Dear Heinz

Thanks for your comments. Despite your explanation I still don't see any justification of your claim that those theories came out of the blue. For instance, Newton was aware that gravitation was not conveyed in total emptiness, he always held that there was aether. However, his theory does not include it and for this he was criticized. So why at the end was his theory established? First because it made testable predictions and explained known phenomena. Besides, at that time people discovered that it was possible to create vacuum with machines and that light and gravitation could travel through the vacuum. This was an argument that many invoke to justify Newton's gravitational theory. When one studies relativity one easily realizes from analyzing Newton's theory that this formulation suggests that gravitation and acceleration are strongly related: [math]F=ma=G\frac{mM}{r^2}[/math]

by eliminating the inertial mass

[math]a=g=G\frac{M}{r^2}[/math]

we see arrive at the Galilean equivalence principle(Einstein's happiest thought). The rest was just to put these ideas in mathematical terms following the four dimensional formulation of special relativity derived by Minkowski. So, I see no "out of the blue" and similarly for the theory of electrodynamics. For this was also a long and complex process that one can trace back. I do agree that some ideas may come out of the blue, but as you put say it they came from some pre-knowledge.

As for your comments on philosophy, I am aware of Popper, I have read his most important works on the philosophy of science. I have not read much about Spinoza. I know that sometimes propositions cannot be tested for they seem to be beyond experience or data, but as I said, data requires a theoretical framework to have meaning. Experimentation itself cannot rule out propositions because data itself depends on the theoretical framework where laws (principles, propositions) and definitions are embedded. So, in my opinion a model, understood as an abstract construction of some phenomenon, can be useful to understand something about reality (this is how we have built it). For instance, I suppose that materials are composed of atoms with a given arrangement. The atomic composition and the arrangement of the atoms define the physical properties of the material. If I check such or such property of that material and fits with my predictions it means that my model is correct and therefore my model does have explanatory powers because it is helping to understand the observed phenomenon. Models along with the principles help us understand reality.

Israel

Dear Martin

Thanks for your comment. For instance, the electron density [math]\rho (x,y,z)[/math] depends on the spatial variables, and exists because electrons exists, so if the density exists why not its mathematical representation? The problem as I argue in my essay is that we think that what exists is what we can detect with instruments or our senses but that just half of the story. I think you should first start by telling what you understand by "exist".

Regards

Dear Peter

Thanks for reading my essay, I am glad you find it interesting. Definitely you have a very good memory, I do recall we discussed these matters in the past. I am sorry for not recalling the details and thanks for the reminder. The reference appears to be interesting, I will take a look at it asap. As I argue in my essay, math does not tell the whole story. The preferred frame is sound and can be used to make some progress in physics, let's see what happens in the following years in this respect. The article you cite seems to be in agreement with this view.

As for Einstein's arguments, it seems that he was happy with the mathematical formulation of general relativity but not very much with references frames. In the book Relativity authored by Pauli, it is clear that Einstein's tried several times to remove any trace of the absolute frame, without success.

Thanks again, I will read your essay and leave some comments asap. I am sure you did a good job.

Regards

Israel I appreciated your essay. Perhaps because my creation theory came from "physical understanding" and then finding the mathematics to explain the measurements. In my essay I describe a flowing "picture" of compositional changes that originate in chaos and become our universe. It also creates the mathematics that can be used to describe it and match the its measurements. I would appreciate your comments (coming from your perspective) on my "revised" essay. John Crowell.

    Dear John

    Thanks for reading my essay. I am happy that you found it interesting. Certainly, I will take a look at your work and leave some comments. To make some progress in physics either mathematical or physical understanding is valuable.

    Regards

    Israel

    Dear Israel,

    I indeed meant that the actual density is not the same "thing" as its mathematical representation. In models of the density, the model is commonly only an approximation of the real density, due to all sorts of approximations that are necessary for being able to calculate a result. E.g. the exchange-correlation functional of an interacting many-particle system can only be approximated, e.g. by assuming the local density approximation, etc. So the model density is not even numerically identical with the actual density.

    I only said this as I see this as being a problem in foundational physics. In general relativity there is a curved spacetime, but this is just a mathematical representation. And what is, in quantum field theory, the field PSI(x,y,z,t)? Why assume that this is a physical field? Historically, this field has only been created in order to describe experimental results.

    Another question is what is meant with "exists". In what sense does the number 5 exist? I think it means that we have a formalized manner of using the symbol "5".

    Dear Martin

    Have you read my essay? There I explain that our brain builds reality according to experimental data that is interpreted in our brain with electrochemical patterns leading to a theoretical framework. The interpretation can be given in terms of sensory-data or in terms of abstractions, such as mathematics. Mathematics can be seen just as a codification of sensory data which is used to model and quantify our physical representations. But physical representations, are just electrochemical patterns, similar to strings of bits in a computer. So, why should we narrow our view to believe that what are senses/instruments detect "exists" and the mathematical codifications of this same information doesn't?

    It is as if we were giving more physical significance to a program that is written in fortran and ignoring another program that does the same as the former but it is written in C++. Why should we think that the program written in C++ is just a representation of the other just because it is written with different symbols and different grammar?

    Best regards

    Israel

    Israel

    I have answered your post on my page.

    Regards ________________ John-Erik

    Yes, OK, "mind" is physical. And so are feelings.

    But I meant: why assume that our mathematical representations exist "out there"?

    Dear Israel,

    Thanks for this essay, whose main point cannot be stressed enough - indeed even Einstein did not appreciate it, especially in his later life. An interesting and polemical analysis in this direction is also contained in Sabine Hossenfelder's book Lost in Math. As you say, it is all about balancing physics, math and measurement, Newton understood this! Best wishes, Klaas Landsman

      Because we assume that our "physical" representations exist out there!

      Dear Klass

      Thanks for leaving some comments, I appreciate it. I hope you enjoyed it.

      Best Regards

      Israel

      Dear Israel,

      Your enjoyable essay makes a very good case for more ontological reasoning in physics, rather than just remaining lost in the maths wilderness, where we have been stuck for decades in many areas of physics.

      My particular areas of interest are particle physics, time and the aether. By complete chance, back in 2002, I discovered a new preon theory, which I have named gimli theory. You quote Feynman "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." Gimli theory works and gives consistent outcomes that agree with experiment.

      The point here is that a reductionist theory that works (agrees with experiments) can give new structural insights into the world of particles, and these insights can lead to a dismantling of much of the patchwork of quantum field theories of the Standard Model. Gimli theory is not based on heavy mathematics at all, yet it can provide many answers to big questions because of its ontology.

      My grumble is that mainstream physics journals do not want any "maverick" theories challenging the status quo, unless put forward by a Nobel laureate, and even then it may still be difficult. New physics theories heavy in math tend to be only read by the few in the clique, and are often beyond the grasp of philosophers of physics.

      You state that physical understanding is crucial to make headway; otherwise we might continue to be lost in math and measurements. I fully agree with you!

      As my entry is my first ever FQXI essay, I tried to stick to examples of undecidability, computability and unpredictability, in my considerations of a TOE, although I do wander on to the philosophical time topic of presentism which I currently endorse.

      I am currently reading your 2012 FQXI essay "The preferred system of Reference Reloaded" which is a brilliant essay. It is a pity that I have only just discovered FQXI, partially due to me working in almost total (physics) isolation for the last twenty years developing my 'structural' theories of space, time, aether and particles. The advantages of being a hermit (not visiting physics forums) is that you can keep ideas pure during development. Of course, one needs good reference material to work with from the start.

      Good luck with your essay and 'may physical theoretical frameworks come into prominence'! (ie. may the force be with you)

      Lockie Cresswell

        Dear Lockie Cresswell

        Thank you for comments and for reading my essay. I am pleased that you enjoyed it. I am surprise that you also mention my previous entry, which by the way it was a 4th prize winner from the 2012 contest. I hope you enjoy it as well.

        It will be interesting to read your essay, this contest it's been for about 10 years. If you think you have develop a relevant theory, you should try publishing it in a recognized journal. That's my advice.

        Best Regards

        Israel

        When I burn my fingers then I conclude that I have touched something external, yes.

        Dear Israel,

        I enjoyed reading your essay.

        It does propose various claims with which I would tend to disagree but in any case they are well argued for.

        I have some questions/ comments if I may:

        -You said that "For if science is not about truth, then scienti fic activity becomes meaningless and in that case I should not be writing this essay". What if science is about unravelling "facets" of the truth rather than some absolute one way of looking at the world? Would that still make it meaningless?

        - In your well-thought diverse examples to show that mathematics alone is not enough and ampliative principles from physics are necessary, I would more than agree with you.

        But I thought that the way it was phrased was somehow unfair to the practice of mathematics. When solving an equation, an actual mathematician would ask in what space we are looking for the solutions. In the case of the degree 2 polynomial equation for the radius of a quantum dot, physics compels us to search for solutions in the set of positive real numbers. With regards to the particle in a box problem, I would argue the same. Although I totally agree with the main message, the mathematics problem that should be posed is that we are looking for a wave function psi(x) that satisfies the time-independent Schrodinger equation, hard boundary conditions at the walls and is normalised. If one chooses n=0, the last condition is not fulfilled since the wave function is identically zero everywhere. It is not that we decide to discard it for the sake of it, it just not satisfies the properties of a wave function.

        - Of course we can also come back to the while discussion on relativity of motion later on :) .

        I would be happy to know your thoughts on the questions/comments above.

        Best,

        Fabien