Trick or Truth: the Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics by James W Baldwin

James Baldwin

Essay Abstract

It seems that math & physics go hand in hand. But, as this this paper will show, that Mathematics is the Finger Pointing at the Moon. It can describe reality, and can even predict events in reality, but it is a convenient illusion. It is not reality and should not be mistaken for it.

Author Bio

Career spans 30 years doing stress analysis for aircraft companies, including Boeing, Lockheed and Spirit Aerosystems. Two of my duties in that timespan included writing or being responsible for 15 Boeing stress manuals and creating all of the 26 Spirit stress manuals. Experience spans both static, fatigue and damage tolerance stress analysis and working with material allowables. Was MMPDS representative for Spirit for 7 years.

Download Essay PDF File

Alan Kadin

Dear Mr. Baldwin,

I enjoyed reading your essay on how math provides nothing more than models of reality. Much of this is obvious, but it is amazing how often people can refuse to see the obvious.

I agree, and my own essay, "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory", focuses on a particularly egregious example of how an incorrect mathematical model became accepted as reality, despite obvious "paradoxes". I argue that contrary to universal belief, a simple realistic picture of the microworld is possible, completely avoiding the paradoxes that plague orthodox quantum mechanics (including entanglement). QM is not a universal theory of matter; it is rather a mechanism for distributed vector fields to self-organize into spin-quantized coherent domains similar to solitons. This requires nonlinear mathematics that is not present in the standard Hilbert-space formalism. This also makes directly testable experimental predictions, based on little more than Stern-Gerlach measurements. Remarkably, these simple experiments have never been done.

So while mathematics can provide important insights into physics, an incorrect mathematical model that becomes established may be seen as virtually religious dogma which is not to be questioned. That prevents further progress.

Alan Kadin

James Baldwin

Mr. Kadin:

I glad you liked my essay. I thought I was going to be the renegade of the group in describing how disconnected math and physics are, but in glancing thru these essays I see that at least half of the papers here seem to support this view.

I look forward to reading your paper.

Joe Fisher

Dear Dr. Baldwin,

You wrote: "There is even reality beyond math that math can't account for (as yet)."

Do let me know what you think about this: This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

James Baldwin

Hi Joe:

I'm glad you looked at my paper. With over 200 (204 by my count) essays submitted it's a real step just to get noticed.

But you really didn't comment on my paper here - you extracted one line, that seemed in sympathy with you own views, and then summarized the paper you had also submitted. But I'll do you one better and give my comments on your comments.

You say that everything has a real surface and material sub-surface, and that real surfaces are all traveling at the same speeds. I don't see or understand this at all. Is everything like an onion, with different layers ? Are all these surfaces traveling (rotating ?) at the same speeds but still remaining in place ? And you say that this must be so, since if they were traveling at different speeds we wouldn't be able to see them ? Well, I can look out my window and see a bunch of cars going by, all at different speeds, and it's quite easy to see each one. And that real light doesn't travel far but reflected light does ? So where does the real light go ? Does it travel a few feet or miles and then just disappear ? And planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation ? Whose atmosphere - the planets ? the Earths ? the space between the stars ?

My essay was that math is so flexible that it can describe many different realities, and do this very well, but only one of those realities fits the Universe we live in. The other realities are merely abstractions and should be ignored. I'm afraid that your view only adds another layer of abstraction onto the real world that isn't there and does not help explain the world we live in.

J. Baldwin

Joe Fisher

Dear J Baldwin,

The cars are not traveling at different speeds. The surface of each car travels at the same constant speed that all surface travels a including the surface of the road the cars are traveling on. At the point where the surface of the tires touch the road, a sub-surface is formed and each sub-surface travels at a unique speed that is always less that the speed of surface. I wish you had commented on my essay at my commentary box.

Joe Fisher

Please remember, you have a complete skin surface, but all of that skin surface is in contact with other gaseous, liquid and solid surfaces.The real Universe is physically connected.

Joe Fisher

Edwin Klingman

Dear James Baldwin,

I greatly enjoyed your essay, with its unique engineering flavor and take on math and physics. You begin with very key statements, such as

"If it can be measured, it's physics. If it can't, it's metaphysics..."

and

"Math does not explain the physics; the physicist does."

and

"We must be careful in explaining the universe to keep it simple, but not too simple."

and

"Math can predict any reality desired, so the physicist must determine which set of math formulas models the reality that we live in."

I hope you will find time to read my essay, which focuses on one of these realities in the context of (what I consider) a fifty-year mistake in physics. You note that physicists use math to understand how the universe works while engineering is more utilitarian. Your drawings are excellent, and your reminder that (for finite element models) "the judgment of the modeler is needed in modeling the actual structure to the mathematical model."

In half a page you go from Zen 'math as finger-pointing at the moon' to the power of analogies applicable to significantly different systems modeled by the same differential equations. From "math may predict things that don't exist" to the example of the deHavilland Comet, your essay is chock full of interesting and relevant examples to back up generalities. In short an excellent contribution to this essay contest.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

James Baldwin

Mr Klingman:

Thanks for the comments. I returned the favor by reading your essay and gave you a good rating. I posted a few questions on it that you can ponder on and reply to in your spare time.

Joe Fisher

Dear James,

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher