Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest


Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams

Previous Contests

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Dr Hu: on 11/11/12 at 13:03pm UTC, wrote Boys, boys, this is to judge hypothesis, not the people who created them....

Joaquin: on 6/20/12 at 21:12pm UTC, wrote Why don't you and Mathis seek funds to conduct experiments. If Mathis can...

Joaquin: on 6/20/12 at 20:44pm UTC, wrote You only assume the possibility that truth passes through three stages. The...

David Ritter: on 6/18/12 at 5:12am UTC, wrote Who knows what turned Mathis into the deluded blowhard and clown that he is...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/29/12 at 13:36pm UTC, wrote Interesting this essay. My english was very bad.Now it is not perfect but I...

Bill Miller: on 5/28/12 at 22:03pm UTC, wrote Hilarious takedown of one of the Internet's greatest self-creations. He is...

katesisco: on 1/14/11 at 20:05pm UTC, wrote Well, I am not trained in math or physics. Actually I can do art. I read...

xray: on 11/24/10 at 20:28pm UTC, wrote D, practitioner of the Sherlock Holmes method, defender of the scientific...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve, Please try to understand that infinite surface am not a..." in Watching the Observers

Steve Agnew: "Supposing the universe is infinite is simply another way of supposing the..." in Watching the Observers

kurt stocklmeir: "spring constant of time and space is not linear - this influences a lot of..." in Alternative Models of...

Kevin Adams: "Very interesting theme! Thanks a lot for this information. I just going to..." in Multiversal Journeys —...

Colin Richardson: ""According to quantum mechanics, a vacuum isn't empty at all. It's actually..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

Lorraine Ford: "Dear Rajiv, I have already addressed your 3 points, but I will put it to..." in FQXi Essay Contest 2016:...

Peter Morgan: "An e-mail sent to me by Springer Nature today tells me that because I am at..." in Manipulating the Quantum...

munized ward: "Variety exists inside all populaces of life forms. This happens somewhat in..." in Natural Selection in...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Watching the Observers
Accounting for quantum fuzziness could help us measure space and time—and the cosmos—more accurately.

Bohemian Reality: Searching for a Quantum Connection to Consciousness
Is there are sweet spot where artificial intelligence systems could have the maximum amount of consciousness while retaining powerful quantum properties?

Quantum Replicants: Should future androids dream of quantum sheep?
To build the ultimate artificial mimics of real life systems, we may need to use quantum memory.

Painting a QBist Picture of Reality
A radical interpretation of physics makes quantum theory more personal.

The Spacetime Revolutionary
Carlo Rovelli describes how black holes may transition to "white holes," according to loop quantum gravity, a radical rewrite of fundamental physics.


FQXi FORUM
June 24, 2017

CATEGORY: What's Ultimately Possible in Physics? Essay Contest (2009) [back]
TOPIC: Two steps back, one leap forward by Steven Oostdijk [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 8, 2009 @ 11:33 GMT
Essay Abstract

In this essay it will be argued that during the last century physicists have lost their way due to a misguided pursuit of higher math, substituting that math for physical reality. It is necessary to return to the roots of physical theories and simple mechanical explanations in order to answer the challenge of this essay contest. Using the testimony of several contemporary authors, it will be shown that Unified Theories of physics are already hiding in plain sight, camouflaged only by a century of overly complex math.

Author Bio

Graduated from Delft University of Technology with a MsC in Electrical Engineering. Worked for Philips Research and Philips/NXP semiconductors. Indepentely interested in physics.

Download Essay PDF File




Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 00:10 GMT
Greetings,

An interesting essay. Not too difficult to read, and it brings up some interesting points. I make a few similar suggestions in my contest essay. For starters, I state that "The equation is not the phenomenon we are using Math to model" as an extension of Korzybski's quoted statement "the word is not the thing, the map is not the territory."

It seems that there was some hesitation, given that your essay was the last to be posted, but I am glad we are able to read it. You will find the full range in this contest, from ideas and theories heavily founded on Math, to others which argue as you do that we are too Math bitten - and have forgotten how to think conceptually. Understanding is really what we need, in order to do real Science.

I am firmly in both camps, as I feel strongly that many physicists hide behind the Math - or use it as a crutch - being able to manipulate symbols well, without fully grasping the meaning, or remembering that the equations are a model of something tangible. On the other hand, I am a die hard constructivist (if it exists, it had to be constructed somehow) who believes that structures arising from pure Mathematics are used as a template by nature, to help create what we observe.

But I will agree that Math is not Physics, and that the two should not be confused.

Good Luck,

Jonathan J. Dickau

report post as inappropriate


Uncle Al wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 00:49 GMT
You say, "Assuming a lightray passing the sun travels to earth in about 500s and assigning the acceleration of gravity to an expansion of the Earth, we can then calculate the observed position of this lightray on earth:" You do know that light falls with twice the expected Newtonian acceleration, right? An expansion of the Earth would bollox GPS, water mains, and levitated dual sphere superconducting gravimeters gravimeters sensitive to parts-per-billion relative. arXiv:gr-qc/9909014; Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003); Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004); Nature 425 374-376 (2003); http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ Section 3.4.1, Figure 5. http://www.gwrinstruments.com/gravity/gravityindex.htm

You say, "Miles Mathis has mathematically deconstructed Planck's constant to prove that all photons (even charge photons) are real particles with size, spin and mass" You do know that photon-photon vacuum scattering, theory and observation, laughs at that, right? Phys. Rev. 46 1087 (1934) then Phys. Rev. Let. 79 1626 (1997). You say, "Specifically, it is shown that the photon has a radius G times the radius of the proton." If so, photons woudl vacuum scatter outside theory and observation. You are wrong.

You say, "time is only a perception of the human mind." If you don't like oscillators, try radioactive decay (but not electron capture decay). Uranium and thorium in mica and zircons are powerful counterarguments to your proposition. Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon? Its walls are layered - 6000 vertical feet of rock layering. With fossils, too. Colorado oil shale started as lake varves, 1000+ foot depth of 1/4" layers. None of that happened simultaneously or over a week.

Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model, Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009). DI Herculis' anomalous orbital precession reconciled with General Relativity, arxiv:0909.2861 http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417 Deeply relativistic neutron star binary PSR J0737-3039A/B with a 16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance, arxiv:astro-ph/0609417 Yer gonna need more than steel taps on your shoes to dance around those puppies.

Truths need not be believable, they merely self-consistently exist. Lies must be believable. Consequently, lies are usually much more believable than the truth. For all that, ignorance is not a form of knowing things.

report post as inappropriate


Author Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 11:39 GMT
Dear Jonathan,

Thanks for your kind words. It seems that sometimes we are on the same line of thought, especially when I read the following statements in your essay:

"many physicists treat equations as though they ARE the facts",

"Vacuum energy estimates differ by as much as 120 orders of magnitude in different theories", and

"maybe we become wise".

But I also have the impression that you are still awed by the great white clouds of higher math that have been deployed by physicists in the last century. Don't, it is just like a circus act. Before we go deep into math I think we should first study the full implications of the theories of Relativity on the relativity of velocities and accelerations and the postulate that (real) photons are the information/property carriers of space and time. This requires no more than simple algebra. Actually we should go further back to the origin of calculus and realize that the number zero is unphysical. In physics theories and formula's we should start and end with delta's and the smallest delta we have found sofar is a photon.

I hope the contest is an open learning experience for everybody and I wish you success as well!

Steven Oostdijk




Author Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 12:19 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

I have the impression that you are drawing conclusions from the essay that are not in there.

For instance you mention:

"An expansion of the Earth would bollox GPS, water mains, ...".

This does not happen if ALL matter expands at the same rate including photons. Actually that is what is shown in Miles Mathis' Unified Field equations. The gravity effects at atomic level have been ignored in the current theories or been hidden in incomprehensible constants.

Also you mention:

"You state that all photons (even charge photons) are real particles with size, spin and mass" You do know that photon-photon vacuum scattering, theory and observation, laughs at that, right? Phys. Rev. 46 1087 (1934) then Phys. Rev. Let. 79 1626 (1997). You say, "Specifically, it is shown that the photon has a radius G times the radius of the proton." If so, photons woudl vacuum scatter outside theory and observation. You are wrong."

You have to explain me how these experiments prove that photons are not real and do not have size, spin and mass. Unfortunately I'm not at work today, so I have no access to the library, but the Abstract of the second article states "These results are the first laboratory evidence for inelastic light-by-light scattering involving only real photons.", which would prove my statement.

(continued in next post since the editor does not accept longer posts)




Author Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 12:25 GMT
Then you mention:

"You state, time is only a perception of the human mind.".

That is a strawman since I stated that only as one of the options. My most prominent suggestion is that only motion is real and that time and space are two separate and indistinguishable emergent aspects of that.

Your next statement is:

"Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model, . DI Herculis' anomalous orbital precession reconciled with General Relativity, Deeply relativistic neutron star binary PSR J0737-3039A/B with a 16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance, Yer gonna need more than steel taps on your shoes to dance around those puppies."

Also that is a strawman since the essay agrees with the theories of Relativity. It just disagrees with the math. The essay shows that using Einsteins Equivalence principle the math content of GR can be reduced to Euclidian geometry and high school algebra. The numeric results will be identical.

Finally your suggestions as stated in your sentence:

"Truths need not be believable, they merely self-consistently exist. Lies must be believable. Consequently, lies are usually much more believable than the truth. For all that, ignorance is not a form of knowing things."

are taken at heart. I would just add: "Fiction needs to be plausible, reality is under no such constraint".

My gratitude for your comments,

Steven Oostdijk




Anonymous wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 15:17 GMT
Dear Steven

Excellent essay. I'd have a few issues with detail but discussing those would be churlish as your main thrust is so important, we really must take the mathematical blinkers off. Maths is an important tool but no more. Perhaps to test and work hand in hand exporing theory and models, but it can't generate them. I demonstrate this in my own essay, which goes a little further and links to a real model proving what you say is true. I'd be most grateful if you'd check it out and comment.

It's based on some of AE's philosophy, as yours is; "We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive."

"Problems cannot be solved at the same level of awareness that created them." and

"as far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. ... "

Best wishes

Peter Jackson

report post as inappropriate


Uncle Al wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 17:05 GMT
You say, "his does not happen if ALL matter expands at the same rate including photons." Physics is neither uniformly linear nor nonlinear. A zoom lens is no more valid than a mirror (Yang and Lee) . GRB 090423 at redshift z = 8.2. Given "matter expansion" making your local maunder fly, how big was the universe then compared to now? How does uniform expansion affect anything in your argument and differential expansion not be trivially detectable as wrong?

The hydrogen atom 21 cm line is measured and modeled accurate to 14 significant figures. High field multinuclear Fourier transform supercon NMR spectra are sub-parts-per-billion consistent with 1960s continuous wave vacuum tube electromagnet NMR spectra. SLAC, FermiLab, CERN, RHIC... work to exact spec as does GPS with its relativistic corrections (Shapiro delay). "Alternative" theories with no empirical basis are jokes. *All* of physics is *simultaneously* self-consistent.

Absent a reproducible falsifying observation (Galileo vs. Aristotle), an empirical falsification of a founding postulate (elliptic and hyperbolic geometries versus Euclid; then Thurston), or more inclusive and *testable* theory that defaults to its predecessor (Einstein vs. Newton), you offer nothing. Curve fitting interpolates arbitrarily well and extrapolates not at all. Long Term Capital Management was a theoretical sure thing fueled by Nobel Laureates. It went $4.6 billion negative in 1998 and imploded despite a notional value of ~$1.25 trillion. Sound familiar re 2008? Defective theory is intolerable.

Do better. Community = 3.2 vote is a wry amusement.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 17:48 GMT
Hi dear Mr Steven Oostdijk,

Very pragmatic essay and where we see the balance necessary between math and sciences .Congratulations and good luck for the contest.

I liked a lot your words ,well said !

" Before we go deep into math I think we should first study the full implications of the theories of Relativity on the relativity of velocities and accelerations and the postulate that (real) photons are the information/property carriers of space and time."

Dear Uncle Al ,

Any sense in a whole point of vue ,you can say 90 per cent of corrects datas ,things or equations ,if your reasonning ,the 20 per cent which rest ,are like that without sense about the fundamentals . This kind of mind don't act in total universality but in closed circle where anybody for contradict your words .

That names the vanity .

You confound all about the theories ,you can't distinguish the real fundamentals with this pragmatism which aren't a pragmatism in fact in the whole .

This kind oof reflexion is intolerable in an universal point of vue where the complementarity is fudamental .

All goes to the sphere ,the spherisation with or without your appovement .And all others fundamernatls ideas or THEORIES where the imaginaries ,the naturals ,the primes and the reals are harmonized in function with our specific thermodynamic and its mass .

The theory and the fundamentals are all .

The essay of Mr Oostdijk is very interesting about the real sense of physics where even the math must be adapted .The actual problem with the theories like you say is the extrapolations ,purely mathematical in the imaginaries .

Don't confound ,somebody should look ...hihihihi

rational ,fundamenatl ,pragmatism ,basic,and theoretical ...

Sincerely

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 22:47 GMT
Dear Uncle Al,

From your tone I must understand that you are still reading more in the paper than was put into it. I'll try to answer your remarks but I'm no expert on every topic.

Your question: "How does uniform expansion affect anything in your argument and differential expansion not be trivially detectable as wrong?"

My answer: Size is relative too. Our measuring sticks of space and time are photons. If photons follow the same expansion the local results will read the same, we will see differences when we are comparing photons arriving from different distances as described by GR.

(cont'd).

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 9, 2009 @ 22:52 GMT
You mention a whole list of accurate results. I do not see where the essay denies those. But for at least one I can help you out of a dream: GPS is not dependent on results of the theories of Relativity to function since GPS receivers do not depend on a local clock. GPS functions by syncing all satellites to one ground clock (we could only call this "Lorentzian relativity) and the receivers only compensate for first and second order Doppler effects.

You mention:

"Absent a reproducible falsifying observation (Galileo vs. Aristotle), an empirical falsification of a founding postulate (elliptic and hyperbolic geometries versus Euclid; then Thurston), or more inclusive and *testable* theory that defaults to its predecessor (Einstein vs. Newton), you offer nothing. Curve fitting interpolates arbitrarily well and extrapolates not at all. Long Term Capital Management was a theoretical sure thing fueled by Nobel Laureates. It went $4.6 billion negative in 1998 and imploded despite a notional value of ~$1.25 trillion. Sound familiar re 2008? Defective theory is intolerable."

That paragraph unfortunately does not convey any meaning to me.

You say "Do better. Community = 3.2 vote is a wry amusement"

Then I say: score 3.2 seems to be about average.

Thanks for your comments,

Steven

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 15:24 GMT
Dear Steven Oostdijk,

Meanwhile there are so many distracting essays that I did not got aware of you before, by chance, I read some discussion with Arjen Dijksman.

I would appreciate someone who collected at least the names of all those who contributed valuable arguments in favor of a physics that is not misled by questionable mathematics or at least questionable interpretations.

I do not refer to the perhaps many ones with merely a gut feeling that LHC will not confirm SUSY, and quantum computers will not work as promised.

Among those who seem to share this view might be Terry Padden, Uncle Al, you and me.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Ben Baten wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 17:56 GMT
Dear Steven,

I very much enjoyed the first few pages of your resume which express quite well some of the issues of current physics. A clear example of questionable theoretical development is the introduction of all kinds of (virtual) particles beyond already observed real massive particles and photons. This is very well demonstrated by the quoted article.

From my perspective, the pages were you present other people's work are less convincing since they have similar issues as current physics. Application of a formal approach, starting out with formulas and proceeding with manipulations thereof, is unlikely to match reality. In principle, there are an infinite number of possible formalizations. I agree that time plays a special role in physics and should not be viewed as a dimension. This is already clear when one considers that time progresses. That is, it has an asymmetric character. This phenomenon cannot be resolved by formal considerations. Most equations in physics are symmetric in time and assume that time has a continuous character. Based on those equations it will never be possible to demonstrate what the character of time is. Introduction of 3 extra time 'dimensions', as you indicate in your essay, seems to be based on formal considerations and is not based on currently observed observed reality.

I would like to point you to an alternative approach in which theory follows from a reality-based approach. This theory starts with the already observed four fundamental interactions. Moreover, it considers the fact that existence of any object (particle) is only possible as a perturbation in some medium when it is stabilized by some other means. From these considerations, a theory is developed that exhibits quantum and relativistic features and demonstrates how space and asymmetric time can be viewed. Furthermore, this theory indicates the existence of only massive particles and photons and does not produce virtual particles or any other exotic particles, although prediction of particle masses remains a topic of further research.

I have provided an overview of this theory in my essay which, admittedly, suffers from some shortcuts making it less transparent. The references provide the indepth rationalization but are, as far as I can tell, are hardly consulted. A slide deck on my website provides an alternative description.

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 10, 2009 @ 21:54 GMT
Dear Ben,

Thanks for you comments. Unfortunately I have no time to go through your website in detail since I want to spend time on the contest first, but I could already answer some of the questions you put up there:

You question, what:

is time? - The spin motion of photons

is space? - The linear motion of photons

Planck's constant - Hiding the mass of photons

is mass - An expansion of all matter, including photons

is matter (electrons, protons ...) - spinning photons

is charge - bombardment with photons

is spin - photons spinning axially or 'head to tail' in three dimensions

gravity - the same as mass or inertia (expanding matter)

is electromagnetism - result of the photon bombardment field

are photons - the smallest known particles, the units of spacetime

is life - matter reproducing itself

is dark energy and dark matter - not taking into account the photon masses

are the causes of quantum paradoxes - there are none if you realize all particles are real

is the speed of light an upper limit for physical interactions - do we know for sure?

does the universe exist - to ask this question

does the universe seem to expand (does it really?)- everything expands, but size is relative

Steven Oostdijk

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 14:44 GMT
Dear Steven,

I have finally read your entry (and the works of the 4 people you cite). The first thing I need to ask is: what is your actual contribution to it, because it looks mostly a Miles Mathis type of paper?

The second question is about what degree you consider Miles Mathis’s ideas right? Simply from a likelihood point of view, what are the chances that he is right and all the other bright guys over hundreds of years were wrong? Now there is no smoke without fire, and he is rooting his analysis on umbral calculus, certainly a valid mathematical approach, but on the physics explanation he is completely off the mark.

Florin

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 15:14 GMT
Dear Florin,

Thanks for your contribution. I think you have very well understood the core of the paper. It was indeed written with cooperation from Miles, but he is not interested in these types of contests. You can say the argumentation and storyline are mine while most physical content from Miles.

From your question I can see you have read some pages from Miles, but definitely not all 1200 of them. And since when is the thruth determined by majority voting as you suggest? Physics is not politics, but the determination of the simplest expressions of physical thruths. Does the fact that we probably spend about 100000 manyears on string theory in the meantime make it true? Did the fact that Albert Einstein was just one man with five major physics papers in this one year 1905 make them less true?

(cont'd, the editor does'nt allow me longer texts)

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 15:16 GMT
A discussion about right or wrong is a hard one since a lot of mainstream result interpretation is covered in great white clouds of math. How to determine if a 'virtual particle' is real? Mainstream claims that photons have no mass, but have momentum and a wavelength. Miles simply shows that photons are real particles with a mass and a spin, so that the claimed 'virtual' or 'messenger' photons are also real. I would say that by Occam's razor his interpretation would prevail hands down.

Miles shows that Relativity is indeed real but that GR can be done with simple algebra by really applying the equivalence principle. Again a hands down win. It might even be that using the simple algebra and the fact that the real photon field stabilizes planetary orbits it will become possible to calculate a multi body orbit :)

Could you reveal a little more detail where you think Miles' theories are off the mark?

Good luck with the contest,

Steven Oostdijk

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Oct. 11, 2009 @ 23:25 GMT
Dear Steven,

Indeed I did not read all 1200 pages, but I read quite a few and I did not see even a single correct one yet. Let’s pick two at random:

“The collapse of the wave function:” It not only cannot predict individual outcomes, it can’t even predict probabilities, as I showed above. If the probabilities of the wave equations matched the probabilities of experiments, then you wouldn’t need a collapse of the wave function, even as it is defined now.” This is wrong on two counts: 1. the collapse of the wave function has nothing to do with the probabilities QM calculates. Here is the classical analogue. Consider a standard dice (die). The probability to roll each number is 1/6 and it all adds up to 1. I roll the die and say I get a 3. At that moment the probability to roll any other number collapses to 0 for 1,2,4,5,6 and 1 for 3. The QM wavefunction collapse is the same thing, but what is strange in nonrelativistic QM is not the collapse per se, but that it involves a non-unitary evolution while the standard evolution of the wavefunction is always unitary. This is strange because if everything is quantum mechanical then the system + measuring device should also obey the QM rules and the combined evolution should be unitary but this is not what is observed experimentally. Classical mechanics has no such problems and we can understand its collapse within the Poison bracket formalism. The second mistake is that QM does compute the probabilities correctly and in total agreement with experiment. If that were not the case, Einstein would have had a much easier case to make against Bohr.

“Unifying the proton with the electron”. After the experiments of the deep inelastic electron scattering against the proton, we now know that the proton is a composite particle made out of 3 quarks. Quarks were predicted earlier to explain conservation of various quantum numbers, but nobody accepted them until the scattering experiments. Therefore any unification of the proton with the electron is still born. And by the way, the mass of the proton was already obtained in numerical simulations and therefore the statement: “Once again, we have been told that the number 1820 is a fluke or a mystery, beyond physical comprehension, akin to the question of why horses have four legs instead of eight.” is vacuous.

Coming back to your essay, I do like your example of how to compute the light bending, and I also enjoyed the picture in a picture in a picture. Good luck to you too.

Florin

report post as inappropriate


Anton W.M. Biermans wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 01:54 GMT
‘The future of physics is shown most clearly in the discovery by a contemporary author that it is not necessary to unify the gravity and E/M fields, since they are both already unified field equations..’

I completely agree as I’ve come to the same conclusion via an entirely different path. The following is part of a rely at my essay (Mechanics of a Self-Creating Universe):

If a particle cannot distinguish by what force or field it is accelerated, if the field by accelerating it brings its inertia to expression as gravity, as a force between the source of the field and the particle, then we should apply the equivalence principle (if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck … ) by saying that electromagnetism is but a way to manipulate gravity. As long as we insist it to be a wholly different kind of force, completely independent from gravity, it indeed will stay a force unifyable with gravity. So when I read about the quest for the unification of gravity with electromagnetics, about gravitons and Higgs particles and other nonsense like Big Bang and Inflation hypotheses, I wonder whether I should take the trouble to learn the lingo. To mee it seems that our toolbox (maths and models) has taken over physics, which, however invaluable, for different reasons is a sorry state of affairs. More about ducks you can find in my reply of 9 oct. to Arjen Dijksman above.

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 12, 2009 @ 21:58 GMT
Dear Florin,

I applaud the effort you took to at least read Miles' website. Most mainstream trained people dismiss him as 'fringe' before reading. Let me see if I can formulate a quick answer for the two topics you mentioned to be incorrect:

1. The collapse of the wave function

Probability math gives us only probabilities and no physical answers. It is simply incomplete. But QM does not even give the right probabilities. What Miles argues is that the collapse of the wave function is a desperate attempt of QM to mask that their math is just not giving a real physical answer. We could describe classical mechanics with statistics, but Newton's theories actually give a straight answer.

2. Unifying the proton with the electron

We do not have any macroscopic proof of the existence of quark "particles". We just see three peaks showing up in experiments. Miles shows how the electron and proton are three levels of spin(x,y,z) apart (explaining what is now interpreted as quarks) and how the mass ratio between the electron and proton can be simply explained by these spin levels, directly yielding the ~1821 ratio.

If you already were convinced that GR can be done in a simpler way, why could that not hold for other theories as well?

Thanks for your questions,

Steven

report post as inappropriate


Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 06:33 GMT
TO Eckard

Who somewhere up there said I (and some others) was one of those who questioned the use of / correctness of / interpretation of / modern mathematics and its use in physics.

I DO NOT ! ! Eckard misunderstands my essay. I endorse and applaud the use of advanced maths. We need more of it, not less. I accept that in principle it is all correct.

My point is not that it is no good; it is very good - but not good enough. To get even more advanced maths we need to extend the foundations of maths to enable its scope to be extended. Extending foundations will of course mean we have to demolish part of the superstructure that has worked very well in the past, and REBUILD it with a better version.

I will post this on Eckard's site also.

report post as inappropriate


Terry Padden wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 06:58 GMT
Steven

You wrote above

"My most prominent suggestion is that only motion is real and that time and space are two separate and indistinguishable emergent aspects of that."

I presume English is not your first language, but this is gobbledegook (verbal or textual rubbish. What are "aspects" if they are not "Real" ? How can things be "separate" but "indistinguishable" ?

By the way, everyone I have ever had contact with (even Theoretical Physicists who argue that Time, Space etc. are not Real or are indistinguishable), has NO PROBLEM DISTINGUISHING Time & Space in daily life. Do you have such a problem ?

One of the strengths of the mathematics that you disparage is that it enables us to articulate clearly the concepts your words only make a mess of.

I sugest you read and understand the essays by (1) Ian Durham, and (2) Philip vos Fellman et al.

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 16:43 GMT
(switching editor mode)

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 16:45 GMT
(I'm sorry but the editor just does not allow me to post more than 20 lines for some reason).

Dear Terry,

I'm sorry if I touched on one of your beliefs. I think the advanced math is currently killing progress in physics. Mostly it is not more than smoke and mirrors around something that has basically little physical content. My argument is that not more of it is needed, but a return to the very basics as it is at that level that most errors were made that still block the progress of physics. Basic mistakes were made a.o. in calculus, the math describing circular motion and relativity. The advanced math only perpetuates and hides these mistakes.

(cont'd)

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 17:45 GMT
(for Terry, cont'd)

You remark:

"My most prominent suggestion is that only motion is real and that time and space are two separate and indistinguishable emergent aspects of that.

I presume English is not your first language, but this is gobbledegook (verbal or textual rubbish. What are "aspects" if they are not "Real" ? How can things be "separate" but "indistinguishable" ?

By the way, everyone I have ever had contact with (even Theoretical Physicists who argue that Time, Space etc. are not Real or are indistinguishable), has NO PROBLEM DISTINGUISHING Time & Space in daily life. Do you have such a problem ?"

I'm not sure if I have to take that as an ad hom or that you really don't understand the concept. Let me explain it in more basic terms then: the rulers of space and time are photons. Not only conceptually, but also practically since the SI system defines the unit of length to be the speed of light in vacuum and the unit of time to be the frequency of a specific photon. That simply means all our physical measurements are related to the motion of the photons. If you prefer it more abstract then I would suggest reading Xavier Borg website, as referenced in my essay. He uses dimensional analysis to show that all physical constants can be derived from ratio's of space and time.

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 14, 2009 @ 17:53 GMT
(for Terry, cont'd-2)

You also remark:

"One of the strengths of the mathematics that you disparage is that it enables us to articulate clearly the concepts your words only make a mess of."

I would say: math is just another language. To quote from the essay, one line describing "weak interactions" states: "Hermetry form-type 4(R^3 x T^1 x S^2 x I^2): W+,W-". Does this articulate a clear concept? I would at best call it insider lingo, but the gobbledygook word seems to be more appropriate.

Good luck with the contest!

Steven Oostdijk

report post as inappropriate


amrit wrote on Oct. 15, 2009 @ 15:57 GMT
Steven I agree 100 % with you.

Waking up observer is the only way to see what is of the mind and what is of physical reality.

My research shows space-time is math model only, still today 99,999 physicist believe space-time exists as a physical reality.

In 1905 math has overruled physics.

You can read more about my research here in my essay and on

viXra - quantum gravity and mind-science

yours amrit

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Oct. 17, 2009 @ 18:24 GMT
Hi dear Steven Oostdijk,

Very interesting your ideas .Happy to see this kind of pragmatism about the reality of the physicality where the mass is a main piece .

I have an idea for you ,the rotating spheres .For the spin ,I think it's just a question of sense in fact ,..........mass ,rotations ,spheres ,energy ,fields ,forces ...all is linked with these rotating spheres .

The mass,it is these rotations ,

I consider my gauge like that ,

Future universal finite sphere doesn't turn ,

the mass ,gravity ...gravity centers turns in the max first sense(main central sphere,like our center of our universe in fact) ,the light in the other ,that coordonates the universal sphere furthermore .

Inside the mass with a deceleration thus of the ultim velocity of rotations of the gauge ,thus light and gravity ,thus mass and energy .There the number and the specificities of quantum entangled spheres is very important for the combinations in the line time.

The rest is a synchronizations of all these rotating spheres with the evolution point of vue .The light becomes mass in Time .The sense.....always .

Congratulations and good luck for the contest

Best Regards

Steve

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 29, 2012 @ 13:36 GMT
Interesting this essay. My english was very bad.Now it is not perfect but I evolve in this language.

Returning about this essay. The spin is essential !My model of spherization by quantum spheres , cosmological spheres inside an universal 3d sphere show us what is the rotation and its proportions with the mass. If you take my equations, mcosV and E=m(c³o³s³), you can see the propotions with the mass and the spinal rotations and orbital rotations.The most important is to understand that the mass and the light are the same in a pure BEC of the mind. The entanglement for the uniqueness is finite and precise.The volumes and the rotations take all their meaning.More a sphere turns , less is its mass logically speaking, that is why we can extrapolate and conclude that the universal sphere does not turn, so its mass is maximum. Now you can extrapolate with the fields of E and the other sense of rotation differenciating the mass and the light. The logic is respected when we consider that the libnearity is differenciated of the mass and its gravitational stability. If the volumes of the serie are not respected with its pure number, so we cannot quantize correctly this mass and the mass of the universal sphere, furthermore this universal sphere increases in mass so in E. Logically speaking, we have a finite number of photons inside the universal sphere. Now of course we can consider also that above this wall, this limit , we have an infinite light. The finite groups become an universal key for a real understanding of the evolution of this universal sphere.

If the volumes and the serie of uniquenss are well extrapolated, we can simulate all predictions!

This serie is the same relativistically speaking in the two scales, quantical or cosmological. Now of course, the groups are probably adapted to galaxies and their specificities but the serie is the same when we extrapolate by the mind. The rotations and the proportions with mass more the volumes.....imply a lot of things and dynamics.

Regards.

report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 22, 2009 @ 15:18 GMT
Dear Steven Oostdijk,

When I asked for further names of those who do not always equate mathematical solutions with physical reality, nobody responded. On the contrary, Terry Padden felt misunderstood. Nonetheless I found in particular Peter Lynds and to some extent J. Smith.

Nobody is perfect. You wrote: "Einstein chose to express his General Theory of Relativity ... By this choice Einstein empowered Hilbert, Klein, Weyl, Minkowski, and many others." We should be more careful. Minkowski died before Einstein published even his special theory of relativity.

While I tend to cautiously agree with some criticism by Mathis, I would never even mention Dunne.

Regards,

Eckard

report post as inappropriate


Chris Packham wrote on Oct. 23, 2009 @ 11:08 GMT
Steven

An excellent essay and argument. Math has become very much the limiting factor. I've just read another very supportive in a different way, look at Peter Jackson's 'perfect symmetry', but that's only a doorway and you have to look deep!

He like you deserves a much higher score.

Best of luck

Chris

report post as inappropriate


Arjen Dijksman wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 10:39 GMT
Dear Steven,

Interesting essay. Physics needs plain explanations and returning to basics. If abstract math is used, it must relate to reality and not camouflage the physics. It's funny that you refer to a Heim theory paper to demonstrate that math has taken the place of physics in peer-reviewed papers, while Heim theory is almost absent from peer-reviewed papers.

At the conclusion of the essay, I was a bit left on my hunger. Miles Mathis or Larsson may have shown a lot of interesting things, but what have they shown that others haven't shown and that really gets to the point? Is it OK if I quote you on twitter or on my blog?

Best regards,

Arjen

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Oct. 24, 2009 @ 11:32 GMT
Dear Arjen,

Thanks for the reaction. Indeed "back to basics" is the core of the message and I agree with you that the paper could be a little longer. The problem for me was that going only slightly deeper into Mathis or Larson's theories will create so many questions that many people would have been alienated. Both Miles and Larson show that something is wrong with the very basics and that is a discussion you cannot resolve by adding a few pages to the paper. I just hope to trigger people to also take notice of these authors.

It's fine with me if you want to use some material on your blog or twitter.

Regards,

Steven

report post as inappropriate


Dean Ward wrote on Nov. 3, 2009 @ 23:59 GMT
A well thought out and presented paper on the possibilities of reordering the universe from the qauntum scale. I enjoyed the reasoning and the refreshingly simple approach to the work of Newton. The unification of EM and gravity via the photon field is a novel but simple unification.

Good Work all around

Thanks

Dean Ward

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Jan. 8, 2010 @ 06:19 GMT
I enjoyed the paper, especially the first couple of pages and the overall theme. But after spending a good 90 minutes at Miles Mathis's site, I am disappointed. He is a conspiracy theorist whose articles are built on straw-man and ad hominem attacks on everyone from Einstein to Columbia professors. I am all for alternative thinking (which is why I'm here), but his ideas cannot be taken seriously.

Seriously, if we treat gravity as an expansion of matter: Consider a bowling ball and volleyball, equal-sized, in space. Eventually they meet due to gravity, and not at the original midpoint, due to the bowling ball having higher mass, correct? Now, how does that happen? Is one ball larger in the end than the other?

Regarding his idea that waves are due to particles mechanically spinning and tumbling end over end: What object is able to spin about an axis that is outside of itself?

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Jan. 9, 2010 @ 01:36 GMT
Continuing: In his article "A New Definition of Gravity Part 7," Mathis modifies the "expansion" theory of gravity to say that it is structural rigidity (!) that causes a lead box to be heavier than a cardboard box. He does this to answer the question of why heavy things don't expand faster than light things. Mathis has the audacity to write, "If I were more rigid, I would weigh more." And yet, shockingly, he has not done an experiment to show that a mouse gains weight when it is frozen solid, or that a rigid ice cube weighs less after it melts. Or any other experiment that would blow the lid off modern physics, for that matter.

I always thought science was about experimentation and verification/falsification, not writing 1,400 pages of tortured theory on a personal website.

Steven, how can you cite Miles Mathis on general relativity in all seriousness, when his "reformulation" is founded on the most absurd, falsifiable premises?

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Jan. 11, 2010 @ 20:59 GMT
Dear Carl,

I applaud you for being able to understand all 1500 pages of Miles' website in 90 minutes. It took me at least a few days to only read them.

I could point you to the pages were the questions you pose are explained, but Miles actually already answered your questions in a new article that can be found here: Eleven Big Questions

You Should Have For The Standard Model


Thanks for your support for the paper.

Steven

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Jan. 12, 2010 @ 00:33 GMT
Yes -- the article in which he calls my questions "pathetic" and "shallow," justifies why no experiments are being done to test his ideas, and says that mainstream science "sicks" people like me on him.

After all, if only the mainstream never challenged independent theorists like Mathis (a painter with no university-level education in science), then their ideas could become fully accepted and taught to students everywhere, for the betterment of all. Okay then! A fine understanding of the scientific method indeed.

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Jan. 13, 2010 @ 10:59 GMT
Hi Karl,

Well, you could hardly expect to get a better treatment than you give him and his theories. On Mathis' website you can find many positive evidences of his theories like the equal optical size of the sun and moon, the tilt of the planets, the size of the magnetopause etc. Phenomena that are now put in the category "coincidence" by mainstream theories.

I am confident that even though mainstream chooses to ignore him as a little pest, history will assign Mathis the place that he deserves.

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 00:50 GMT
Steven, please do let us know when Mr. Mathis has an experiment that predicts an outcome that would be unexplainable by current physics. I'm not talking about new explanations for well-known anomalies; anyone can do that. I mean an experiment that hasn't been done, where current physics clearly predicts one outcome and Mathis Physics predicts another. That would be the scientific way to advance his theories. Maybe you can help him out. Does he want to be vindicated, or does he want to keep yelling at the wall? Talk is cheap, because no matter what a person has written, they can always say to critics, "You just don't understand well enough" (as you have to me, twice). This is not how science moves forward.

Miles Mathis should perform, or at least suggest, an unambiguous and performable experiment that would falsify JUST ONE aspect of mainstream science, by way of prediction, or else he has no right to complain about being ignored.

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Jan. 14, 2010 @ 14:09 GMT
Dear Karl,

It is your choice to ignore his results by prejudicing him to be a crank and not reading Miles' website in some more detail. He has tens of examples where current mainstream physics does not get an answer at all, or gives an incorrect or ad hoc answer while this theories provides that answer with the correct numbers. A simple overview of his claims can be found here:

The Central Discoveries of this Book

( Scroll to the bottom of that page if you just want a simple list )

For your convenience I'll give some examples where you can check his numbers.

An example is for instance the Saturn precession anomaly that does not match the numbers predicted by GR but exactly matches the numbers as predicted by Miles' gravitational theory. This is a recent measurement done by the Cassini spacecraft. This article can be found here:

The Saturn Anomaly

Another example of a fine experiment is where Miles explains why the proton hits a mass limit of 108 in accelerators. Through expansion theory one can show that this confirms an age of the proton of about 15 Billion years, in line with current estimates for the age of the visible universe. That can be found a.o. here:

New mass and energy transforms in Special Relativity

( Scroll down to part eight )

If that does'nt convince you (I assume it won't) finally an article that explains the exact orbital distance of Mercury through Miles' unified Gravity+E/M theory:

A Mathematical Explanation for the Orbital Distance of Mercury

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Jan. 21, 2010 @ 02:23 GMT
I'm not getting through, so I'll repeat what I said before: *Anyone can come up with alternative theories explaining already-observed anomalies.* A theory without real-world experimental support is meaningless. Also, both you and Mr. Mathis can always say "you just don't understand well enough" and dismiss any criticism thus. This doesn't help anyone.

Since Mathis has completely reinvented physics, everything from acceleration to the mass of the photon, surely a new REAL WORLD experiment can be devised where: (1) current physics predicts one outcome, (2) Mathis physics predicts another, and (3) the result is unambiguously either (1) or (2). Don't you wonder why he hasn't done that? If you understand his theory so well, perhaps you can come up with something...No? Why not then?

It's like someone claiming to have the cure for cancer inside a box, and having 1,500 pages of theory explaining what cancer really is, but refusing to open the box and let the supposed cure be tested. ("Go back and read my theories and figure out the cure for yourself!") Anyone with half a scientific mind would find this behavior suspicious at best. Theory alone does not cut it, no matter how many anomalies it supposedly explains. The theory must hold up under EXPERIMENTAL TESTING. Do I really need to explain this?

report post as inappropriate

michel quihillalt replied on Feb. 27, 2010 @ 19:47 GMT
What Miles Mathis has attempted to do is redo the existing math over several subjects that is more direct, simple and elegant. This is an artistic achievement. He restates certain results that should be verifiable as he claims that the established results are false. If his restatements are closer to the observed results, then his math is superior to the established math and should supplant it.

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Jan. 26, 2010 @ 14:57 GMT
"Experimental Testing", you mean as in 600 Million dollar gravitional wave detectors that don't detect anything or multi-billion dollar colliders that only "detect" circumstantial evidence of "virtual" particles? I would present both experiments as clear evidence that Miles' theories are correct. E.g. the absence of gravitational waves can be considered clear evidence for the expansion theory of gravity :)

So, I think you are just trying to loudmouth yourself out of the hole you got yourself into. The Saturn anomaly link I gave you for instance is a clear example where mainstream prediction (with GR) is incorrect, while Miles' theory gives the correct number. Would you now also say: GR does not hold up under experimental testing? Or is a theory exempt from falsification as soon as it has mainstream status? There are gaint holes in mainstream theories, you know that as well as I do, them not being able to give a mechanical cause for forces of attraction is just one of them.

According to Karl Popper theories are good until they are falsified. Unfortunately in mainstream physics a falsification leads to a patchup instead of a reconsideration of the basics. The simple correction of the basics instead of flights of fancy is what Miles' theories are all about.

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Jan. 31, 2010 @ 01:11 GMT
Since you chose to call me a loudmouth rather than answer my simple question, I'll try again.

I challenge you or Mathis to come up with ONE experiment that meets all four of the following conditions:

1. It has not been performed before.

2. It can be performed in the real world.

3. Current physics predicts one outcome.

4. Mathis physics predicts another outcome.

That isn't too much to ask, is it?

Please, enlighten me why such an experiment is apparently not possible. Is it because all new experiments would produce results that agree with both standard physics and Mathis physics? Or is there some other reason, which neither you nor Mathis will tell me? I'd really like to know.

report post as inappropriate


Steven Oostdijk wrote on Feb. 2, 2010 @ 21:57 GMT
If you are so fond of "current physics", you better start reading the selection of articles I gave you and answer the question why "current physics" is not able to provide the answers that Miles provides. The article about the Saturn precession anomaly listed earlier would be an excellent example of a verifiable real world outcome that you ask for, but apparently you have'nt bothered to read it. You seem to be very unfamiliar with Miles work. Probably it would be wise to at least study the list of his claimed discoveries, which I also posted earlier.

report post as inappropriate

Joaquin replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 21:12 GMT
Why don't you and Mathis seek funds to conduct experiments. If Mathis can vanity publish two books he certainly had the money at one time. If all Mathis is going to do from now until he dies is write more papers he'll remain an obscure internet science amateur. Becoming more of a recluse than he already is will not be useful, unless he is now mentally unable to work with others. Maybe that's why he is holed up in a small New Mexico town known for its art when he's no longer producing any. Not looking good for Mathis, not good at all.

report post as inappropriate


cdb wrote on Jun. 5, 2010 @ 17:06 GMT
Would anyone be interested in some further discussion on Miles Mathis's theories? Specifically concerning the photon and electron stacked spins.

report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Jun. 16, 2010 @ 01:32 GMT
Yes. Major league baseball pitchers would love to learn how to throw a ball with "stacked spins," including the "end-over-end" spins that are apparently possible in Mathis' imagination.

report post as inappropriate

Steven Oostdijk replied on Jul. 28, 2010 @ 09:05 GMT
Hi cdb & Karl,

To assist your imagination check one of the multi-precessing gyroscope video's, like this one:

Three dimensional precessing gyroscope

Now replace the man with the photon and the frames with the trajectory of the photon, that is Miles' imagination.

report post as inappropriate


cdb wrote on Jun. 27, 2010 @ 17:51 GMT
Karl thanks for responding. I would have gotten back to you sooner but I've been out of town. From reading the prior entries on this forum it seems you are the one that made the baseball analogy to the stacked spin theory mentioned in Mathis's paper: "ELEVEN BIG QUESTIONS YOU SHOULD HAVE FOR THE STANDARD MODEL". In his paper "SUPERPOSITION" I watched the animation of how a wave motion could be...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Jul. 11, 2010 @ 02:44 GMT
cdb, my initial response was meant to be flippant. Even if it were physically possible for a particle to have multiple stacked spins, that wouldn't explain the quantized nature of real measurements of particle spin. If a particle's spin is measured along one axis, you get a quantized value. If another particle (even its entangled twin) is then measured along an axis that is 45 degrees off from the first axis, you get an identically quantized value, not a partial or mixed value. What is partial or mixed is the probability of finding a particular spin direction, not the magnitude of the spin. Spin measurements are always quantized in this way, no matter what arbitrary axis or rotation you choose. Why is this? Because the particle isn't actually spinning. That is why we call the property "intrinsic spin." And it is quite easy to show that if an electron could actually, mechanically spin thusly, the velocity at its equator would exceed the speed of light.

Mathis's whole bag is that particles must be like little ball bearings with distinct insides and outsides, and which must behave mechanically just like regular ball bearings; his whole theoretical workup is a complicated attempt to square this belief with the findings of real-world experiments. That is what's behind the stacked spins (which of course makes little sense to anyone who actually tries to imagine such motion, as you've noticed). If only he'd do one or two experiments himself, and get some anomalous findings, maybe he'd attract some attention for his ideas. But for some reason (ahem) he isn't interested in doing so.

report post as inappropriate

cdb replied on Jul. 12, 2010 @ 03:58 GMT
Karl, yes I knew you were being flippant. I just took it as an invite to some further discussion on Mathis's theories. This spin business is very confusing indeed. I think a lot of confusion is generated by his terming the end over end movements of a particle a "spin" when they are actually closer to a tumbling, flipping or looping motion. When one speaks of spin the first thing that pops into my...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Karl Coryat replied on Jul. 15, 2010 @ 03:27 GMT
cdb -- I'll keep this short. Miles Mathis means well, and I absolutely agree with him that science should be more open-minded and should forever question its foundations. That's why I love FQXi. But what he's doing is not science. Nobody of any significance self-publishes dozens of "papers" on their own website in which they cite only their own earlier papers, frequently calling on the foolishness of Nobel Prize winners and other noted researchers, openly mocking those who challenge them (as he did with me), and showing little or no humility. Never collaborating, but always self-congratulating. Real scientists, even real amateur scientists, don't do this. His ideas should be considered in the appropriate light. KC

report post as inappropriate


Karl Coryat wrote on Jul. 15, 2010 @ 19:24 GMT
To follow up, check out Mathis's new rant (it is most certainly not a "paper") on Erik Verlinde's theory of thermodynamic gravity, covered elsewhere on FQXi. Rather than addressing the original papers and their calculations, he attacks the New York Times' attempt to explain the theory to lay people. His way to refute the theory is to mock the NYT's analogy of curly hair statistically having more ways to be curly than to be straight. Why? Because when your audience consists largely of non-trained non-physicists, it's easier to make newspaper-article analogies about hairstyles sound silly than it is to explain entropy and the holographic principle and guide your audience through the appropriate calculations.

Miles Mathis should at least *try* to sound like a proper scientist or even science writer. Maybe then someone might take him seriously.

report post as inappropriate

cdb replied on Jul. 17, 2010 @ 17:18 GMT
Karl thank you for your take on Mathis. It's good to here other's point of view and your opinions are noted. Yes, I seen the latest "paper" from Mathis's site. All the papers on his site are not strictly concerned with theory, some are only commentaries and can at times be quite critical. I speculate the reason he's so quick to condemn the new gravity theory is due to confidence in his own theory. He's spelled out his theory in detail. I really can't see him spelling out what's involved in another theory when he's promoting his own. I don't think he's aiming to be a "proper" scientist or science writer. He is what he is. As he said in his writings: "This is as much as to admit that I know that my book must seem an anomaly as well as an anachronism. Both its form and its content must seem strange to a modern reader".

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Oct. 11, 2010 @ 21:45 GMT
"His way to refute the theory is to mock the NYT's analogy of curly hair statistically having more ways to be curly than to be straight. Why? Because when your audience consists largely of non-trained non-physicists, it's easier to make newspaper-article analogies about hairstyles sound silly than it is to explain entropy and the holographic principle and guide your audience through the appropriate calculations."

Karl, I must disagree with you there. The NYT's claim is completely ludicrous and unscientific. When you drop an object, does it go down because it's more likely to, or because there's a perfectly rational mechanical reason for it?

I can see why a lot of people have beef with Miles. They don't want scientific knowledge to be easily expressed in logical, layman's terms. It's political. Surely you must see that. (By the way, I'm not saying he's always right)

report post as inappropriate


D wrote on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 03:53 GMT
Karl, you seem to be the only one here that is not either one of Mathis's alter egos, or just plain uninformed, so I thought I'd help you out. First of all, if nobody else can see it, mathis is oosterdijk. I spent a couple minutes looking of some of his 'research' and saw where we acknowledges having many aliases. Their respective writing styles and vocabularies are identical. It seems mathis makes of aliases and runs around posting things on the internet that congratulate himself or claim to back him up in the hope of gaining some perverted sense of peer review.

Above it is mentioned that via mathis's methods one can predict the age of the proton to app. 15 billion years and then goes on to say that this agrees vell with current accepted age of the universe. How can comparing to the current accepted age of the universe be a useful yardstick to measure accuracy when the author himself claims to have discredited the maths and physics that were used to calculate the current accepted age? I believe the oosterdijk also claims that GPS does not take into account a relativistic correction, well he needs to do some reading because the GPS system DOES make make such a correction.

I'm with you, I second the challenge to create just one experiment where the result agrees with anything mathis came up with and does not agree with the current standard model. That was a major requirement before relativity was accepted, anyone recall measuring the 'bend' of starlight during an eclipse?

Has anyone ever seen his pi=4 nonsense? At one point he goes on to talk about how elliptic geometry (elliptic curves?) are based upon the ellipse, elliptic curves are actually a type of cubic equation and not a conic quadratic. His 'paper' where he finds fault with the differentiation of the natural logarithm, and then goes on to 'fix' the problem using some perverted form of difference equation, should be enough to discredit him to anyone that has ever taken even an introductory calculus course.

I put forth that from here on out nobody reply to, argue with, or otherwise indulge the megalomania of oosterdijk/mathis. The more time we waste with this guy the bigger the soapbox we are building him him to preach his nonsense from. The more forums this guy has the argue for his 'research' the greater the possibility that a young impressionable mind might become perverted by it and actually believe it, and that would be a regrettable. If even one mind is turned away from the real scientific method and instead accepts the mathis method of research and paper writing (non experimenting, self congratulatory, only self referencing, drivel spewing) that would be an actual loss to humanity!

D

report post as inappropriate


DQ wrote on Oct. 29, 2010 @ 07:23 GMT
I forgot to mention, has anyone ever notice that his 'math papers' are very lite on the 'math'? They are just paragraph after paragraph, monotonous page after monotonous page, of handwaving and verbal diahrea. For someone that claims to understand QED it's strange that the most 'math' he ever does is manipulate a linear equation, square a few things here and there, and once in a while completely bastardize the notion of a limit. In his paper on the natural logarithm he claims a limit cannot be taken as a variable approches zero because the number 1 is the smallest 'unit' of measurement and zero is a meaningless concept. Then on his 'pi is 4: short version' he is clearly trying to take a limit as a length goes to zero (and still fucks it up). The best part of the pi rant is that he correctly identifies the right way to do it, but then argues against it on favPour of his nonsense.

report post as inappropriate


xray wrote on Nov. 24, 2010 @ 20:28 GMT
D, practitioner of the Sherlock Holmes method, defender of the scientific method, and self-appointed head of the Mathis Lynch mob sneered: "Karl, you seem to be the only one here that is not either one of Mathis's alter egos, or just plain uninformed, so I thought I'd help you out." So, you begin with an insult to everyone that made a comment. This statement tells me all I need to know about you. You’re a real class act. If I wasn’t sure about the correctness of Mathis theory before I certainly am now and I have you to thank for it. Arthur Schopenhauer said: All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self evident. I see now we’re at stage 2 with you leading the charge. Oppose away, your big-mouthed bullying will do no good.

report post as inappropriate

Joaquin replied on Jun. 20, 2012 @ 20:44 GMT
You only assume the possibility that truth passes through three stages. The other possibility is of three stages that falsehood passes through. First, it is ridiculed by the wise, swallowed by the gullible. Second, it is violently opposed by the wise, energetically swallowed by the gullible. Third, it is accepted as being self evidently false.

Are we going to go change the textbooks, now that Mathis says they are wrong, and change pi into 4? I think not . Mathis is a crank. His theories, when not thoroughly of no real consequence, are wrong and his method of delivering them, on a cheesy 1990's wall-to-wall font website complete with insults about everyone from the President to NASA to CERN to professors to working scientists, is offensive. Mathis is going down and he has no one to blame but himself.

report post as inappropriate


katesisco wrote on Jan. 14, 2011 @ 20:05 GMT
Well, I am not trained in math or physics. Actually I can do art. I read new non fiction so that puts me way down on the totem pole, nowhere near capable of understanding much less insulting my betters. But, why have we so little to show for over half a century of 'understanding' physics? And didn't Einstein use the well-known fact of Mercury's failure to comply with existing physics to validate his 'mass bending light' theory of relativity?

report post as inappropriate


Dr Hu wrote on Nov. 11, 2012 @ 13:03 GMT
Boys, boys, this is to judge hypothesis, not the people who created them. You can´t disprove just saying "it was created by a schizophrenic", you can disprove it finding an experimental contradiction. Since I couldn´t find by myself or in this thread that uncontrovertible counter-evidence I still give it the benefit of the doubt... Why nobody has proposed an experiment capable of falsifying straight away that crazy unified theory (on the other hand, no crazier than the most popular approach to quantum gravity (unification?) which, for instance, negates point particles and necessitates a new geometry yet not formulated)?

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.