Has theoretical physics become so consumed with mathematics that it is unable to conceptualize except by abstract formalisms? Has theoretical physics become so institutionalized that fundamental presumptions can no longer be questioned?
To believe so, to believe that one has an important hypothesis or criticism that is being rejected without due consideration, is a daunting experience. To believe that a blatant and fundamental violation of Relativity theory has persisted for over a hundred years is to pit one’s sanity against the world, to risk being proven wrong, and have to admit that one’s very mentality is somehow defective.
For almost forty years I’ve tried to show that an error in the Minkowskian concept of spacetime has disabled various avenues of discovery and obscured important insights. I have to admit that it’s possible I’m wrong, but if so, why has no one bothered to explain how and why?
When someone has come to me with a radical theory I’ve taken the trouble to evaluate it, to be willing to either find its fundamental flaw or be forced to accept it. And when I’ve found its flaw or flaws I’ve pointed it out as kindly as I could, because creative minds need to be deterred from pursuing unproductive paths. No one has done me that favor. Usually, my papers have been rejected without comment. Rarely, they have been rejected by careless and irrelevant objections to what I don’t claim, rather than to what I do. Never have I been criticized in substance except to say, in effect, “you can’t be right because that’s not what we believe.”
With the following link I invite readers to consider my claim to have shown, by means of an alternative to the Minkowski diagram, why the speed of light is absolute, and why it is the limiting speed; I’ve shown with a simple graph how the relativistic relationship is possible -- how two observers can each observe the other’s clock to move in slow-motion; I’ve shown that time is dynamic, the source of dynamic energy, and the source of the energy we associate with gravitation. Would such demonstrations be unimportant? Insignificant? Or would they all be ludicrous, as they would have to be if in error? I invite readers to choose between showing how they must be considered ludicrous, or to counter with ludicrous criticisms in defense of cherished but indefensible and unscientific beliefs.
If theoretical physics can or won’t deal with such issues, it is, unavoidably, dead-ended.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264083080_Time_as_the_dynamic_aspect_of_the_continuum?ev=prf_pub
"If theoretical physics can or won’t deal with such issues, it is, unavoidably, dead-ended."
Dear James, I fully agree. In particular, I have experienced obvious disregard of experimental observations in favour of mainstream though unproven theoretical constructs, see eg references below.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are_signal_bursts_as_observed_at_LIGO_gravitational_wave_antennas_caused_by_stress_induced_relaxation_phenomena_in_seismic_suspension_fibres
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_interpretation_of_observational_data_sometimes_a_matter_of_authority
Johan,
Thank you for those links.
It's been fascinating to watch, the institutional mindset. Theoretical physics today is a career, above all, and an investment in presuppositions that may amount to years of research, which can be threatened by unconventional hypotheses. The longer that dark matter, gravitons, and strings go unconfirmed, the more intense the willingness to grasp at dubious indications. How long can it go on?
"How long can it go on?"
I don't expect sigificant change at certain sections of science with high speculative potential as long as self-promoting refereeing and funding networks set the rules. My hope is that open discussion via internet will help breaking up that kind of structures. That's why I have joined ResearchGate.
It's a bit like 1890 again in which the majority is close to completing a final theory of everything, and a small number of people are about to open a door to larger view of science mostly unexplored and little understood.
Theories are stuck with disagreements that must eventually resolve into discovery of false assumptions. Funded institutions seem to be committed to slow and incremental advancement of theories and observations, a prudent policy where energy levels and cost are high. There is progress, but not fast enough to satisfy everyone.
Scientist want long lasting careers, not spectacular discoveries that suddenly leave them obsolete. Too many good performing scientists have been down sized after contributing more than necessary to bring an early success to technical programs.
In physics there is large fringe community with all sorts of ideas about what should be done. To the main stream professional it is largely nuisance, by people who are not qualified to understand the progress that is being made.
Notice it is the retired person who ask this question, and the retired person and some independent researchers who answer. We contribute in areas that are neglected by the main stream, but not often in areas crowded with specialists.
Theoretical physics will be revitalized when astronomers find something new, which seems to happen every few years.
"With the following link I invite readers to consider my claim to have shown, by means of an alternative to the Minkowski diagram, why the speed of light is absolute, and why it is the limiting speed;"
Dear James,
I just came back to your above thread, in particular, as speed of light is concerned. Unfortunately, your above cited paper "Time as the dynamic aspect of the continuum?" is no longer accessible via above link. May I ask you for posting functional link?
Thanks and regards, Johan
Johan,
Sorry - I just saw your post. Here's the link:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274382100_Time_as_the_dynamic_aspect_of_the_continuum
Article Time as the dynamic aspect of the continuum
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics