sci.physics.particle

"The Limitations of Mathematics in Physics"

The present philosophy in theoretical physics is to search for
mathematical relationships that predict experimental results that are then
used to verify the validity of the mathematics in defining our physical
Universe, from the microcosmic to the macrocosmic. The philosophy was
expressed succinctly by Dr. Hawking in Scientific American when he stated
that he didn't care about "reality" because he didn't know what "reality"
was, all that he cared about was whether the mathematics correctly predicted
the results of experiment. Unfortunately, requiring that the results of
observation and of mathematics be in agreement is NECESSARY BUT NOT
SUFFICIENT in our study of the Universe around us.

As a research tool, mathematics suffers from two basic limitations:

A:- It is a linear logic process rather than an area logic process.
Any error along the line of logic being used can easily propagate throughout
the remaining logic chain without giving warning of its presence. (A
solution using an area logic process, on the other hand, is similar to the
solution of a crossword or jigsaw puzzle. An error made anywhere in such a
process is revealed by an incongruity somewhere in the solution. As such,
such a logic process is self-correcting because it forces one to go back and
rethink the problem.)

B:- The logic associated with the mathematical treatment of a process
can lead to results in regions of the problem domain where another
constraint is imposed by Nature. To a mathematically trained physicist such
a constraint may well go unrecognized because it is not inherent in the
mathematics. The existence of such a constraint may render the mathematical
conclusions involved useless.

The limitation described in paragraph A is illustrated by the by the
derivation of the Lorentz Transformation for Transverse Force. Unlike the
derivation of the Lorentz Transformation for Parallel Force that provides
the correct result, the derivation of the Lorentz Transformation for
Transverse Force is incorrect. (The derivation of this transformation is
straightforward and is easily accomplished using the conventional Lorentz
Transformations for Mass, Length and Time. The infamous "Right Angle Lever
Paradox" (see figure below) provided a "common sense" warning that an error
had been made in that mathematical derivation. In this thought experiment
shown by the diagram, if forces are applied at the ends of the right angle
lever and the lever is observed not to rotate in both the "moving" and
treference frames, then the moments applied to each arm must be equal in
magnitude and opposite in direction in each of the reference frames.
http://einsteinhoax.com/rf511.gif.

With the conventionally accepted values, the product of the Lorentz
Transformation for Parallel Length and the alleged Transformation for
Parallel Force is not equal to the product of the Lorentz Transformation for
Transverse Length and the alleged Transformation for Parallel Length. This
inequality implies that, if the torques applied to the arms are equal in one
of the reference frames ("moving" or "stationary") they cannot be equal in
the other reference frame ("stationary " or "moving") and the lever would
then rotate in one of the reference frames and not the other. Since the
lever does not seem to know of this equirement, it remains stationary, and
it was necessary to reconcile the dilemma that resulted.

One would think that rational men would accept that an error had been
made in the derivation of the force transformations and search for that
error. Instead, it was assumed that the derivation of the Lorentz
Transformations for the Forces had to be correct, after all they were
derived mathematically. To account for the difficulty, a convoluted
explanation was devised which asserted that the rate of increase of energy
in the transverse lever produced by the parallel force was balanced by the
rate of increase of the angular momentum supplied by the torque difference
between the two directions. The explanation conveniently ignored the fact
that for moments to be applied to the lever by the forces applied to its
ends, equal and opposite forces would result at the hinge pin. As a result,
any energy that is added to the transverse lever arm by the applied parallel
force at its end will be removed at the hinge pin, and the rate of change of
energy in the lever is exactly zero.

What was also ignored was the fact that the angular momentum of the
lever is the product of its moment of inertia and its angular velocity.
Since the lever was observed not to rotate in either reference frames, the
rate of change of the lever's angular momentum is also zero. Properly done,
the mathematical explanation amounts to the statement that 0 = 0. This is
certainly true but is also meaningless. It is frightening that the advanced
academic community could overlook such an error and appear in a large number
of postgraduate level texts. It is even more frightening that individuals
who would embrace such an explanation are in a position to teach our best
and brightest. For a derivation of the correct Lorentz Transformations for
Forces see http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm.

The type of error illustrated by paragraph B occurs in regard to the
idea of "action at a distance" being produced by the exchange of "virtual
particles". Mathematically, such particles are capable of providing both
attractive and repulsive forces. In reality, in the absence of an overlying
substrate for space (e.g.- the classical Aether or Dirac's "Sea of Negative
Energy") with which the "virtual photons" could interchange momentum, the
production by "virtual photons, of attractive forces acting at a distance
would seem to be impossible. But then, if such a substrate exists, why do we
need the concept of "virtual photons"?

Perhaps it would be constructive to illustrate this type of limitation
on the reliability of a purely mathematical treatment by considering the
analysis of a conventional FET transistor circuit, the cascode. This circuit
consists of two FET transistors with the drain of the first one driving the
source of the second one and with the gate of the second biased at a
constant positive voltage. For low frequency signals, the operation of such
an amplifier is completely defined mathematically by a property known as
"transconductance". The electron flow in the collector of the second FET is
the product of the signal voltage applied to the gate of the first FET times
the transconductance of the first FET. The mathematics tells us that a
positive signal will produce a positive flow of electrons at the output and
a negative signal will produce a negative flow of electrons at the output.

What the mathematics doesn't tell us is that the process will not work
unless there was a bias flow of electrons in the amplifier to which the
output signal was added. With the bias current, the amplifier can produce
both positive and negative electron flow signal outputs by adding to or
subtracting from the bias current. Without the bias current, the amplifier
can only produce positive electron flow outputs. The mathematics is
NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT to define the process. Similarly, the writer
asserts that the mathematics associated with "virtual photons" is also
NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT. A substrate (e.g.- the classical Aether or
Dirac's "Sea of Negative Energy" or one of the several "background energy of
space" concepts) would seem to be necessary for the idea of "virtual
photons" as a force carrier to work, but, if the substrate exists, why is
the concept of "virtual photons" as force carriers required?

Whether "virtual photons" exist can be evaluated by a rather simple
experiment as shown in the diagram below. There is an even simpler means of
evaluating the concept. A recent news item revealed that a loose oxygen
cylinder was captured by the magnetic field of an MIR machine and flew
across the room to crush the skull of a child being examined. If such a
strong magnetic field existed in the room and that field involved "virtual
photons", those photons would be sufficiently numerous to produce an amount
of electromagnetic noise that would be easily measured. I doubt very
seriously if such noise would be found if s search were made.
http://einsteinhoax.com/cf43.gif.

Remember that Dr. Einstein warned "we have not proven that the Aether
doesn't exist, we have merely proven we do not need it (for calculations).
Also remember that it took 25 years of peer pressure to cause Dr. Einstein
to relinquish the idea of "absolute time" (equivalent to believing the
Aether) and accepting the unproven (and rather ludicrous) consensus
viewpoint of space and time as a single entity.

Theoretical physics has taken the easy position that only mathematics
and experiment are required to deal with reality. Unlike every other branch
of science, it is asserted that "mechanism" is irrelevant in physical
theory. Since we live in the "mechanism" represented by our Universe, the
prime goal of any responsible theoretician should be an understanding of the
workings of that "mechanism" with the mathematical and experimental results
used to iteratively improve our understanding of that "mechanization". What
we have today, with the idea of "mechanism" eliminated, is more akin to
group quasi-religious charlatanism (how many Angels can dance on the head of
pin?) practiced by a controlling cadre of self promoting "scientists" than
it is to an organized science.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.