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

Joe Fisher: on 4/8/15 at 15:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Marts, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

Joe Fisher: on 3/21/15 at 21:12pm UTC, wrote Dear Dr. Liena, You wrote in the abstract of your essay: “It is...

John Hodge: on 3/11/15 at 19:07pm UTC, wrote Preon research is done from a larger to smaller direction of investigating...

Alan Kadin: on 3/11/15 at 2:04am UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Liena: Your essay is short, but you make a strong argument that...

Marts Liena: on 3/10/15 at 18:35pm UTC, wrote Essay Abstract Could it be that mathematics is a good servant but a...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


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 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: IS MATHEMATICS HINDERING THE EVOLUTION OF PHYSICS TOWARDS DEVELOPING A THEORY OF EVERYTHING? by Marts Liena [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Marts Liena wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 18:35 GMT
Essay Abstract

Could it be that mathematics is a good servant but a bad master? Modern particle physics is at an impasse with very little fundamental theoretical development occurring since Gell-Mann proposed quarks in the 1960's. It is incumbent on reductionist philosophers to get theoretical physics back working towards a Theory of Everything, rather than being sidetracked on String Theories that can never deliver

Author Bio

Marts is a self taught philosopher currently working on a new preon theory, and writing a book on time.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Alan M. Kadin wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 02:04 GMT
Dear Mr. Liena:

Your essay is short, but you make a strong argument that physics may have worshipped too long at the idol of abstract mathematics.

You might be interested in my essay, "Remove the Blinders: How Mathematics Distorted the Development of Quantum Theory". I argue that contrary to universal belief, a simple realistic picture of the microworld is possible, completely avoiding the paradoxes that plague orthodox quantum mechanics. QM is not a universal theory of matter; it is rather a mechanism for distributed vector fields to self-organize into spin-quantized coherent domains similar to solitons. This requires nonlinear mathematics that is not present in the standard formalism. This also makes directly testable experimental predictions, based on little more than Stern-Gerlach measurements. Remarkably, these simple experiments have never been done.

So while mathematics provides essential insights into physics, an incorrect mathematical model that becomes established may be seen as virtually religious dogma which is not to be questioned. That prevents further progress.

Alan Kadin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John C Hodge wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 19:07 GMT
Preon research is done from a larger to smaller direction of investigating the particle characteristics of smaller particles. You may have developed your title because of this. This approach is very math intense and seems to require a reductionism assumption.

I’m pursuing a small to larger approach through seeking a structure of the components of the universe to make bigger particles. You suggest 2 fundamental particles. I suggest 2 components (you say 2 particles)

of the universe - a continuous plenum and a discrete hod. The smallest particle (a photon) can be investigated by supposing a structure of the hods and the plenum. Then the basic observation of interference results from this structure. That is, what is the structure that can produce interference? I think I have it. BTW Scalar Theory of Everything model correspondence to the Big Bang model and to Quantum Mechanics explains several cosmology mysteries.

The next step will be to note the reaction old particle -> new particle(s) + photons for all particles. That is, basic particles are structures of photons. The 3 particle forces must also be photons.

This thought is radical. The result is I’m pursuing this alone. There is no exchange of ideas. Progress seems slow. A few collaborators would hasten the advance. But more than a few would introduce a social concern that would slow the progress. The more participation in a social group, the less the creativity and the more the following of authority (even if false) that is a problem in particle theory development as you note.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 21, 2015 @ 21:12 GMT
Dear Dr. Liena,

You wrote in the abstract of your essay: “It is incumbent on reductionist philosophers to get theoretical physics back working towards a Theory of (abstract) Everything, rather than being sidetracked on String Theories that can never deliver.”

Do let me know what you think about this: This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:58 GMT
Dear Marts,

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


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.