Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: A smoking gun for QED...
Message-ID: <167@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 16:41:40 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.167
Posted: Thu Apr 12 16:41:40 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Apr-84 21:02:24 EST
References: <957@ihuxm.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 27

I essentially agree with Mr. Wyant's dissatisfaction with QED & QFT,
for similar reasons.  However, it does not bother me that the basis
for a theory may be a variational principle.  Indeed, if there is to
be any distinction between what might happen but doesn't and what
does actually happen in the world, one may have to consider the
alternatives that could happen but don't in order to determine
which alternative is followed; this is effectively what a variational
principle does.  One doesn't have to imbue fundamental entities
(particles or whatever) with either decision-making intelligence or
understanding of OUR mathematical formulations in order for our
mathematical description to nonetheless correctly describe what the
entities do.

I find the distinction between human-produced theoretical constructs
and the behavior of absolute existents to be crucial when one is
considering fundamental physical theories.  The best example I know
of so far is the development of the final field equations of
Einstein/Schr"odinger unified field theory from a minimal set of
physical assumptions.  Some of the readers of this list already
have a copy of my Master's thesis wherein I spell out the steps in
this development.

It is notable that neither the General Theory of Relativity nor the
Unified Field Theory were the result of a general dissatisfaction
with the predictions of existing theory; instead, they grew from
Einstein's intuition about what constitutes a satisfactory
explanation of fundamental phenomena.