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


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

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

basudeba mishra: on 4/2/15 at 1:18am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, We find that we had commented on your essay on Feb. 7, 2015. ...

basudeba mishra: on 4/2/15 at 0:44am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, There is a tendency in these columns to read essays only of...

Joe Fisher: on 4/1/15 at 18:40pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Mishra, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...

Gordon Watson: on 3/15/15 at 22:25pm UTC, wrote Dear basudeba, I have much positive sympathy for much in your essay....

basudeba mishra: on 3/2/15 at 10:45am UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Thanks. But why stop here. Please campaign for rewriting...

Branko Zivlak: on 3/2/15 at 9:32am UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba, I agree with you. ”Dimension is the perception of...

basudeba mishra: on 3/1/15 at 17:35pm UTC, wrote Dear Sir, Basically Dr. Phipps is saying the same thing in a different...

Eckard Blumschein: on 3/1/15 at 6:52am UTC, wrote Dear Basudeba, Experts should know what you wrote: "light is a transverse...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "after all like Borh has made,this universe and its spheres for me are like..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Thanks for sharing Georgina,it is nice.Friendly" in Alternative Models of...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: REASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS by basudeba mishra [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author basudeba mishra wrote on Jan. 28, 2015 @ 22:07 GMT
Essay Abstract

The validity of a mathematical statement is judged by its logical consistency. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality. Relations between material objects must be expressed in a language compatible with the way in which objects in the real world actually interact - through the transmission/reception of mass/energy/information. Often we overlook this aspect and land at undecidable propositions – mathematics not in conformity with physics. These are mistaken as mathematical structures, though real mathematical structures are natural laws that give quantitative descriptions of physical phenomena – hence related to observables only. Mathematics explains how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or non-linearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics. Transgressing the strictly defined boundaries create pseudo-mathematical structures with undecidable propositions. After creating a problem, we search for ways to solve the problem and are lost in the enigma. We collect too much information and reject most without proper analysis (like at LHC). Some ‘theories’ provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better. For every quantum system and phenomenon, there exists a macro equivalent. But to see these, we have to get rid of the incremental approach of building on ‘established theories’. Instead of sticking to these ‘accepted theories’ superstitiously, if we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems. After the observation of blue-shift and galactic merger, should we stick to dark energy? After failure to detect extra dimensions for over a century, should we stick to it? Let us be

Author Bio

Independent researcher interested in fundamental principles of Nature. Believes in explaining everything from fundamental principles.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 08:07 GMT
Dear basudeba mishra,

You begin very nicely, with: "The validity of a mathematical statement is judged by its logical consistency. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality." And you observe that Wigner "admits not only the incompleteness of mathematics but also its manipulation according to the aesthetic sense of the operator."

You then proceed to some statements that are not obvious to me. For example you state "No computer algorithm is possible using complex numbers." That is not immediately evident to me. Then you say that no mathematics is possible without infinity. That seems an over-statement to me, as I do not really understand infinity mathematically (other than as 'unbounded') nor believe it is relevant to physics. I do however agree that 'mathematics is not the sole language of nature," and I like your examples. I also enjoyed your section on mathematical physics.

In your section on 'missing the woods for the trees' you tackle a number of specific examples which lead you to conclude that there is a need to ponder these issues and rewrite physics. Without commenting on the individual examples, I concur with you that physics is in need of reformulation. In many cases the mathematical trees obscure the physical woods, and in some places mathematical trees appear where there are no physical woods.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 02:13 GMT
Respected Sir,

Thank you for your comments. We will try to clarify your observations.

What is aesthetic sense? It is subjective to the individual and there is no standard candle. Thus, it cannot be logically consistent – hence not mathematics. By extension, its manipulation cannot be mathematics. This cannot be used to show the incompleteness of mathematics.

Can computer programs be written using complex numbers? The binary system uses yes/no command for something physical. A program can execute something only when it has physical existence. Can non-physical representations be codified in a computer program? If so, can we verify the authenticity of such operations? If yes, how?

We said no mathematics is possible with (not without) infinity, as all operations involving it will have undefined dimensions – thus indistinguishable from each other. The “unbounded-ness”, as you put it, makes them indistinguishable. For any value of x, ∞ ± x = ∞. Since this is not logically consistent, it is not mathematics. Infinity is the reason for renormalization, which is an important factor in mathematical physics. All we want to say is that it is renormalization is not valid mathematically. It points to some missing parameters or a novel phenomenon not considered earlier.

Sir, if you concur that physics needs to be rewritten, at least you can contribute by rejecting the superstitious belief on “established theories”.

With regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Gary D. Simpson wrote on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 22:53 GMT
Basudeba,

An interesting read with many good quotations. I'll try to condense your ideas into a simple statement of logic.

If Physics, then Math.

The contrapositive to that is

If not Math, then not Physics.

The Venn Diagram for this would have Physics completely contained within Math.

The problem is that there is a lot of Math that is outside of Physics. That can definitely cause mischief. But consider this ... Physics can grow and frequently Mathematics can point towards new areas for Physics to study. And Physics can provide a tangible meaning to many of the abstractions that occur in Mathematics.

Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 02:25 GMT
Dear Sir,

We request you to kindly read our paper. We have shown that mathematics is not the sole language of Nature, but only the quantitative aspect of it. Thus, your opinion: “If not math, then not physics” is opposed to our views. Further, we have not given lots of quotes, but examined some and refuted many. Your comments on the Venn diagram and your reference to “new areas”,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 05:44 GMT
???

I read your essay twice before posting a comment. Now I've read it three times. I get the same meaning as before ... specifically that there are things predicted by Math that have nothing to do with Physics. Is this the essence of your essay? The answer should be either yes or no.

I stopped counting quotations at (10). For a paper with 10 pages or less, I'd say that's a lot, although you do primarily use one author. Whether or not you refute a quotation has nothing to do with my statement.

Regarding logic and Venn diagrams, what I describe is consistent with math making predictions with no physical meaning. If I have missed your meaning after three readings then I'm probably not going to get it.

If a statement is logically true then its contrapositive must be true. If A then B is equivalent to if not B then not A.

Regarding quaternions ....

Good Luck and Best Regards,

Gary Simpson

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 1, 2015 @ 14:40 GMT
Dear Sir,

Regarding “If a statement is logically true then its contra-positive must be true. If A then B is equivalent to if not B then not A”, it is not always true. The contra positive of “If cow, then an animal” – “If not cow, then not an animal” is obviously not true. What we said can be summarized in two statements:

1. All of mathematic is quantitative description of Nature.

2. All so-called “mathematics” that are not logically consistent, are not mathematics. Unfortunately, most of mathematical physics belong to this category.

We were responding to your description as “good quotations”, which includes even those which we have refuted. At least we cannot say those are good quotations.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Feb. 4, 2015 @ 14:34 GMT
Dear Basudeba Mishra

I read your essay with interest. This essay-contest is like a conference. Major conclusions emerging from the discussions, e.g. current physics needs revision, should be published in leading news-papers.

In my essay, titled: "On the connection between Physics and Mathematics" two anomalies in the general relativity theory are indicated; (i) If the space between the galaxies is expanding; but the space within the galaxy is not expanding, because galaxy is a gravitationally-bound structure, then the space at the boundary of the galaxy would break, or get torn-out!

(ii) My second question is: According to GR, the space around the Sun has got curved, so planets, like the earth, are in inertial-motion along the geodesic curved path. My question is: Inertial-motion of objects can be at any speed; can the planets move at any speed they like? Can they take a coffee-break, and then proceed further, like we do while traveling along hilly roads?

I am eager to know your comments.

Yours sincerely,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 02:54 GMT
Dear Sir,

You have raised some very interesting and important points.

Both your questions are valid. You might have noticed we have questioned the concept, the description and the mathematics of GR. One fact that may interest you is, the planetary orbits are not elliptical as it never closes, but spirals due to the movement of the star. The orbits are circular around the star...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Hasmukh K. Tank wrote on Feb. 6, 2015 @ 14:14 GMT
Shri Basudeba Mishra Sir,

Many thanks for your kind reply to my questions. I read your essay and found that i should ask these questions to you.

I am eager to read the book mentioned by you.

With best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Feb. 8, 2015 @ 17:44 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I just finished reading your essay. It is certainly a new way of looking at physics and I agree with one of your opening statements, "The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality". This will remove much mystery from our physics.

However, you make some statements that are untrue. Some that cannot be decided whether true or false, by using logic. When you say: "Zero is the absence of something at here-now that is known to exist elsewhere (otherwise we will not perceive its absence at all)", what of a Dragon (snake that breathes out fire)?It is absent at here-now, BUT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE. Or do I misunderstand your meaning?

Lastly, thanks for commenting on my essay. You said there was a distance between points, which I depict as ._._._. Where can you cut? You cannot cut the point ., and you cannot cut that distance _. And if you claim you can cut that distance, its extremity will be a point ., thus contradicting the statement that no point exists in the distance between the initial points.

Regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 01:06 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thanks for you comments.

Your example proves our statement. As you put it, the mythological dragon is a snake that breathes out fire. We know about snakes, fires, breathing and know the mechanism of breathing. But the special relation between them is non-existent, which makes the creature non-existent physically (at here-now). We see many such things in dream, where the constraints of the physical world are not present. But they are physically not possible. That relationship is zero, though the components are true and physical.

Regarding the points about your essay, by definition, a point has existence but no dimension. You can only cut fixed dimensional objects (you cannot ‘cut’ air or water). Since a point has no dimension, you cannot cut a point. Similarly, the distance is space (if it does not belong to fixed dimensional objects) that exists and has dimension through alternative symbolism (interval between objects). You cannot cut space, but change the interval by moving objects. Here you change the interval between the two pieces of bread through your ‘cutting’. This is not the same as cutting the point.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 08:51 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Between two fixed dimensional objects, you say and agree that there is space. You say you cannot cut space but can you not swing a knife between those two dimensional objects and it passes through?

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 17:29 GMT
Dear Sir,

Swinging a knife is motion and all motion takes place only in space. Cutting means dividing something into parts. If you measure the interval, you can divide an equal interval depicted by an object, but you cannot divide space, as it has no structure of its own.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Christophe Tournayre wrote on Feb. 9, 2015 @ 19:18 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I enjoyed in your essay that you are trying to question things, trying to look at things from a different angle. On the minus side, I could not understand your examples because of my poor knowledge of physics and mathematics.

In my view, if you question physics and mathematics, go for the simple stuff, show that today mathematics are not adequate to describe daily life events, higlight what more can be perceived.

Because even if the event of relativity being wrong as you said, it changes nothing of the effectiveness of today science. People will be happy to rewrite physics if it brings more tools and ressources to solve their daily life problems.

Regards

Christophe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 10, 2015 @ 02:40 GMT
Dear Sir,

We question the modern system of scientific research, which is more tilted towards career advancement than quest for knowledge. What you call “tools and resources to solve their daily life problems”, are related to technology and not science. While science without technology is lame, technology without science is blind. With over-emphasis on the effectiveness of technology, its ‘blindness’ is increasing, which is manifest in various social and environmental problems. A very large number of people enjoy a cozy life in pursuing and teaching nothingness or self-destruction. We may enjoy temporarily, but ultimately everyone is going to suffer.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 16:54 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Very interesting, profound essay and interesting ideas. I agree with you: "The physics community blindly accepts rigid, linear ideas about the nature of space, time, dimension, etc. These theories provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better. Modern theories do not give a precise definition of the technical terms used, but give an operational definition that can be manipulated according to convenience."

In basic science "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T. Romanovskaya). To overcome the crisis requires a deeper ontology. Fundamental knowledge - Mathematics and Physics require a deep ontological justification. In fundamental Physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification along with the empirical standard.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 12, 2015 @ 17:31 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thanks for your comments. We expected more comments on our examples.

While science without technology is lame, technology without science is blind. With over-emphasis on the effectiveness of technology, its ‘blindness’ is increasing, which is manifest in various social and environmental problems. A very large number of people enjoy a cozy life in pursuing and teaching nothingness or self-destruction. We may enjoy temporarily, but ultimately everyone is going to suffer. There is an urgent need to review and rewrite physics.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share


Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 25, 2015 @ 21:02 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I agree with you completely. I wish you success in the Contest and in the promotion of your ideas! I invite you to read and evaluate my essay .

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Feb. 27, 2015 @ 06:29 GMT
Dear Sir,

Sorry for the delay. We will read your essay soon and rate it suitably.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 07:08 GMT
With your work, its more enclosed with defined and closed subtleties more so that your work is subjected to effective read.

Good Luck!

Regards,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Feb. 17, 2015 @ 20:40 GMT
Leibniz introduced a relational concept into the Aristotelian worldview. What we call space is a projection of relationships between material bodies into the perceived world. What we call time is the projection of ordered change into the perceived world. Of the three arguments, this latter was the only one to which Clarke had a good objection - essentially that accelerated motion, unlike uniform motion, can be perceived without reference to external bodies and is, therefore, necessarily perceived with respect to the absolute space of Newton. Clark used the bucket experiment. How do you respond or describe the Newton’s Bucket experiment to explain accelerated motion?

Does your view of the properties of space and time follow the Leibnizian view. Especially where he concludes space and time as boundless? Otherwise I don’t see a difference except Leibniz accepts the boundless (infinite).

You suggest that when an equation yields infinity, there is some unmodeled physics functioning. Very good. I said that it should indicate the model to be wrong. Well, perhaps both may be our approach.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author basudeba mishra wrote on Feb. 18, 2015 @ 09:27 GMT
Dear Sir,

Your definition of space and time and Newton’s bucket experiment do not contradict our definition. Newton did not “define time, space, place, and motion, as they are well known to all. Absolute space by its own nature, without reference to anything external, always remains similar and unmovable”. The second sentence is misleading. For this reason, Newton wrote: “It is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 06:52 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

Experts should know what you wrote: "light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant."

Could you please relate this to the essence of the essay by Phipps?

My best regards too,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author basudeba mishra wrote on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 17:35 GMT
Dear Sir,

Basically Dr. Phipps is saying the same thing in a different style. Time dilation, like length contraction, flow from SR. Relativity is an operational concept, but not an existential concept. The equations apply to data and not to particles. When we approach a mountain from a distance, its volume appears to increase. What this means is that the visual perception of volume (scaling...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 09:32 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I agree with you. ”Dimension is the perception of differentiation between internal structural space and external relational space of an object.” And

“There are no extra large or compact or n’th dimension.“

Moreover, the Universe it is easier to understood without dimension at all.

The results of this approach can be seen in my work.

Regards,

Branko

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Mar. 2, 2015 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Sir,

Thanks. But why stop here. Please campaign for rewriting physics.

We will soon visit your essay.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 18:40 GMT
Dear Mr. Mishra,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author basudeba mishra replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 00:44 GMT
Dear Sir,

There is a tendency in these columns to read essays only of friends and rate them high and ignore all other essays and rate them low. Hence thanks for reading our essay. Also only people who have full confidence in their theories tell us to read their essays, because we do not go by name, but content. Thus, before reading, you have made us somewhat biased in favor of your essay....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author basudeba mishra replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 01:18 GMT
Dear Sir,

We find that we had commented on your essay on Feb. 7, 2015.

We have replied to your further comment today.

Regards,

basudeba

Bookmark and Share



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.