Very well. But if the ‘ Science is a rational structure’
then where is the Minkowski (-4D ) in nature, where
is the ‘only a kind of union of the two’ ?
Nobody knows where it is.
So, what is about a rational structure?
So, what is about a real structure, real nature?
I don’t mean to criticize.
I only cannot understand why the trick of changing
concept of ether on the concept of space-time was passed
without doubt, with glory and proud.
=====.
P.S.
Maybe the reason of (-4D) long live is it
mathematical beauty ?
Page 45.
‘Minkowski mathematical genius put Einstein’s ideas
into a new geometrical form that fully revealed their
beauty and simplicity.’

But is it correct to say, that these two parameters real enough
to explain and understand the real nature?
About 2500 years ago, according to Plato, Socrates said:
‘ I do not go so far as to insist upon the precise details;
only upon the fact that it is by Beauty that beautiful
things are beautiful.’

This is exactly that physicists are doing.
And as a result, going in such beautiful mathematical
way we have many paradoxes in physics.

Without the precise physical details, like: volume (V ),
temperature (T ) and density ( P) the Minkowski
beautiful and simple (-4D) is a pure mathematical game,
it is an abstraction.
============================..
#
Book ‘Albert Einstein’ by Leopold Infeld.
Page 4.
And out of this fantastic, relative world that Einstein
created there suddenly appeared the atomic bomb.
Page 36.
Its title is ‘Does the Inertia of a Body Depend on Its Energy?’
This short paper states: the use of atomic energy is,
in principle, possible. Forty years later, the work
of many scientists showed that the use of atomic
energy is practicable as was demonstrated . . . . .
. . . in the New Mexican desert and the devastation
at Hiroshima.
=============.
So, on the one hand SRT is true theory.
But on the other hand its basis ( -4D) is abstract.
To tell half of truth is worse than pure lie.
When in SRT practical truth mixed with an abstract meaning
of (-4D) our logical thought sink as an ‘ unsinkable Titanic’.
SRT, as a good mirror, shows us the real ugly understanding
the concept that we call ‘ Scientific Knowledge’.
But . . .but . . .
‘ One thing I have learned in a long life:
that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive
and childlike – and yet it is the most precious thing we have.’
/ Einstein /
=============.

When what we originally see as multiple phenomena are discovered to be emanations of the same thing, the resulting equations tend to become more aesthetically pleasing.

I would also add that psychologically, it may be easier for us to discover “simple” , “pleasing” explanations because our minds are more suited for searching for those solutions.

I wish that I could comment about why the universe has symmetries. They do seem fundamental to its nature, but without knowing more about the formation of the universe and the reason for its laws and constants being what they are, that question may remain inaccessible.

The one exception is your description of how symmetry in the universe leads to simple and symmetrical (hence beautiful) equations. That seems well worth delving into further — why are there all these symmetries inherent in the universe? Should we be surprised by that?

We have just added your latest post “Does Beauty Equal Truth in Physics and Math?” to our Directory of

Science . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to

submit all your future posts to the directory and get a huge base of visitors to

your website.

Warm Regards

Scienz.info Team

http://www.scienz.info