* stupid or have been stupefied .Let me guess:You are american are you not? Of course if you have been conditioned/programmed/educated or stupefied into never doubting or never not accepting what you are*told* -or "taught" that, in and of itself, is evidence that you have been stupefied or the word "educated" will serve as well. For example has it ever occurred to you that there are no such things as "atoms"? No, of course not, but if I or anyone were to say to you:"Show me an atom, pr prove to me that there is aby such thing as an atom, what would you do or say? You take my point? It horrifies you that anyone might doubt or question what you have been *told* or taught, does it not?
@@vhawk1951kl Peter, are you okay? For some reason Miley Cyrus's song 'Wrecking Ball' popped into my head.
Well said!
RIP Steven Weinberg
Just hearing their voices heals me😊
Their conversations are like good songs and movies🤩
Yes, this has become so much more gratifying than mindless movies. It really takes well put together theater to compete with this kind of enrichment.
Could listen to Mr Weinberg all day. RIP sir, you are greatly missed.
The great physicist was choosing his words so as not to appear too technical and dark. He is thanked for the effort, not to mention force fields, least action principles and Lagrangians, he managed to give us a beautiful picture of particle physics and the fundamental forces that govern the universe.
Yes, very nicely presented and somewhat understandable to the layman.
So glad I found this channel, what an amazing resource.
@Closer To Truth: Maybe I missed the date of the recording and it was shown in the video. If it wasn’t there, could you add the date to the description of it? Would be nice to know when it took place.
RIP Steven.
That tie is amazing
What a towering intellect and clarion communicator. He somehow transmuted tremendous gifts graced still by humility into the voice of true greatness.
Who's the young dude interviewing Weinberg? Boy, Weinberg is a very clear explainer of the abstruse. Fascinating conversation, thanks!
Very engaging discussion
Gostei da sua gravata professor!
Does the electron having mass in contrast to neutrino have something to do with Higgs boson? In which case is the Higgs boson / field mechanism a way to break symmetry? And might charge come about in this process, that electron has negative charge while neutrino has no charge?
This is a great interview which cuts through many layers of clouded understandings.
Allow me to offer to Steven a perspective to solve the Unification problem. The Higgs Field is the key in this thought model but the Higgs Field is a closed loop field where the energy level of the field can be increased locally by the presence of matter. In this model the Higgs Field does not permeate through particles as Quantum Mechanics demands. In this model Matter is dynamic energy. You know this to be true because when you smash a particle, the energy doesn’t meander away, it blasts away at the speed of light, and it is the field that limits the passage of energy through it to the speed of light that is the key. Inside a particle the energy, however can and does operate at above light speed and it is the Higgs Field that keeps the energy confined. If the energy in a particle should drop below the speed of light the particle would dissipate in a flash of energy as it would no longer be confined. The process of confinement of the quarks involves a zone of energy turbulence that is at that scale, the strong Nuclear Force, and the dynamic energy in this zone makes up the greater mass of the particle. The Higgs Field Loop or Static Energy Level is elevated by the turbulence and that elevated energy level dissipates away from the Particle boundary by the square of the distance. The Mass of the particle is determined by the Particle Boundary Field Energy and the Field Energy Level of Deep Space. The more particles the greater the Field Energy. Matter moves from the Lowest Field Energy Level to wards the Highest Field Energy Level, and this movement is generated by the Particle Boundary Energy Level itself. This is Gravity, and this is why Gravity is instantaneous. Gravity is not a force that reaches out to affect Matter, Gravity is the particles themselves reacting to their local environment that being the Energy Level of the Higgs Field in which they are sitting. Gravity is the Intensity Gradient of the Higgs Field in any one location.
To me the Universe is an energy emulsion of Dynamic open ended Energy quanta immersed in a Static Loop Energy field which the Dynamic energy can only penetrate below light speed. So the Strong Nuclear Force is the Primary Dynamic Energy in the form of the Quarks where the Quarks share energy (Hence all of the Color observations) and the strength of the binding force is driven by the reaction with the elastic strength of the Static Energy Higgs Field. The weak Nuclear force is a product of the particle overlap of the Particle Nucleus turbulence zone. The higher the number of Particles in an Atom Nucleus the less OverLap is possible, and the weaker the Nuclear bond.
In this Model Protons and Neutrons are not benign blobs floating aimlessly about, they are the dynamic energy core that powers the entire Universe. The Higgs Field is the one field that holds the energy together in an orderly frame work, a frame work in which particles push themselves together, pushing against the Universal Field.
To get a bit Closer to the Truth put this idea to Steven Weinberg for his perusal.
Yes, that was complete nonsense. :-)
Weinberg is a great teacher.
And when he talked about our species dependence on religion, in the 21st century, he’s unequivocally amongst the best at articulating.
Great video
Best channel.
What does the difference of spin of graviton compared to gluon, photon and W / Z bosons do?
Might there be a symmetry of causation for gravity / space-time?
What happens to electron and neutrino when temperature gets higher that they are more symmetric?
How do we know gravitons have spin 2? Apparently they need to, but how do we know/assume that it does with such certainty?
We don’t… its just bullshit. It’s crazy to even think that the universe governs by tiny balls… we call particles. And that some carries forces is even further crazy! 😅
There are simpler ways to describe the universe and that don’t need all this bs… the standard model is never gonna solve anything, and it’s proven over and over again that something is not right. But… the physicists can’t let go of the standard model. They just keep digging there hole deeper and deeper with more absurb theories to balance out there equations. More and more absurb ideas to cover all the discrepancies. They are nailed down to there belives.
We don't.
The equations predict so.
Would’ve been an awesome guy to invite for dinner. He speaks very eloquently.
Is space and time relative a broken symmetry?
Do laws of nature come from or develop from symmetry? What is the nature of symmetry? Why does symmetry relate to mathematics laws and scientific principles?
Wouldn't you say gravity acts on space not on particle mass? Mass (energy) contains or emits "gravity" as electrons contain or emit photons. Most of measured mass is from the movement of particles with only a tiny amount from a resting particle. Gravity warps space instead of pulling on particles and the particles follow the warped space.
Does increasing temperature take away direction of molecules and atoms in making of a liquid; while cooling of temperature adds direction to molecules and atom in bringing about a solid?
“increasing temperature” in what direction?
It is fashionable these days for some pedants to insist that gravity is not a force, but actual physicists don’t have a problem with calling it a force. There is no question that Weinberg knew about general relatively.
Why do some people get worked up when they don’t like a physical theory? Nothing a particle physicist says can affect your life.
O tempo está passando e ninguém tem as respostas para suas perguntas . Sinto muito!
8:00 He's awesome like Robert to point out that we exist in this gravity dominated three dimensional space carved out of infinitely or non-dimensional space. In biology the laws evolve into cells which may not be reversible but can copy themselves.
Rip
Nothing has more mathematical symmetry than the empty set.
That mathematical symmetry is too good to be true ... and the only way you can break the symmetry of the empty set is to get "something, rather than nothing."
Symmetry breaking "explains" existence!
What symmetry are you breaking?
.It seems the dipole moment, believed to be a constituent of all subatomic particles, may provide a mechanism for passing along a specific symmetry from one generation wave to another.
@@kundakaps Here's the way I think of it: everything that exists has some lack of symmetry in its relation to other existing things. To thoroughly eradicate asymmetry you would have to get rid of everything.
@@suesimmons926
Have you ever heard of the Godel's incompleteness theorem?
Is that the reflection
in a drop of dew
On a leaf
Or is the world
within the drop
And the universe in cells beneath
Fractals within fractals
within everything
you see
And the energy
Forever growing
Will never be complete
And will be in
every drop of dew
Within every leaf
Oops! He hit the microphone. 🙂 so, does this lead us to wondering about quantum gravity or is that something completely different?
Gravity doesn't get brought into the other forces, the other forces creates gravity, right?
*Empty Space, Thought-Power, and Particles*,
Is the Basic analysis of the Eternal Life.
(X1, X2, X3, = X0)
The meaning of 'empty space', is Space-Less Space,
the Living Being, behind the Thought-Power and Particles.
No one, have ever seen the Living behind the Being,
Life can't be seen, Only Known.
The Life-Desire is the MOTOR of Life,
(Compass is the Hunger- and Satisfaction-Principle)
in direct extension we have the Will, (Life-side)
and Gravity, (Stuff-side)
by our Will We do balance Gravity of Earth, with our own,
when We lift the cup.
All Stuff is of electrical nature, 'at the bottom',
Thoughts, mind-stuff, is the finest Stuff.
So, the Perspective-Principle may be the border,
between the Life-side, and the Stuff-side.
How is the early universe so hot without any particles
In the Standard Model, each force has what’s called a force-carrier particle or a boson. Electromagnetism has photons. The strong force has gluons. The weak force has W and Z bosons. When particles interact through a force, they exchange these force-carriers, transferring small amounts of information called quanta, which scientists describe through quantum mechanics. General relativity explains how the gravitational force works on large scales: Earth pulls on our own bodies, and planetary objects pull on each other. But it is not understood how gravity is transmitted by quantum particles. Discovering a subatomic force-carrier particle for gravity would help explain how gravity works on small scales and inform a quantum theory of gravity that would connect general relativity and quantum mechanics.
Anway P / "Force" is not something real. It doesn't exist by itself.
"Force" is a concept.
Nothing is a "particle" in reality.
A "particle" in reality is just a local convergent "entropic" dynamical structure. It is "itself" an emergent "fluid" ( =dynamic ), part of the neverending "entropic" chain of cause and effect, further down the continuous emergent realm.
So, those "particles", all of them, from the smallest convergent "entropic" structure to the largest ones, are nothing but dynamic forms existing into other and into other and into...so on and so forth... "entropic" dynamics.
Fundamentally, the so-called "gravitation" is not attractive at all, or created by "bending something".
"Gravitation" is nothing but the same dynamic, identical with the universal dynamic present at any scale of the Universe, micro and macro, creating one unique directional "movement", one unique active phenomenon, and many other reactive, local reversed, and temporary entropic emergent phenomena.
There are no 4 "different kind of forces". There's only one universal dynamic, going into one direction, only one active "force" phenomenon, and in the process, as a consequence of it, creating many other local, reactive ones.
I have this hypothesis that every single particle in existence, even ones that we identify as the same as other like particles (e.g. a proton of a hydrogen atom), are, if you look really really close, unique. That is, like snowflakes, though they exist in the same frequency range, no two particles are exactly alike within that frequency range, and every interaction involving these unique particles will therefore always render a unique function. So no two atoms are alike, no too molecules, etc. The effect of that is that "change" (or if you prefer "growth") is built into existence.
There's a good reason elementary particles are identical and indistinguishable from one another of the same type. That is that they're not really there to begin with. They are fundamentally just information about quantum fields, when a field is divided into its smallest fraction we call that a particle. Photons are the quanta, the smallest division, of the electromagnetic field, that's why they are particles. There is nothing substantial about for example a photon that can be unique like a snowflake, a photon has no shape or imperfections, it's just a vector for carrying a force. Its mass comes from the energy of the entire field, so there is no room for individuality in the mass either.
@@sorlag110 I appreciate that. I do understand that particles appear to be identical, though, as you suggest, particles themselves are somewhat of an illusion and are better viewed as wave functions. Humans at first blush also appear to be identical because they exist within a frequency range that defines human beings, but upon closer inspection they are all different. Snow flakes also appear to identical because they exist within a frequency range that defines snow flakes but upon closer inspection they are all different. Examine any object that is not microscopic, no two are alike, anywhere in the universe. So as for stuff that is really small like atomic particles, we can not confirm or deny that they are unique because we can not get close enough to examine them. It's not unreasonable that my hypothesis is correct.
@@prestonbacchus4204 Sure, fair enough, but that seems improbable to falsify?
@@sorlag110 Well, take animals for example, they all have parents, every one we have ever studied, genetically and literally. So far we have not found any animals, that is, any of our ancestors and relatives, that self created or arose out of thin air, as we lose track of our ancestors into the bowels of the "living" earth. As we were tracking those ancestors back, at any given point, would it have been reasonable to presume, there is an equal likelihood that this specimen self created and maybe has no parents, as there is that it has parents? Those prior examinations of life constitute actual evidence that all life has parents, though it does not prove that. Likewise with the uniqueness of all particles. It would seem more reasonable to initially suggest that it is more likely that the specimen has parents, than does not, based on prior experience observing all other life. If it is reasonable (for analogous reasons) to suggest that uniqueness of particles exists (since everything we have studied is unique), then next we would have to ask, what does it matter, and what can we measure which the fact of the uniqueness of particles, assuming that was the case, would effect? It's not per se invalid to consider hypothesis that can not be immediately proven by current scientific abilities, as that is a later stage in the scientific method. If a person was using the word "theory" instead of hypothesis, then I think that would be the wrong word since it implies more than an "hypothesis".
@@prestonbacchus4204 If we had no model of evolutionary biology then it we would have no reason besides a statistic probability to believe any given animal ancestor has a parent. But it isn't from the likelihood we know any given animal has an ancestor, it is from mapping common ancestors over enormous spans of time to conclude all animals has ancestry in few-celled bacteria-like life. It is through an understanding of how evolution works we make that conclusion. If you had an hypothesis some animals spontaneously come to existence, you would need to prove against the entire web of proofs that is evolutionary biology - not just the fact animals statistically always have a parent.
When it comes to elementary particle physics, your assertion that everything we've studied is unique is not the case in that area of science at all. In fact, we cannot tell electrons with the same spin apart. In some cases we cannot tell if we are studying two electrons at different locations or the same electron in two places at once. John Wheeler had an hypothesis that all electrons and positrons are the same single particle moving backwards and forwards in time. It's hardly provable or falsifiable but it paints the picture how fundamentally non-unique elementary particles really are.
We have very rigorously proven elementary particles are the quanta of their respective fields, which mean they share in unison the properties of their fields. With that in consideration, we don't expect to find unique quarks, unique photons, unique neutrinos. In fact, if we found an electron with a differing mass, that would challenge our entire understanding of particles and fields.
So this is why your hypothesis seems improbable to falsify to me. It depends on the incredibly slim chance our particle physics is wrong. It also states science might not have the current ability to prove it, which is another unfalsifiable presupposition.
It is nothing wrong with entertaining the thought, I just don't see how you would go about to test it or refute it, for the reasons I mentioned.
Refutability is what gives a hypothesis credibility; if I had a hypothesis electrons reverse their spin every midnight, we could experimentally prove whether that is true or not. If my hypothesis was that electrons will reverse their spin this midnight, but only if Cleopatra is still alive, that would be impossible to falsify, and therefore the hypothesis wouldn't be very credible.
Are photons interacting with gravitons, similar to electrons interact with photons?
What gravitons
Particles only 'exist' AFTER you observe them and the entire Universe is a waveform up to that point.
Weinberg's explanation (3:58) of the electroweak symmetry is one of the best I've seen: The electron and neutrino are one particle flipped two ways. The current universe is too cold to flip them anymore, so they mostly stay stuck. Nice!
Interviewer sounds like Howard stern
Particles do not explain the cosmos nor my grandmother's house....
Wait.... are they particles, or waves?
or just a field ripple?
Sure they do. We are made of particles and we seem to be the only one's giving an explanation.
it is very likely that gravity and electromagnetism do not have the same source, it is possible to interact with each other but don't have the same origin, that is why Einstein couldn't make any progress in the last twenty years of his life.
and keep adding more imaginary particles to their model is not the proper solution, better to focus on deeper understanding of fundamentals of physics.to understand how the interactions and transformation happens.
physics reached a point where patching techniques will never work any more, it reached a point where without deeper understanding of fundamentals of physics. there is no chance to make any real progress in physics.
Insert copy pasted comment
In before: "Comment" doesn't exist. "Comment" is an idea in consciousness.
@@firstaidsack lol
@@ROForeverMan Consciousness does not exists it is an idea in unconsciousness.
@@kos-mos1127 Unconsciousness doesn't exist it is an idea within an idea.
Hahaha funniest thread of the week.
Particles explain the cosmos
The moment a particle is a wave; it has to be a conscious wave! Max Planck states "Consciousness is fundamental and matter is derived from Consciousness". Life is the Infinite Consciousness, experiencing the Infinite Possibilities, Infinitely.
We are it, experiencing our infinite possibilities in our finite moment. Our job is to make it interesting!
This is only a hypothsis. The problem with sub-atomic particles is that they are nothing but mental constricts designed to make the sub-atomic particle theory appear to be consistent.. But internal consistency does not prove that a theory is true. It only proves what it is designed to prove: that the theory is consistent. Whether it is true or not is determined by empirical observation, not by internal consistency. But sub-atomic particles are not subject to empirical observation, not even with electron microscopes. That is why no arrangement of them has been shown to account for the presence of Consciousness.. Consciousness is a field of energy that is aware of itself and sub-atomic particles are not..
You are so cute when you think that pretending to be a physicist makes you attractive. ;-)
I can tell you how particles explain the cosmos...
Eins must know about completenes universe with time mesin at kebon by united nations
Interesting but wrong. A Neutrino has mass 0.120 eV.
There is no such thing as a Graviton. It is an invention to try to unify gravity. All these described things are just transient energy, a particle is an invention to attempt an understanding and classification.
I thought Steven Weinberg died..
It must be a look-a-like theme for a while on CTT. Yesterday it was Harrison Ford. I wonder who we will get tomorrow?
Only recently
Einstein copied from Lorentz and Pointcare work.
Again. The Function & Intelligence Categories ... prove the Universe & Life are Functions composed entirely of Functions ... and can only be made by an intelligence.
All Functions ... are SYSTEMS that process inputs into outputs ... and have clear purpose, form, STRUCTURE, design, and properties.
All Functions ... possess & require ... INFORMATION to exist & to function.
A complex function is composed of less complex Functions.
The simplest Function has a purpose & form ... and will be a component of ... or .... the input or out put processed by a more complex Function.
Quantum particles, field & forces ... are Functions ... with clear purpose & form.
Universal Functions is the scientific explanation for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Everything in an Abstract ( time, space, Laws) or physical (matter, energy) Function.
Only an intelligence makes Functions that possess INFORMATION.
Only an intelligence extracts INFORMATION from a Function.
The Laws of Nature .... are simply INFORMATION ... that every Function possesses to exist & to function.
God originally created the Matter & energy of the Universe with UNNATURAL Laws. Man was to live forever. But God instantly changed all the Function information or Laws at the Fall of Man less than 6 000 years ago.
Universal Functions .... is the unifying "truth' that explains everything. A Function has a purpose and is will either be processes by another Function or be a component of a more complex function.
The Universe is a Function composed of & processing interacting functions.
These people don't have a clue what is going on, they don't even know what gravity is, yet alone what is a field.
Light is not really understood either.
"Force" is not something real. It doesn't exist by itself.
"Force" is a concept.
Nothing is a "particle" in reality.
A "particle" in reality is just a local convergent "entropic" dynamical structure. It is "itself" an emergent "fluid" realm ( =dynamic ), part of the neverending "entropic" chain of 'cause and effect', further down the continuous emergent realm.
So, those "particles", all of them, from the smallest convergent "entropic" structure to the largest ones, are nothing but dynamic forms existing into other and into other and into...so on and so forth... "entropic" dynamics.
Fundamentally, the so-called "gravitation" is not attractive at all, nor created by "bending something".
"Gravitation" is nothing but the same dynamic, identical with the universal dynamic present at any scale of the Universe, micro and macro, creating one unique directional "movement", one unique active phenomenon, and from which many other reactive, local reversed, and temporary entropic emergent phenomena take place.
There are no 4 "different kind of forces". There's only one universal dynamic, going into one direction, only one active "force" phenomenon, and in the process, as a consequence of it, creating many other local and temporary reactive ones.
Niels Bohr once said something like, "Maybe we should get rid of this particle idea."
Richard B / Yes, because 'reality' is fundamentally in only one way, only one dynamic "principle", one unique dynamism.
There's no fundamental dualism in reality.
"Dualism" is just a temporary theoretical concept created by cognitive impotence.
First
Liar
Nobody's ever first, trust me we're ALL last.
Actually we’re in the middle
Steven Weinberg died July 23rd, 2021...
When the universe was created both celestial bodies and basic particles formed simultaneously.
There's no dark matter on flat earth
Hue-monoids
Weinberg lol
Fundamental phich particles are in Brains when conscieness not for particles or reality of particles are unpredicted? Guys lost his minds in accuret excellent particles behavior but not show up essencial World of particles. He has more question than anwers in phisc particles.
Get in antroposophy and find ghe true. You are making circles
The standard Model is a disaster in itself. It has many problems, many anomalies, and still can’t explain the most important mysteries of nature. The standard Model can’t even tell you what ( Matter, Matter-Anti-matter problem, Spin, Mass ratios, Strength of forces, Gaps in particle’s masses, The measurement problem, The Planck length, Dark matter, Dark energy, Black holes, ……… etc etc) is. It is a disaster!
Particles aren’t enough to describe reality.
Ive always felt similar, there are so many gaps why have we not scrubbed the standard model and gone looking for a more meta-physical answer.
It seems physicists are happy to claim we won a mega rollover cosmic lottery and things are the way they are, rather than really questioning anything. Any good videos that discuss the gaps you point out.
I suggest you look up Unzicker’s Real Physics. The guy doesn’t have that much of a great status in todays era of physics, but he does really well in asking the kinds of questions that are being ignored, and he shows the ways people like Einstein, Dirac, Dickie, Mach… etc did their research, and how they came about solving the riddles of reality.
@@Kurd05 Thanks Ive enjoyed some of Unzickers videos, its a refreshing viewpoint . How can we find the correct answer if we are so willing to accept so many anomalies, and ignore so many gaps in current models and theory. Only by opening the mind to what we dont know, will we have any hope of filling those gaps.
Particle physics is the biggest travesty in modern physics. There really is no proof of any strong or weak force other than theoretical philosophical jargon. The only reason particle physics is being pursued is to justify the billions of dollars for CERN. Misinterpretation of data remains prevalent at CERN with new theories having to be formed that are ridiculously complex yet unfalsifiable and at this point has become unbearable to even debate this
Particles don't explain the universe.
These guys are true believers in the Holy Church of Reductionism. What else can they say.
@@ROForeverMan - what does then?
@@bigboyshit1 These guys are radical determinists who believe that the interaction of mindless particles control our everyday life, the motion of the planets and even what you are thinking right now. They believe that everything is bottom up and the rest of the universe is just foam bubbling up from the sea of particles.
"what does then?" Asking for an explanation for the universe is philosophical musing at best, and mysticism at worst. Scientists should stick to science.
Nether do you
particles (quantum field theory) can explain more than any other explanation so far!
And what explains particles? What explains the basic laws of physics? Materialism explains nothing, at least not ultimate objective reality....only ontological mathematics does.
This compared to the Christian apologetics of Willam Lane Craig where he already knows his answer before he starts.
...all too cliquey
and cozy and
endlessly
same
old
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (John 1:1-3)
On your bike!!!!!!!
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Symmetry, Einstein drew on her work