IS MATHEMATICS HINDERING THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS TOWARDS DEVELOPING A THEORY OF EVERYTHING? by Marts Liena

Marts Liena

Essay Abstract

Could it be that mathematics is a good servant but a bad master? Modern particle physics is at an impasse with very little fundamental theoretical development occurring since Gell-Mann proposed quarks in the 1960's. It is incumbent on reductionist philosophers to get theoretical physics back working towards a Theory of Everything, rather than being sidetracked on String Theories that can never deliver

Author Bio

Marts is a self taught philosopher currently working on a new preon theory, and writing a book on time.

Download Essay PDF File

Alan Kadin

Dear Mr. Liena:

Your essay is short, but you make a strong argument that physics may have worshipped too long at the idol of abstract mathematics.

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

John Hodge

Preon research is done from a larger to smaller direction of investigating the particle characteristics of smaller particles. You may have developed your title because of this. This approach is very math intense and seems to require a reductionism assumption.

I'm pursuing a small to larger approach through seeking a structure of the components of the universe to make bigger particles. You suggest 2 fundamental particles. I suggest 2 components (you say 2 particles)

of the universe - a continuous plenum and a discrete hod. The smallest particle (a photon) can be investigated by supposing a structure of the hods and the plenum. Then the basic observation of interference results from this structure. That is, what is the structure that can produce interference? I think I have it. BTW Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics explains several cosmology mysteries.

The next step will be to note the reaction old particle -> new particle(s) photons for all particles. That is, basic particles are structures of photons. The 3 particle forces must also be photons.

This thought is radical. The result is I'm pursuing this alone. There is no exchange of ideas. Progress seems slow. A few collaborators would hasten the advance. But more than a few would introduce a social concern that would slow the progress. The more participation in a social group, the less the creativity and the more the following of authority (even if false) that is a problem in particle theory development as you note.

Joe Fisher

Dear Dr. Liena,

You wrote in the abstract of your essay: "It is incumbent on reductionist philosophers to get theoretical physics back working towards a Theory of (abstract) Everything, rather than being sidetracked on String Theories that can never deliver."

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

Dear Marts,

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