The question asked in the first post implies the following: at very small scales, even the most extremely small scales, things should be the same as they are at very large scales.
Let's define very large scales: relative to very small scales we are very very large.
To add a little bit of information to that definition of sizes, things that are much smaller than us are very small, and things that are much larger than us are very large, while we are very large, compared with very small things, and very small compared with very large things.
I'm watching Lecture 2, and Susskind is talking about what distinguishes particles from "mush". I think every such distinction is nonsense. Even his definition makes little sense. It's mush.
Let me ask this question: is a cloud a particle? I say it most definitely is. There's definitely something there, with it's own distinct form ... and substance.
I guess Susskind is talking about "fundamental" particles, which are figments of the imagination of Physics. But, why would Physics invent such an unreality? Well, Physics is interested in the appearance of differences between things at very different scales. And, asking why again, I arrive at this analysis: that differentness is not, as it's typically regarded, a function of absolute scale, but it is rather a function of its scale relative to ourselves.
There's another way of saying this: in studying, for example, very small things, we are studying how things assemble into larger things. "How are many things assembled into one thing" is the fundamental question, from the perspective of my string theory. (There is, in my theory, nothing that is not composed of infinite numbers of smaller things. There is no fundamental particle, only fundamental interactions.)
It is not my intention to make a general critique of what I'm watching, here. Susskind's stuff is really interesting and elegant, of course. He's even talking about the interactions between things.
No comments:
Post a Comment