# Archive for category Responses

### Beautiful mathematics vs. qualitative insights

Posted by Dirk Pons in About method and progress, Difficult problems in Physics, Philosophy and Physics, Responses, Time on February 26, 2016

### Which is better for fundamental physics: beautiful mathematics based on pure concepts, or qualitative insights based on natural phenomena?

According to Lee Smolin in a 2015 arxiv paper [1], it’s the latter.

*mathematics [is used] as a substitute for insight into nature*‘ (p13).

*‘The point is not how beautiful the equations are, it is how minimal the assumptions needed and how elegant the explanations.*‘ (http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.07551)

*Thousands of theorists have spent decades studying these [string theory] ideas, and there is not yet a single connection with experiment*‘ (p6-7).

### Mathematical symmetries: More or fewer?

### How to find a better physics?

*‘begin with new physical principles*‘ (p8). Thus we should expect new physics will emerge by developing qualitative explanations based on intuitive insights from natural phenomena, rather than trying to extend existing mathematics. Explanations that are valuable are those that are efficient (fewer parameters, less tuning, and not involving extremely big or small numbers) and logically consistent with physical realism (‘tell a coherent story’). It is necessary that the explanations come first, and the mathematics follows later as a subordinate activity to formalise and represent those insights.

*no such principles have been proposed*‘ (p8) is incorrect. Ourselves and others have proposed new physical principles – ours is called the Cordus theory and based on a proposed internal structure to particles. Other theories exist, see vixra and arxiv. The bigger issue is that physics journals are mostly deaf to propositions regarding new principles. Our own papers have been summarily rejected by editors many times due to ‘lack of mathematical content’ or ‘we do not publish speculative material’, or ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’. In an ideal world all candidate solutions would at least be admitted to scrutiny, but this does not actually happen and there are multiple existing ideas in the wilds that never make it through to the formal journal literature frequented by physicists. Even then, those ideas that undergo peer review and are published, are not necessarily widely available. The problem is that the academic search engines, like Elsevier’s Compendex and Thompson’s Web of Science, are selective in what journals they index, and fail to provide reliable coverage of the more radical elements of physics. (Google Scholar appears to provide an unbiassed assay of the literature.) Most physicists would have to go out of their way to inform themselves of the protosciences and new propositions that circulate in the wild outside their bubbles of knowledge. Not all those proposals can possibly be right, but neither are they all necessarily wrong. In mitigation, the body of literature in physics has become so voluminous that it is impossible for any one physicist to be fully informed about all developments, even within a sub-field like fundamental physics. But the point remains that new principles of physics do exist, based on intuitive insights from natural phenomena, and which have high explanatory power, exactly how Smolin expected things to develop.

*fewer*rather than more symmetries. This is also consistent with our work, which indicates that both the asymmetrical leptogenesis and baryogenesis processes can be conceptually explained as consequences of a single deeper symmetry (http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2014.517193). That is the matter-antimatter species differentiation (http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-27.1.26). That also explains asymmetries in decay rates (http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/apr.v7n2p1).

Dirk Pons

26 February 2016, Christchurch, New Zealand

*This is an expansion of a post at Physics Forum **https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/smolin-lessons-from-einsteins-discovery.849464/#post-5390859*

References

[1] 1. Smolin, L.: Lessons from Einstein’s 1915 discovery of general relativity. arxiv 1512.07551, 1-14 (2015). doi: http://arxiv.org/abs/1512.07551

### Time: There Already Are Answers If You Look A Little Wider. . .

* Space vs time: One has to go – but which?* This is the question asked by

**Anil Ananthaswamy**at New Scientist asks. As he says, ‘If we want to progress towards a theory of everything, we need to understand how space and time fit together – if they do at all.’ He goes on to review the usual candidates: quantum mechanics and general relativity, and finds them wanting. Then he checks out string theory (and AdS/CFT) and then takes in loop quantum gravity. Ultimately there are no definitive answers. As he concludes, ‘Many potential ways around lead to different worlds of space and time – and we have as yet little clue which route to follow.’

Here’s our take on this subject, being a copy of our post at the NS article:

We have a theory that time is an emergent property of matter, as opposed to being a dimension of its own or a property of space. The idea being that particles of matter emit discrete forces at their de Broglie frequency, and these are meshed together over space to create a fabric of discrete fields. The particles then interact with each other via the discrete field forces that they send to and receive from this fabric, and since those interactions are not instantaneous (for reasons given in the theory), so the arrow of time emerges.

This is an unorthodox perspective, especially since it starts from a non-local hidden-variable (NLHV) solution, but it has the benefit of being able to explain everything that quantum mechanics, general relativity, LQG, and string/M theory can explain about time, and quite a lot more. We call this the Cordus theory. It becomes quite simple to explain why time as measured by atomic clocks is consistent with time as we perceive it as humans, how time dilation occurs, where the arrow (irreversibility) arises, how time began, whether time exists outside an expanding universe, and many other such niggly little questions at fundamental and cosmological levels.

I can’t explain the whole thing in one post – instead I just want to point out that there already are answers for pretty much all the questions raised in the article, providing one is prepared to be open-minded and look beyond the fixed mental models provided by the orthodox theories. According to this Cordus theory there is nothing wrong with QM and GR per se, it is just that they are situationally-accurate but merely special-case approximations of a deeper mechanics. The only reason time is such a quandary to QM and GR is because those theories have premises that limit what kind of solutions can be admitted. But at the deeper level it is easy to unify the forces, resolve wave-particle duality, and explain entanglement and locality. So there is a lot of progress being made in the unorthodox areas of physics, even if the mainstream has stagnated.

Of course we could also be wrong! Make up your own mind: See the full time paper here http://vixra.org/abs/1301.0074 or a simpler series of explanations here https://cordus.wordpress.com/category/time/.

Thank you

Dirk Pons