Dear Prof. Dr. Brian D. Josephson,

This is a follow up to what I have been complaining about the way

theoretical physicists use mathematics. BTW, to be very honest, I have no

quarrel with engineers and applied physicists most of whom agree with my

complaint and they go even further saying that theoretical physics is a

religion. When I told them about the contribution of scholastic philosophy

to the development of mathematical logic and information science, they

understood.

So, where does theoretical physics or mathematical physics stands? This is

a serious question.

As I discussed with Dr. Belher, I have a serious problem with the way

physicists use mathematics. For them, mathematics is a "language", a

bunch of formulas to be picked up and used in whatever convenient way

possible. In mathematics, mathematical formulas are developed in theories

and they are not independent. Each mathematical formulas have its own

context and ignoring the context quickly leads to inconsistency.

Going back to the mathematical physics v.s. mathematics. For pure

mathematicians differential equations and their solutions are different

things. One differential equation can have infinitely many solutions as

you know well. So, for mathematicians who understand logic well, it is

astounding that physicists expect that one differential equations capture

all properties of its solutions. Differential equation is nothing but a

good abstraction of a bunch of functions which satisfy the equation. For

physicists this is all waste of time. For then mathematics is just to get

solutions and plugin numbers to get the number correct. This for us is

totally foreign.

I presented a tragic consequence of this get number correct mathematics

which ruled the late 19th and early 20th century physics. It was Lorentz

who made a fatal error in this context. He was shocked by that when we

apply Galilean transformation to a wave equation, it is not a wave

equation anymore. He was quite satisfied by his discovery that his Lorentz

Transformation preserves wave functions. This was picked up by Einstein

and the theory of Lorentz transformation as the theory of constant speed

moving reference frames was developed as STR.

What both Lorentz and Einstein failed to understand is that when we

transform using Galilean Transformation, a wave function, it produces a

wave function. So, what more do we want? What is the fuss on the GT all

about? After all GT is not a linear transformation as it involves dynamic

translation.

Similar kind of the lack of understanding of mathematics physicist use

appeared in yet another issue which I discussed with Dr. Belher. This

appeared in QM.

As Schrodinger's wave equation failed to be relativistic despite heroic

effort by Schrodinger to make it work, Gordon-Klien made a canning way out

of the problem which unfortunately showed nothing but the ignorance and

lack of integrity of the thinking of mathematical physicists. To being

with what do you expect from Schrodinger's wave equation which came from

the inconsistent theory of combining classical dynamics of Hamilton and

relativistic theory of de Droglie relation. Moreover, Gordon-Kelin took

the energy-momentum relation of Einstein as the essence of STR and they

"quantized it by replacing energy and momentum variable with quantum

energy operator and momentum operator. Only a theoretical physicist would

do things like this. No wonder there are way too many "quantizations" in

QM and they contradicts each other as I pointed out.

To begin with the infamous energy-momentum relation of Einstein is false.

It came from the ill fated e=mc^2 relation. The standard derivation

assumes that the speed of inertial reference frames could be in

acceleration, which is in abosolute contradiction with the definition of

inertial frames. When we respect the definition of inertial frames, we

come up with e=0 as I told you. Here it goes. Einstein defined the

relativistic mass to be m0/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) where m0 is the rest mass and v

is the relative speed of the inertial reference frame. From this he

defined relativistic momentum as

p=mv=m0(v)/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).

The he defined the relativistic second law as f=dp/dt.

This is a secondary school level mistake that he did not notice that as v

is constant, f=0. This leads to e=0, instead of e=mc^2 unfortunately. This

again is a secondry school level mathematical error. All theoretical

physicists of the last century "believed" in this for the fear of being

purged by the corrupted community of name calling, intimidation and

blackmailing. Who wants to be called "crank", "crack pot" or "lunatic

fringe". Yes I was called "lunatic fringe" by several academic

conferences. Somebody in NPA said it is all "Emperor's New Cloth".

So, Brian, you said that by glancing at what I wrote here in this list,

you guessed what type of researcher I was. Yes you did it correct! I do

not put cloth on my mouth. I just keep asking questions and demanding the

right answers until I get one. What is wrong with it. In academy, we all

age and in the end what is important is what is the truth. Nothing else

matters as you know well. I am a direct person who do not hide behind

something big.

I will continue to ask questions on not only QM but also on entire

theoretical physics. After all QM was a final product of this totally

corrupted discipline of theoretical physics in which what matters is how

successfully one agrees with the "geniuses".

Akira

-------I've no idea what point you're trying to make. Did you yourself follow the details of the paper by Mott that I cited, which I came across in my travels a long time ago? It sounds a bit as if what you're saying is "I don't understand this paper, therefore it is wrong".Brian------Brian D. JosephsonEmeritus Professor of Physics, University of CambridgeDirector, Mind–Matter Unification ProjectCavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UKWWW: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10Tel. +44(0)1223 37260/337254