On Mathematical Misconceptions Masquerading as Physics by Thomas Erwin Phipps

Dear Edwin Phipps,

I read and enjoyed your essay, and received food for thought, though I regret I am not familiar enough with some of the mathematical descriptions you mention to be able to comment on them. I think you did a great idea presenting your ideas.

I found it interesting that you approached the essay theme so differently than I did. More food for thought.

I wonder: do you have a view on Bondi's k calculus?

Best wishes.

Bob Shour

Dear Thomas Erwin Phipps,

A number of essays express the belief that physics has jumped the track and that mathematics is the problem. Your essay says it better than most. And acquaintance with 'real' physicists (those currently working for the establishment) reveals Jack Horner-like self-satisfaction, and, as you say, "second thoughts are heresy." Only the old guys, retired from the rat race, can blow the whistle, with all the grief that implies these days.

You also note the "need for magic" is time-invariant. As a large percentage of physicists have "grown beyond" religion (properly mystical) they apparently find solace by incorporating mysticism into their physics. But not just any mysticism. Any fool can worship a mystical God, but only us really really smart guys can understand this mystical, non-local, quantum mechanics and non-simultaneous (meaning non-synchronized) space-time curvature.

Your focus on covariance is simply excellent. As you note, "If one wants true form preservation, one must demand true form invariance." You address asymmetry (in the form of space-time). All of the symmetries I am aware of, from iso-symmetry to SUSY, are approximate. They are not exact symmetries. If they ever were, they broke. Thus, while it is part of the physicist's Credo that symmetry implies conservation, I believe it is far more likely that fundamental conservation yields symmetries.

Your GPS-based discussion of relativity was also very interesting, including the asymmetry of the Master-slave clock required to make the system workable. I also found your discussion of Maxwell interesting.

Finally, I agree with you that, once the mind has been cleared of the "current universal fog of political correctness" things are easier to comprehend. It is truly amazing that after almost a century of quantum progress, the prevalent interpretations are still as confused as they were during the first decade. What can that possibly imply except that those first stabs at understanding the QM world were not even close?

My current essay explains how Bell's significant oversimplification of his model yields bad physics embedded in good math, with the complete nonsense of non-local entanglement as the accepted gospel. I hope you will read my essay and provide feedback to me.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Wonderful presentation. Box's quote is right on target. It seems many forget the currently popular models are not correct but wrong and will be replaced although the entrenched society is defending the status quo at all costs.

The pendulum swings. One side is the experimental with a new model starting the swing. The new data shows holes in the model. As the troublesome data builds, the theorists add ad hoc additions to defend the status quo. Then comes complex math and ignoring the new by rejecting the papers. As the data builds as you suggest, eventually a new model with new and wildly different assumptions finally produces a revolution if we are lucky. Today there is already enough data to construct a new model. You point out some that is `misinterpreted' or ignored. The theorists must take center stage for now. Unfortunately, the `defend the status quo' seems to be winning and physics is becoming entrenched. One side effect is that with little really new, funding from politicians dries up. Want funding - produce a radically new, exciting (not metaphysics) model.

Thanks for the excellent job of addressing the problem with standards.

Dear Thomas E. Phipps Jr.,

Per aspera ad astra.

When I quoted you in essay 1364 I already understood you as follows: "Phipps [25] pointed out that the lacking covariance was built into the [= Maxwell's] equations according to [Michelson's null result]."

Meanwhile I am sure, Michelson's 1881/1887 (Potsdam/Cleveland) null result was correct. Just the expectation by Michelson, Morley, Lorentz, etc. was not warranted.

An unwarranted trick can definitely not be the truth. That's why your essay is by far my favorite one despite of minor imperfections.

Thank you and all the best to you,

Eckard

Dear Erwin Phipps,

I agree with you: 'mathematical concepts' masquerade as 'physical concepts', and this is the major problem in present-day physics. Equations are just tools. Different tools can be used in different situations. But the argument that the tool can tell the whole tale is incorrect. Space-time, curved space, expanding space, mass-less particles, mass-giving particle, force particle, etc. are examples of meaningless physical concepts derived from equations. The present philosophy can be termed 'mathematicalism', the view that the real nature of the physical world can be understood based on equations alone. I argue for 'physicalism': an equation can be interpreted in many ways; out of these, physically meaningful interpretations alone need be considered. My essay will soon be available.

Honourable Sir,

I'm quite impressed with your essay. Your work is very thoughtful.

Simply great!

Kindly,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Dr. Phipps,

Your essay was brilliant.

Warm Regards,

Joe Fisher

Dear Tom,

I will be lucky if you could read my essay and comment critically on it. We shouldn't expect luck with the scores. Some author who did definitely not yet take part in the discussion of your essay rated it 1. At least he understood its implications.

Best,

Eckard

I am reading through these essays. Some are about a disconnect between physics and math. These papers have this in common. Then these papers use examples to demonstrate the disconnect as does my own essay. The examples vary widely. This is my observation. My main goal here is to applaud your point of view of the disconnect of which you get some of my points. I suspect pressure from people like you are going to change the face of physics. Thank you.

Al Schneider

Dear Dr. Phipps,

I read your essay with great interest. I will have to read it more carefully before making substantive comments.

Incidentally, I remember your advisor Prof. Ramsey. I worked in his atomic beams laboratory in 1974, before moving on to a thesis project in superconductivity.

You might be interested in my essay "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory"

I argue that premature adoption of an abstract mathematical framework prevented consideration of a simple, consistent, realistic model of quantum mechanics, avoiding paradoxes of indeterminacy, entanglement, and non-locality. What's more, this realistic model should be directly testable using little more than Stern-Gerlach magnets.

An earlier FQXi essay was entitled "Watching the Clock: Quantum Rotation and Relative Time"

But I have not been critical of classical mechanics. Maybe I should reconsider that, as well.

Alan Kadin