Couldn't agree MORE with your statement that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain anything, given a few initial assumptions. case in point, quantum physics! ;-) And those pesky infinities.what to do with those? Let's just 'renormalize' them. I wonder if it as a physicist or a mathematician who came up with that?
RE: renormalization in quantum physics. (from Wikipedia) Dirac's criticism was the most persistent.[7] As late as 1975, he was saying:[8] "Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!" Another important critic was Feynman. Despite his crucial role in the development of quantum electrodynamics, he wrote the following in 1985:[9] "The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." -mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... <deleted for brevity> Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. <rest deleted for brevity>
