CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
Physics, Mathematics, and the Theory of Something by Spencer Scoular
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author Spencer Scoular wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 21:51 GMT
Essay AbstractPhysics seeks to model the entire observed physical universe. Mathematical physics, however, can only model what can be quantified. A key feature of the physical universe, the observed Arrow of Time, cannot be quantified. Mathematical physics therefore cannot model the Arrow of Time. As a consequence, a theory of mathematical physics is only ever a Theory of Something – never a Theory of Everything in the broadest sense, since it cannot model the observed Arrow of Time. This means that a single unified theory that models the entire observed physical universe cannot be a theory of mathematical physics. Instead, if it exists, it must be a more general theory of qualitative physics.
Author BioSpencer Scoular is a self-funded scientist-philosopher and management consultant. He holds a PhD from the University of Cambridge. His most recent book Beyond the Mathematical Paradigm of Science is a collection of fourteen papers that support the notion that to unify science we need to go beyond the mathematical paradigm of science to a more general paradigm that includes the mathematical paradigm as a special case. He is uniquely qualified to consider how science can represent qualitative nature, since his Cambridge PhD was on the related subject of how various digital sampling strategies can uniquely represent classes of analogue signals.
Download Essay PDF File
John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 05:05 GMT
I like to think my STOE model is a first step along the lines you propose. It
Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics , has explained several problems, and has predicted
predictioned. Because I’m the only one working on it, it takes a long time to cover the ground. My current effort is on the single photon (particle) in interference (double-slit) experiments.
report post as inappropriate
Author Spencer Scoular replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 21:47 GMT
Dear John:
Thank you for your comments. Good luck with your model.
Kind regards
Spencer
William Amos Carine wrote on Mar. 9, 2015 @ 17:54 GMT
DEar Scoular,
Thank you for your clear writing style! I never had to guess about what you were saying or driving at!
I agree about some newer physics theory not being explicitly mathematical yet being based on empirically sound principles. It is such an exciting idea to take the good of science, which is what it can verify experimentally and with measurement, but to use these findings for support or indication of a real unified understanding of this existence dubbed the universe. On pg 5 your list compares in similarity with what Einstein said could be used as markers in his laymans Relativity publication. The 4-5 are additions that go beyond that but seem solid.
The real nature of time is simply not encoded in the mathematical understanding of the day, or at least as math is used currently. Thank you for your contribution and the straight forward read!
report post as inappropriate
Author Spencer Scoular replied on Mar. 20, 2015 @ 21:56 GMT
Dear William:
Thank you for your very kind words.
To keep the article interesting, I have tried to express the ideas as simply as possible - so your feedback is very encouraging.
I had not read that specific Einstein publication, but am pleased the essay takes his markers further.
Thank you for giving your support to the key messages in the essay.
Kind regards
Spencer
Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 26, 2015 @ 05:20 GMT
Dear Spencer Scoular,
Yes, let's "look in the right place".
Lee Smolin perhaps did so, and Pentcho Valev tried to make aware of that. Unfortunately, Lee Smolin's 2015 essay omitted his own arguments, and Lee does not risk responding to any question.
I wonder why you didn't mention the book by Zeh.
If you have objections to my opinion that agrees with Shannon's, you might comment on my essay(s).
Finally, I would like to make you aware of the essay by Phipps. What he presents is not new and now for my taste not sober enough formulated. My readiness to understand it as a compelling refutation of what led to spacetime is based on a late insight of mine:
The expectation of Maxwell and Michelson to find a natural reference point in space was not logically warranted. The only natural point of reference belongs to the border between elapsed and future time scales. I hope we can agree on this qualitative clarification.
Sincerely,
Eckard Blumschein
report post as inappropriate
Author Spencer Scoular replied on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 03:39 GMT
Dear Eckard:
Thank you for taking time to read my essay and provide feedback. I appreciate your links to other essays and works.
Kind regards
Spencer Scoular
Eckard Blumschein replied on Mar. 28, 2015 @ 04:48 GMT
Dear Spencer,
Between the lines it looks as if you were reluctant to accept my comment as support for your position because my key arguments imply to abandon mandatory tenets. When I pointed you to other essays and works, I hoped your will support them as well as my own contributions.
I reiterate:"If you have objections to my opinion that agrees with Shannon's, you might comment on my essay(s)."
Kind regards,
Eckard
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:41 GMT
Dear Spencer,
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
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.