Physics education research, electronic materials, and the musings of Christopher Moore, Ph.D.

Thank you Chris for your 'cut to the chase' response...

I've subsequently contacted the author, Thad. He is in the process of updating his website to address your concerns particularly. The website, he states, was developed principally for the "lay person", so mathematics were left aside purposefully. Further, a major thrust of his theory is that mathematics are not necessary to grasp the gist of the theory (or Nature for that matter), but that math can back it up. We shall see, I suppose.

On a philosophical note (of my own), how can you say in any sort of meaningful way that a 'physical theory' MUST be mathematical. Unless we fully embrace REALLY hard core Platonism, mathematics is an analog to the real world, not the real world. A physical theory is, in and of itself, not mathematical. Mathematics has NO physical reality. You cannot point to 'one', you cannot point to Pi without doing so in a poetic/analogous way. In fact, to get back to the point, a physical theory must be more than mathematical, it must connect us back to what the theory is about (Nature). While mathematics is and has been the surest way to do so, it has its limitations. Newton looked into Nature and had profound insights, but there were no mathematics for his insights, thus he created the calculus. Would you say that Newton's theory was not a physical theory before the calculus? I doubt you would. My point, and apparently Thad's as well, is that mathematical constructs serve a purpose, but they are not the fountainhead. They are post hoc.

Thad states in his email to me that your critiques are quite valid and appreciated, asking you to be patient while he develops that content on his website. (He sent me another chapter of his book, on universal constants, which I found most compelling, and yes, there are formulae.) He says there are also a slew of empirically testable predictions that the theory generates--which also will be posted in the website update.

So, I guess... please stand by.

Last edited by ikkarus1999 (2009-07-26 09:35:42)

Hi, I'm new here.

http://einsteinsintuition.com

I still don't see much mathematics here. There's just definitions of Planck units, plus Bohmian dynamics. But where's the theory? Or perhaps I'm missing something.

On a philosophical note (of my own), how can you say in any sort of meaningful way that a 'physical theory' MUST be mathematical. Unless we fully embrace REALLY hard core Platonism, mathematics is an analog to the real world, not the real world. A physical theory is, in and of itself, not mathematical. Mathematics has NO physical reality.

Mathematics is the only way to make all scientists agree with you, so you have no choice. And yes, I'm a hardcore platonist, but this has nothing to dowith the fact, that maths is the very language of all science, or physics at least.

Newton looked into Nature and had profound insights, but there were no mathematics for his insights, thus he created the calculus.

Then invent your own one and describe the theory using it.