Math vs. Physics? by sherman loran jenkins

Dear Mr. Jenkins,

Your essay is very concise and very clear. Human nature leads people to believe, and one type of belief in the modern world is a belief that a mathematical model must be correct. But widespread acceptance of a particular model, even for a hundred years, does not make it any more valid.

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

Dear Sherman,

Your essay is a contender for the shortest one in this contest, and you seem to have a way of expressing yourself very succinctly. In fact I had the sense that you were intending to communicate "between the lines", so to say. For example, your last remark seems rather cryptic unless one remembers your statements about volume, from which I take it that you were expressing in a very subtle way a criticism of cosmic inflation in addition to the big bang.

I agree with your remarks about human nature, but I think also that there are good reasons why in science people don't immediately jump on the next idea that comes along. As I see it, it is a question of a delicate balance, and yest, often we don't get it right.

Best wishes,

Armin

Dear Mr.Jenkins,

I have no wish to be disrespectful to you or to your essay, but I think abstract mathematics and abstract physics have nothing to do with how the real Universe is occurring for the following real reason:

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 Mr.Jenkins,

Thank you for not reporting my comment to FQXi.org as being inappropriate. The moderator would have classified it as Obnoxious Spam and removed it.

Gratefully,

Joe Fisher

Dear Sherman Loran Jenkins,

I enjoyed your essay wherein you state that one can "just wait for someone else to look at the problem in a new way" while noting that "our basic nature works both to stymie progress and to hold a steady course", combined with "a seeming need to join a crowd and follow a leader." There must be something comfortable about the ruts. I very much agree with your emphasis on intuition, and I discuss such in my essay, which I hope you will read and comment on.

In one of your comments you say "I see at the bottom... only one kind of stuff." I too see only one kind of 'stuff'. If you have not read Marcel Lebel's 2009 essay on the logical justification for such [the first 5 pages], you might enjoy it. The interesting thing is that while the three of us agree that there is substantial unity, we vary in our concept of the substance.

Thanks for your brief essay, and best wishes.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Your essay is co-juncture of thoughts blending one upon the other like a Sandwich.

Good paper!

- Sincerely

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Sherman,

Very important conclusions for search of a ontological basis of fundamental knowledge:

"Time is something totally different and still time is a characteristic related to the volume of space."

"Intuition, observation and a heap of data suggest that at the most fundamental level; universal reality is simple and highly symmetrical. We can puzzle over these facts or entertain the possibility that there is a primary symmetry in a very basic universal structure."

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 and information - polyvalent phenomenon of the ontological (structural) memory of Universum as a whole. 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.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Dear Sherman Jenkins,

I agree with you that FQXi is about thinking outside the box, not 'waiting for someone else to do it'. The problem, as you indicate, is that there are more 'new' ideas than 'correct' ideas, so it would be unwise to follow every new idea. This yields an inertia of old ideas or resistance to new ideas that is frustrating, but absolutely necessary.

I agree that the substance or 'stuff' is not time. That's why I said "the first five pages", in which Marcel presents the logic of substantial unity without yet giving his concept of it. And I agree that two types of 'stuff' does not work. My own preferred 'stuff' is the gravitational field, interpreted as a field, not as geometry. It is impossible to justify this in a comment, but I've touched on it in previous essays, and have done extensive work on it. The field has energy, hence mass, and it interacts with mass, hence itself, in non-linear fashion. With very few exceptions, physicists don't 'do' non-linearity. In my opinion non-linearity at high energy densities (such as are present at the big bang and in LHC-type collisions) has neither been analyzed nor appreciated. I believe it is a serious mistake to think the gravitational field is only relevant in weak field situations, such as between planets, or astronomically large situations, such as galaxies or black holes, and I have derived some fascinating results based on high density, rather than large size. I really hate to present such a radical idea in a short comment, but you asked my concept of the nature of the basic stuff, and that's it. I much prefer to lay out the details as I have done in Bell's case, and that is not possible at this stage of my results.

Thanks for reading my essay and commenting.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Dear Sherman,

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

Sherman,

At this late stage shorter essays are often merciful, I was left wanting for more from yours. I strongly suspect our self deception by putting too much trust in maths due to lack of intuitive comprehension has been disastrous. I analyze one important example in my own essay, which I think you'd like.

You cover an important topic, hit the salient points, and I can say don't over-labour it's self apparent truths. Well done.

Peter