Langsung ke konten utama


Menampilkan postingan dari Februari, 2017

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

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…

On fundamental problems with calculus

Hello Victor and Prof. Florentin,

I fully agree that "calculus" is a deeply troubled theory of mathematics,
which lead to the more troubled theory of mathematics called topology
which ended up with a largest play ground for "problem solvers" to
enumerate problems and publish papers endlessly.

Going back to the calculus, historically it is false that this was
developed by Newton and Leibniz. About three hundred years before it was
developed in India.  They did not use it for building Physics. They just
wanted to build a mathematical model of celestial system to be used for
agriculture. I do not know if these two developments are independent.

The issue in Calculus a la Europe is that it was impossible to define the
concept of "limit" articulately. It took about two centuries for European
(mostly German) mathematicians to gain this concept properly using the
theory of complete ordered field and epsilon-delta argument. This approach
developed into general topology from whi…

On Metatheoretical critics on Quantum Mechanics (Carlos Aranda)


I fully agree. As I keep saying, there problem lies in both logic and
empiricism. Because of the vast difference between them, scientists shied
away from discussing the implication of this difference. As the logical
study reached to astounding height in the development of information
science and technological advancement made it possible for empirical
science such as physics to study structurally very complex realities, we
started to feel that there must be some serious dialogue in between these
two gigantic scientific achievement. On this, I appreciate that Prof.
Feynmann initiated a dialog between elementary level logic and theoretical
physics. It is a shame that this project disappeared.

However, there is a tension of social or political nature in between them
as we have already been experiencing in this very interesting list. For me
difference is more important and productive than uniformity which always
is the end of progress and so often the product of some political
interference silen…

On wave-particle duality

Dear Victor and Siegfried,

It was Prof. Tomonaga who said that when a theory is in crisis [like now],
we must go back and trace the history of the development of the  theory to
understand how the theory was developed.

It is my view that the most fundamental issue with QM is that of
wave-particle duality. This problem arose from two historic events:

(1) Double Slit Experiment.
(2) Black Body Radiation.

Regarding (1): They claim that QM succeeded in explicating this mystery of
Double Slit Experiment.  Their argument uses the Uncertainty Principle
which says that when a particle is localized it turns into wave. The
higher the resolution of the localization, the more particle nature turns
into wave nature. According to them the rather low resolution of the slit
on a wall is enough for a particle to loose its trajectory. This claim is
demolished by the Wilson Chamber in which particles localized at the
resolution of the size of water molecule which is much much much much ...
much higher resolution than th…

QM is deeply inconsistent and full of contradictions


I mentioned that from a contradiction, one can prove anything. Here is an
explanation for this well known result in logic.

Historically there was a long lasted dispute on the meaning of logical
implication P-->Q.
The following table is currently accepted meaning of P-->Q

                    P Q   P-->Q
                    t t     t
                    t f     f
                    f t     t
                    f f     f

This is called material implication and the dispute on this is for the
case P=f. There are still some philosophical dispute on this meaning going
on. But in mathematicians community this is well established. The reason
why we need this "strange" truth values for P-->Q when P=f is simple. We
need it to make sure that the logical equivalence P<-->Q
which has the following truth table for meaning

                    P Q   P-->Q
                    t  t    t
                    t  f    …