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

Alma Ionescu

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

Sujatha Jagannathan

You are very much gelled with the concepts.

Great.

- Sincerely

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Vesselin Petkov

Thank you all for your comments. Due to some urgent issues in the last ten days and this week I hope to be able to do something enjoyable next weekend - reading essays.

Vesselin Petkov

P.S. Thanks a lot Alma. What I meant is that if Minkowski had lived to see the advent of general relativity, he would have realized, as a mathematician, that the mathematical formalism of general relativity implies that gravitational phenomena are merely manifestation of the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime (not an interaction). Einstein made a gigantic step by linking gravity with spacetime geometry, but even he was unable to overcome the seemingly self-evident "fact" that gravitational phenomena are caused by gravitational interaction (which, unfortunately, is still the accepted view in physics).

Alma Ionescu

Dear Vesselin,

Thank you very much for explaining, now it makes perfect sense. I did suspect I misunderstood what you meant. I wish you good luck and I hope the issues you are attending will be resolved soon!

Have a great day and a successful week!

Alma

pjackson

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

Milen Velev

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

« Previous Page