On problems with theoretical physics

Dear Prof. Dr. Brian D. Josephson,

This is a follow up to what I have been complaining about the way
theoretical physicists use mathematics. BTW, to be very honest, I have no
quarrel with engineers and applied physicists most of whom agree with my
complaint and they go even further saying that theoretical physics is a
religion. When I told them about the contribution of scholastic philosophy
to the development of mathematical logic and information science, they
understood.

So, where does theoretical physics or mathematical physics stands? This is
a serious question.

As I discussed with Dr. Belher, I have a serious problem with the way
physicists use mathematics.  For them, mathematics is a "language", a
bunch of formulas to be picked up and used in whatever convenient way
possible. In mathematics, mathematical formulas are developed in theories
and they are not independent. Each mathematical formulas have its own
context and ignoring the context quickly leads to inconsistency.

Going back to the mathematical physics v.s. mathematics. For pure
mathematicians differential equations and their solutions are different
things. One differential equation can have infinitely many solutions as
you know well. So, for mathematicians who understand logic well, it is
astounding that physicists expect that one differential equations capture
all properties of its solutions. Differential equation is nothing but a
good abstraction of a bunch of functions which satisfy the equation. For
physicists this is all waste of time. For then mathematics is just to get
solutions and plugin numbers to get the number correct. This for us is
totally foreign.

I presented a tragic consequence of this get number correct mathematics
which ruled the late 19th and early 20th century physics. It was Lorentz
who made a fatal error in this context. He was shocked by that when we
apply Galilean transformation to a wave equation, it is not a wave
equation anymore. He was quite satisfied by his discovery that his Lorentz
Transformation preserves wave functions. This was picked up by Einstein
and the theory of Lorentz transformation as the theory of constant speed
moving reference frames was developed as STR.

What both Lorentz and Einstein failed to understand is that when we
transform using Galilean Transformation, a wave function, it produces a
wave function. So, what more do we want? What is the fuss on the GT all
about? After all GT is not a linear transformation as it involves dynamic
translation.

Similar kind of the lack of understanding of mathematics physicist use
appeared in yet another issue which I discussed with Dr. Belher.  This
appeared in QM.

As Schrodinger's wave equation failed to be relativistic despite heroic
effort by Schrodinger to make it work, Gordon-Klien made a canning way out
of the problem which unfortunately showed nothing but the ignorance and
lack of integrity of the thinking of mathematical physicists. To being
with what do you expect from Schrodinger's wave equation which came from
the inconsistent theory of combining classical dynamics of Hamilton and
relativistic theory of de Droglie relation. Moreover, Gordon-Kelin took
the energy-momentum relation of Einstein as the essence of STR and they
"quantized it by replacing energy and momentum variable with quantum
energy operator and momentum operator. Only a theoretical physicist would
do things like this.  No wonder there are way too many "quantizations" in
QM and they contradicts each other as I pointed out.

To begin with the infamous energy-momentum relation of Einstein is false.
It came from the ill fated e=mc^2 relation. The standard derivation
assumes that the speed of inertial reference frames could be in
acceleration, which is  in abosolute contradiction with the definition of
inertial frames. When we respect the definition of inertial frames, we
come up with e=0 as I told you.   Here it goes. Einstein defined the
relativistic mass to be m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) where m0 is the rest mass and v
is the relative speed of the inertial reference frame. From this he
defined relativistic momentum as

p=mv=m0(v)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).

The he defined the relativistic second law as f=dp/dt.

This is a secondary school level mistake that he did not notice that as v
is constant, f=0. This leads to e=0, instead of e=mc^2 unfortunately. This
again is a secondry school level mathematical error.  All theoretical
physicists of the last century "believed" in this  for the fear of being
purged by the corrupted community of name calling, intimidation and
blackmailing. Who wants to be called "crank", "crack pot" or "lunatic
fringe". Yes I was called "lunatic fringe" by several academic
conferences. Somebody in NPA said it is all "Emperor's New Cloth".

So, Brian, you said that by glancing at what I wrote here in this list,
you guessed what type of researcher I was. Yes you did it correct! I do
not put cloth on my mouth. I just keep asking questions and demanding the
right answers until I get one. What is wrong with it. In academy, we all
age and in the end what is important is what is the truth. Nothing else
matters as you know well. I am a direct person who do not hide behind
something big.

I will continue to ask questions on not only QM but also on entire
theoretical physics. After all QM was a final product of this totally
corrupted discipline of theoretical physics in which what matters is how
successfully one agrees with the "geniuses".

Akira
-------

I've no idea what point you're trying to make.  Did you yourself follow the details of the paper by Mott that I cited, which I came across in my travels a long time ago?  It sounds a bit as if what you're saying is "I don't understand this paper, therefore it is wrong".

Brian

------

Brian D. Josephson

Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge

Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project

Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK

WWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10

Tel. +44(0)1223 37260/337254