On 10/9/2014 10:46 AM, Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote in news:m166ia$u7a$2@dont-
email.me:

I've read much more than a simple Wikipedia article. And the only thing
I can come up with is that physicists can't explain the why either -
just that it's the way the math works out.


That gets very (and unavoidably) metaphysical because the question becomes
whether the maths is a possibly flawed model, an extrapolation of some
original observation, or whether the maths as information is as fundamental,
if not more so, than mass-energy itself. After trying for some time, I
decided to let that line of inquiry drop.


I don't think it's really a metaphysical question, nor that the math is
flawed. I think it's more the inability to explain it to me due to my
lack of understanding of the basics behind it.

Looking back 50 years (back when subatomic particles such as quarks,
muons, etc. were still in an early theoretical stage), I wish I would
have become a theoretical physicist. Not that I would have won a Nobel
Prize or anything (I wouldn't), but I think my life would have been much
more enjoyable. I've always loved math, but at the time I had gotten
hooked on electronics. Not that I regret that decision - I don't. But
the more I see about what physicists are discovering, the more I want to
be involved.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle

==================