This remarkable character of the success of mathematics in physics really means something non-necessary, and really remarkable , as expressed in several essays: Primary in this category is the essay by Biswaranjan Dikshit It is difficult to make sense of what is being discussed since the author is not presenting a thesis based upon mainstream quantum mechanics but upon his theory called free will theory, or biased will of nature theory. It cannot come from the scientific quality of his essay, since it is only a relative quality with some flaws as I pointed out , but even more especially because, as demonstrated by the community ratings of the rest of essays in this contest, community rating generally has nothing to do with scientific quality anyway. The issue is solved by Planck constant. Obscurantism Anti-Platonism Deny the amazing efficiency of mathematics observed in physics; stay ignorant about it. If we know that the mass grows, then we have to consider that the world started, roughly, with zero or one elementary mass. Your email address will not be published.
Everyone his own opinion. Its meant to be about the foundations of physics. Because naively implemented, such a method will fail in a world with a ratio of 10 idiots for 1 competent reviewer, as long as no system is developed for people to automatically filter the information depending on the competence of the reviewer. Below are the reasons. Physics has suffered because of its inability to bring the fundamental symmetry:
About the FQXI essay contest on the math/physics connection
Scientism Platonism Recognize with R. The essay is technical and ends up as follows: What matters is the opportunity for sane people, able to define the right standards, to get information contst according to their own standard. However, if your emphasis is on studying nature, instead of studying Platonic models, then you can see how nature accomplishes this.
I would like you to consider the case of the Dirac equation. I take the position that mathematics, like science, is a esasy of human cognition.
Questioning the Foundations: 4th FQXi Essay Contest | viXra log
The new contest is difficult because it is omni-extensive, and 9 pages to explain your point of view is not much, but that gives you only the rule to be to the point without too much blabla. Personally I am not too optimistic about the contest. On the other hand, as the irrational aspects of reality are not subject to the laws of physics, we will definitively never be able to compile a sound physical proof for the cintest of free will, aims, and intentions, and their effects onto the course of objective events.
This amazing figure of the achievements mathematics in science seriously means that an item no-crucial, and remarkable. Spinors are not “made of” space-time connections, since any spinor element of E would correspond to a light-like direction of space-time but any physical description by such a direction would fail to fix the phase of this spinor.
They can evolve, but we can not prove that they do. This entry was posted on Friday, May 25th, at 1: Of course, no known mathematics is internal, which is where the cojtest piece of the formation of intention might hide.
May 26, at 5: Guts cpntest to give up separate conservation of B and L but not a slightest experimental evidence has emerged for the decay of proton. Quarrels for Mathematical Platonism, and what is fantastic about the achievements of mathematics in physics. But I am really glad to have participated, learned a lot of the interventions of other laymen and professionals who encouraged me to persuit my queeste.
I would prefer dreaming up pet theories in combination with proposals for doable experiments in professional labs. See my comments there As I noted there, that article has some points, but also some flawsand in my Web page on the topic.
On the FQXI math/physics essay contest
Both comments and pings are currently closed. Because to be high rated by idiots, it does not suffice for essays to be stupid nonsense. Home Affiliates Community Login Register. A thorough conceptual housecleaning is needed.
Also the relationship of QCD- to old-fashioned description based on hadrons relying on the notion of contesst isospin is fuzzy: Wigner, Casey Blood, J. May 26, at 7: Is there a bookmaker that allows me to bet against the emergence of a later appreciated paper within this FQXi framework?
I might as you take into consideration the way it is on the Dirac scenario.
With regard to the FQXI essay contest about the mathematics/science relationship
The main problem with M-theory is that M-theorists fail to realize that Milgrom is the Kepler of contemporary cosmology. But where does the problem come from? If the purpose of this essay contest was to beat the woods of science and philosophy and find someone out there who was a genius, and had some hidden secret answer, then the contest failed to find him.