A mathematical formalism in physics is not \"just a matter of description\" by Vesselin Petkov

Dear Vesselin,

Thank you for your very interesting essay, one of the best in the contest. I have nothing to add to your essay's conclusions, especially: "the exciting art of doing physics is to determine which mathematical entities have counterparts in the physical world."

I take the opportunity and propose the mathematical entities and their counterparts in my essay, engaging the set of Thurston geometries (the geometrization conjecture ) with metrics. I treat them as a space-like, totally geodesic submanifolds of a 3+1 dimensional spacetime. In three dimensions, it is not always possible to assign a single geometry to a whole space. So, the geometrization conjecture states that every closed 3-manifold can be decomposed into pieces that each have one of eight types of geometric structure, resulting in an emergence of some attributes that we can observe. As you probably know, Thurston geometries include: S3, E3, H3, S2 ﾃ-- R, H2 ﾃ-- R, SL(2, R), Nil and Solv geometry. The constant curvature geometries arise as steady states of the Ricci flow, the other five arise naturally where the dynamics of the Ricci flow is more complicated and where topological changes (neck pinching or surgery) happen. I have tried to attribute the geometries to interactions and fermions, except of five exotic ones (so far). You will probably find interesting Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga's publications that deal with details of similar approach. Interesting is also the proof of the geometrization conjecture, sketched in 2003 by Grigori Perelman, showing that the Ricci flow can be continued past the singularities.

If you are interested you can find details in my essay.

I would appreciate your comments however I would understand if you were tired with the contest. You deserve the high rating what you can observe in a moment.

Jacek

Vesselin,

Nice to hear from you again. In your essay, you wrote/spoke like a true physicist. Physics is the study of this special relationship between the observer and his reality that we call "experience".

This experience only exists by the interaction between the observer and what is really out there, the substance. By opposition to "experience", the substance of the universe does not need us in order to exist.

We have known this long enough to stop beating around the "black box" and guess right away what's in it. The truth is not something to look for anymore. It is something we have to be able to look at.

All the bests,

Marcel,

Vesselin,

Besides the essay itself, I hope you will read my defense of the physical reality of Minkowski space in a series of posts & attachments beginning 2 April. Thanks.

All best,

Tom

Dear Vesselin,

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

Dear Vesselin,

I read with great interest your depth analytical essays in the spirit of the Cartesian doubt with extremely important conclusion, which I fully agree:

"...mathematics in physics is not merely a description and that part of the exciting art of doing physics is to determine which mathematical entities have counterparts in the physical world. Also, despite that the issue of the nature and role of the mathematical formalism in physics is a metatheoretical issue, physicists should deal with it because misconceptions about this issue might delay the advancement of fundamental physics. " My high score.

Tthe basic science is in a deep existential crisis, "crisis of understanding" ("Advances in Physical Sciences" K.Kopeykin "Souls" of atoms and "atoms" of soul: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli, Carl Gustav Jung and "three great problems of physics"), "crisis of interpretation and representation" (T.Romanovskaya "Sovremennaya phizika I sovremennoe iskuusstvo - paralleli stylya" / "Modern physics and contemporary art - parallels of style"). This profound existential crisis of basic science - universal human problems. Mathematics and physics require a deep ontological justification (basification). In fundamental physics is necessary to introduce an Ontological standard of justification (basification) along with the Empirical standard.

I invite you to see my analysis of the philosophical foundations of mathematics and physics, the method of ontological constructing of the primordial generating structure, "La Structure mère" as the ontological framework, carcass and foundation of knowledge, the core of which - the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory. I believe that the scientific picture of the world should be the same rich senses of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl), as a picture of the world poets and philosophers.Today, more than ever, are relevant philosophical covenant of J. Wheeler: "Philosophy is too important to be left to the philosophers."

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Dear Vesselin,

You make a compelling case as to how equivalent theories contribute to hiding the nature of the foundational properties of the physical world. I found enlightening the idea that one may have equally correct theories but only one of them is closer to the heart of things and can be used as a foundation for future research. It's an idea that feels true. You have a very enjoyable and clear writing style which benefits the presentation very much. I am very enthusiastic about your essay. One thing I found a bit confusing is that I always though that relativity implies that there is no interaction but only geometry, however you seem to say something a bit different (page 8, the last paragraph "Had he lived longer, Minkowski himself might have arrived at this radical possibility"). But maybe I'm just reading it wrong.

Anyway, I loved your idea and your writing style so I am rating this essay accordingly. Should you have the necessary time, do read my essay and let me know what you think.

Warm regards,

Alma

You are very much gelled with the concepts.

Great.

- Sincerely

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Vesselin,

Great essay. Tom flagged it up for me. It was on my list but I've failed to hit my target so got promotion! (and a top score), but only a 'speed read' so lowfi and I've marked it for a return.

I'm sure you'll like mine, no worries on scoring, but I'd greatly appreciate your views. There's a link to the main paper co-authored with John Minkowski. Our main work has been in the 'discrete field' model of SR, but this is a result of the implications of that model on QM.

There's also a short video on my string I hope you'll look at and discuss.

best wishes.

Peter

Dear Vesselin,

I very much enjoyed your essay! You offer convincing arguments that mathematics in physics is not merely a description. I agree with your opinion that metatheoretical misconceptions might delay the advancement of fundamental physics.

Best regards and good luck,

Milen