Physics and Maths
“s
a conclusion, Maxwell is not correct because, in science, the equations we
write
should not be correct only
dimensionally and quantitatively, but they must also
correspond to observed phenomena.
Substituting .... .... in Ampere’s law, although
correct mathematically and dimensionally, is not correct phenomenologically,
because the interpretation of the law thus modified leads to absurdities not
observed in real world” – Ionel Dinu in http://vixra.org/pdf/1206.0083v1.pdf
Your use of the word
“phenomenological” is important.
See the last
paragraph in http://www.ivorcatt.org/x121.pdf
starting with “Blindness”.
Nobel prize winner Professor Brian Josephson is the extreme
example of what has gone wrong in physics. Note his remark; http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x23p.htm
“This is the problem if you work with simplified
physics rather than follow the maths.”
This was his response to The Second Catt Question.
He evaded an obvious physical contradiction in classical theory by saying one
should not look at the physics (the physical reality), but rather at the maths!
Mathematicians have captured physics, with disastrous results.
Note my remark, also in http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x23p.htm
The
simplest case, http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm
, has perfect conductors and perfect dielectric. Imperfections can be added
later. Mathematical manipulations can be added later. However, the fundamentals
are in the physics, not in the mathematics. Examples of features missing from
the maths are causality (only the = sign) and superposition – can two physical
situations be superposed?
Note
that the number of Google hits for “mathematics is the language of
science" is 50,000.
Another
interesting event occurred in the mathematicisation
of electromagnetic theory when it migrated from equations like δE/δx = δD/δt , which mapped
reasonably well onto a TEM Wave step travelling down guided by two parallel
conductors, to today’s divs and dels


where it becomes
impossible to see the relationship between the maths and the TEM step. Of
course, this is allied with the tradition in academia of ignoring any waveform
except the sine wave.
(Irrelevant to the
above is the fact that Brian Josephson is marginalised because he tried to
bring the paranormal into science.)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Recently I came up
with the question; “Is
the mathematical derivation of something which is physically real always also
physically real?” I honestly don’t know how Josephson would answer. I suspect he would
think that mathematical manipulation cannot drive one from the physically real
to the nonreal.
Note that there seems
to be no discussion anywhere on this matter. This is why I jumped on your (Ionel Dinu’s) use of the word “phenomelogical” as a single sign in a desert of
indifference.
http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV1/EMTvol1p4445.jpg
http://www.forrestbishop.4t.com/EMTV1/EMTvol1p4647.jpg
An interesting example of a dilemma, showing that this may not demand a yes/no answer in a particular case, is distance, velocity, acceleration .... x, dx/dt, d^{2}x/dt^{2}, d^{3}x/dt^{3 }. It is not obvious at what stage in this progression we move from the physically real to the unreal.^{}
In “Death of Electric
Current” http://www.ivorcatt.com/2608.htm
I write; “Although a cloud
cannot exist without edges, the edges of a cloud do not exist They have no width, volume, or materiality. However, the
edges of a cloud can be drawn. Their shapes can be manipulated graphically and
mathematically. The same is true of the socalled ‘electric current’”. Electric current is a
mathematical derivation from magnetic field. This is the first time in science
that the first differential of something real (field) has been regarded as
real.
Ivor Catt 15 September 2012