from the glacier

I was thinking

while reading a lecture by Paul Dirac today (nobel physicist, 1933), at the abject absurdity of mathematical constructs of nature. . . He discusses in his first lecture on how a quantum theory would mathematically arise out of a classical dynamic theory of motion, in terms of atomism. But that theory in its mathematical formalism would have to agree in principle with (at least) Special Relativity. Remember from you books that relativity not only shows the motions to be relative, but also the times. So we have to re-formulate our equations with time and distance variables - at random - so that we do not have any particular time or distance bias. Again, remember at the end of Einstein's Relativity, Cartesian co-ordinates are replaced by Gaussian co-ordinate planes by non-intersecting curves of infinite fullness. . . remember also that relative to one's frame of reference the motion can be none at all, rectalinear, curvalinear, accelerated, all describing the same world-event.
I digress....
So anyway, Dirac sets about a series of strange analytical equation transformations to solve for these randomly picked time and distance functions. Again, to be concise (hardly) he takes an undefined normal motion equation, transforms it into a Lagrangian, then, with the use of "Poisson Brackets" transforms it into Hamiltonian equations, all the while showing there must be primary and secondary contraints on the equation - also undeciphered - all for the sake of

are you ready?
ARE
YOU
READY??
i doubt anyone's made it this far anyway



I quote:
When we have the Hamiltonian, we can apply a standard method which gives us a first approximation to a quantum theory, and if we a lucky we might be able to go on and get an accurate quantum theory.


You may now exhale. The wait is over. Nature - thus explained.
NO! WAIT! the mind reels. What standard method? Approximation - I go through all this formalistic mathematical bullshit for a fucking approximation - of fucking things I can't see, or sense or anything else? Oh, I get it. I go through mathematical rigmarole for the sake of saying that a particle is everywhere in its "energy level" at the same time until I "look" at it. Oh, nonesense for the sake of - nonsense.
Before we ask the question of whether a Hamiltonian (Hamiltonian what? - Dirac never says) can approximate a quantum theory we need to ask the question
why is it necessary to believe in a Hamiltonian

(who the fuck is Hamilton?)


I will study more, and, sadly, update as necessary
thus spake Beitiathustra