Selasa, 28 Februari 2017

On problems with theoretical physics

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

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

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


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".


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 D. Josephson
Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Cambridge
Director, Mind–Matter Unification Project
Cavendish Laboratory, JJ Thomson Ave, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK
Tel. +44(0)1223 37260/337254

On fundamental problems with calculus

Hello Victor and Prof. Florentin,

I fully agree that "calculus" is a deeply troubled theory of mathematics,
which lead to the more troubled theory of mathematics called topology
which ended up with a largest play ground for "problem solvers" to
enumerate problems and publish papers endlessly.

Going back to the calculus, historically it is false that this was
developed by Newton and Leibniz. About three hundred years before it was
developed in India.  They did not use it for building Physics. They just
wanted to build a mathematical model of celestial system to be used for
agriculture. I do not know if these two developments are independent.

The issue in Calculus a la Europe is that it was impossible to define the
concept of "limit" articulately. It took about two centuries for European
(mostly German) mathematicians to gain this concept properly using the
theory of complete ordered field and epsilon-delta argument. This approach
developed into general topology from which the so called algebraic
topology came out.

It was unfortunate that this method though worked fine had little to do
with the original calculus used in early physics in which naive concept of
infinitesimals were used. In fact, the topological calculus was developed
as an anti-thesis to the infinitesimal based calculus. This is what most
student learns in the university. Rarely infinitesimal caluclus is taught
thought we have modern and complete infinitesimal calculus as developed by
Abraham Robinson in 1960. The reason for all of this is because the naive
concept of infinitesimals is apparently paradoxical as even George Cantor
complained. Certainly it is trouble some to figure out what kind of
numbers are "positive numbers each of which is smaller than all positive
real numbers".

Robinson was a most important mathematical logician (model theorist) in
the history of mathematics though due to the advanced and difficult nature
of his work, it went over the head of popular scientists and did not get
appreciation which so badly deserved. It is my view that this had a lot to
do with the anti-logic culture of theoretical physics. As you know well,
logic was developed to very high level by the Scholastic Philosophers in
Vatican who wanted to prove that God exists.  Unlike Physicists, they were
quite open and honest. They realized that in all of their proofs for the
existence of God, they assumed the existence of God in one way or the
other. So, they said predicate logic will not do. This lead them to the
development of modal logic in which they tried to prove the necessity of
God instead of existence. As the bloody history of theoretical physics
proves, basically admitting the error and defeat is the last thing for the
King of science would do. This ended up with the situation where even
secondary school students become highly critical of this entire activity.
The final outcome is that the King of Science left this ugly expensive
CERN and highly questionable authority to dominate at any cost.
Notwithstanding, as a professional logician, I can tell you that we
logicians are still learning from the Vatican cosmology, though we learned
very little from the so called theoretical physics. The problem is that
all we see in theoretical physics as we know of now looks nothing but a
mountain of errors and deceptions created by earthly expectations.  After
all, to be fair, we logicians learned from QM as the development of
quantum logic. This strangest logic became a fashion for a decade or so,
long time ago and nobody even remembers.

Anyhow, regarding QM, it is a very good example of how logically
inconsistent theory whose inconsistency is well concealed by the politics
of intimidation, black mailing and name calling can create  total illusion
and thrive as "science fiction" as exactly happening now.

So, going back to infinitesimal calculus of Robinson. To be honest only
very strong experts in mathematical logic can follow what he did. It
starts with a strange theory of the first order real numbers. This is
needed as we define infinitesimal calculus as the nonstandard model of the
first order calculus, taking advantage of the weakness of the first order
theory. Using fully developed model theory (to its development Robinson
was a major contributor), using the ultra power construction and
collapsing it to quotient structure using the provable equality of the
first order real number theory, he obtained full infinitesimal calculus.
In easier language, as we define real  numbers as infinite sequences of
rational numbers separating rationals and irrationals represented as
infinite sequences of rationals, Robinson considered  infinite sequences
of real numbers as nonstandard real numbers and separated those which
converges and which do not as real numbers and infinity. As the reciprocal
of infinity he defined infinitesimals.

After all of this basically without using limit, we can develop full
calculus. Limitless calculus meant topology-less calculus. Indeed the
topology of infinitesimal calculus is trivial T0 topology.

I think one of the reason why Robinson was never appreciated in mainstream
mathematics community has a lot to do with the pressure from the community
of mathematical physicists who felt threatened  by his work which will
make their work unnecessary complication. After fleeing from Nazi
persecution, he fled to Israel and then came to Canada. He became a member
of mathematics department at U of Toronto. Despite his great work, he was
not appreciated and so he moved to UC Irvin to chair the math department
and shortly after that he died young by cancer. The sad fact is that he
never worked for places like Stanford or Harvard.

However, we do have some problem with Robinson's infinitesimal calculus.
His infinitesimals have little to do with what Leibniz and Newton meant.
Physical interpretation of Robinson's infinitesimals is not as obvious as
it should be. I learned that there are some other infinitesimal calculus
developed after Robinson. But, I do not think any of them are as powerful
as Robinson's and have any better fit with infinitesimals physics needs.
For example I do not see how we can associate a fixed charge for a
mathematical infinitesimal. This is a common way to use infinitesimals in

What is tragic is that due to the specialization and stupid ego trips, the
communication between physics and pure mathematicians ceased to exist.
Despite this concern, I am already a senior citizen and have not much time
left. So, I hope young researchers will take up this kind of very
fundamental problems for the advancement of science.


Dear Prof. Akira and Prof. Florentin


Just thought you will like this paper:

Humbly yours,

Victor Christianto
*Founder and Technical Director,
E-learning and consulting services in renewable energy
**Founder of Second Coming Institute,
Twitter: @Christianto2013
Phone: (62) 812-30663059
***Papers and books can be found at:

On Metatheoretical critics on Quantum Mechanics (Carlos Aranda)


I fully agree. As I keep saying, there problem lies in both logic and
empiricism. Because of the vast difference between them, scientists shied
away from discussing the implication of this difference. As the logical
study reached to astounding height in the development of information
science and technological advancement made it possible for empirical
science such as physics to study structurally very complex realities, we
started to feel that there must be some serious dialogue in between these
two gigantic scientific achievement. On this, I appreciate that Prof.
Feynmann initiated a dialog between elementary level logic and theoretical
physics. It is a shame that this project disappeared.

However, there is a tension of social or political nature in between them
as we have already been experiencing in this very interesting list. For me
difference is more important and productive than uniformity which always
is the end of progress and so often the product of some political
interference silencing the discussion. As a mathematical logician, when I
learned what happened to Prof. Dingle and Prof. Marmet, I was shocked and
appalled. This kind of conduct is not acceptable in any real science.
Substantial difference is blessing in the development of Science or any
human intellectual development.

When I was young, I learned what the politics did to Prof. Oppenheimer and
Prof. David Bohm. The Princeton University sacked both of them because of
their refusal to work with the US government for developing Hydrogen
bombs. For the community of science this was a serious attack on the
autonomy of science. Science does not serve any worldly authority. This is
a darkest record in the history of academy and science. Even in Soviet
Union, communist government could not remove Prof. Sakharov from the top
position in the Academy of Science. All they could do was to put him under
house arrest. The police could not enter the house as it was the property
of the Academy of science. When Western science and academy are alarmingly
politicized and we do not see even a fraction of what Academy used to be,
it is time to reflect upon what academy is about. It was founded not by
the so called "democracy". Just like hospitals, it was founded by Vatican,
the "Catholic Church", to provide earthly interference free environment to
study "higher truth". Ironically, Marxist Soviet Union seemed to have
understood what Academy is (a Christian value) way better than Democratic
"Christian" West. It is a shame!

Why I bring this painful past up now? It is because the academy is facing 
a "crisis" which is even greater than the time of the Cold War. There is
no more no string attached funding of academy. We sold our soul out to
politics and economics reaching to unprecedented corruption in the history
of academy. To compete on funding, academicians are forced to play
political games and the standard and integrity of academy dropped
alarmingly. This what most of the  intelligent people understand now. In
Physics, this had a catastrophic effect. For the fear of loosing funding
researchers stopped discussing. Differences have been "settled" by
political coercion and blackmailing as virtually anybody who appreciate
intellectual honesty knows. I myself experienced this kind of
anti-academic activities when I said that 0/0 =hf is a mathematical
contradiction presenting precise mathematical reasoning. I was called with
name in public and personal threat was issued by some totally deranged
individuals. It was not that long time ago.

So, I am now engaged in a battle to bring academy and academic discussions
back to academy, the community of physics in particular as it appears that
this discipline is most affected by this destructive war against academy.
I can hardly justify CERN spending astronomical amount of public money 
producing virtually nothing when more than 85% of the entire population of
this planet is starving. Did they learn anything from the tragedy of Prof.
Dingle, Prof. Marmet, Prof. Sakharov, Prof. Oppenheimer, Prof. Bohm etc?

I firmly believe that honest scientific discussion is the largest duty of
anybody who works in science.



Victor, what kind of reasoning is correct what kind of reasoning is
incorrect has nothing to do with the religion of theoretical physics. When
we know that UP denies trajectories and we have trajectories in our
experiments, we must conclude that QM is empirically refuted. Just as
simple as that. This means that QM is totally irrelevant to Physics even
if it may be logically consistent.

However as this work done in Cambridge, if his argument is correct,
showed that QM can logically deduce that trajectories exist clearly shows
that QM is logically inconsistent meaning that it is no good for anything.
We always find a person who replies yes to whatever question totally
useless. Yes we call them "Yes man". So, this fellow in Cambridge
unintentionally proved that QM is totally useless, it means nothing. This
is the virtue of logically inconsistent theory.

Logic is a principle which governs any human reasoning and any violation
of it in any theory simply means the theory is meaningless. It has no
application, never mind physics.

Emperical theoreis are more difficult that mathematical theories. This is
because, in mathematics, we say a theory is consistent as long as it
models a mathematical structure. in empirical science, a theory must model
an ontological structure. I should say a physica trheory is more picky
than mathematical theory.

Though I came from a most precise theory of mathematics, namely recursive
function theory, it took me a while to learn that physics is more
difficult because of this ontological modeling. As far as I know of,
virtually no mathematical logicians know about this problem.

Dear Prof. Brian Josephson and Prof. Akira Kanda

Greetings to both of you,
With regards to continuing discussion on logical inconsistency and
contradiction of QM, I just found a paper by Carlos Aranda discussing
metatheoretical critics on QM, appeared in Topologik journal 2014.
While I understood that Prof. Brian stands as one of the brightest
physicists nowadays, he may have intuition on what may be acceptable or
not in physics sciences.
On the other side, Prof. Akira Kanda is not a trained physicist, he came
from the world of logician mathematics, so he has different emphasis on
what is wrong and right.

I would just comment that such a discussion can be continued in healthy
manner, so both mathematicians and physicists can learn from each other.

Humbly yours,

Victor Christianto

Victor Christianto
*Founder and Technical Director,
E-learning and consulting services in renewable energy
**Founder of Second Coming Institute,
Twitter: @Christianto2013
Phone: (62) 812-30663059
***Papers and books can be found at:

Senin, 27 Februari 2017

On wave-particle duality

Dear Victor and Siegfried,

It was Prof. Tomonaga who said that when a theory is in crisis [like now],
we must go back and trace the history of the development of the  theory to
understand how the theory was developed.

It is my view that the most fundamental issue with QM is that of
wave-particle duality. This problem arose from two historic events:

(1) Double Slit Experiment.
(2) Black Body Radiation.

Regarding (1): They claim that QM succeeded in explicating this mystery of
Double Slit Experiment.  Their argument uses the Uncertainty Principle
which says that when a particle is localized it turns into wave. The
higher the resolution of the localization, the more particle nature turns
into wave nature. According to them the rather low resolution of the slit
on a wall is enough for a particle to loose its trajectory. This claim is
demolished by the Wilson Chamber in which particles localized at the
resolution of the size of water molecule which is much much much much ...
much higher resolution than that of the slit on the wall still exhibit

Regarding (2): As Planck himself said, hf=e is just a mathematical trick
to do curve fitting in the black body radiation problem. He said that it
has no ontological relevance at all. Upon this hypothesis, Einstein built
the idea of photon which has rest mass 0 and which moves with speed c.
Using his Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein concluded that such
particle called photon should have energy 0/0. So, he obtained 0/0=hf.
However as I showed this is a mathematical contradiction:

(0/0)xhf=(0xhf/0)= 0/0=1.

Moreover Suntora showed that the reason why they had the problem with the
black body radiation was because they used harmonic oscillators to model
the problem. When monochromatic oscillators ware used, the theoretical
curve and the experimental curve matche perfectly. So, as Planck said,
there is no ground to justify the  e=hf and we do not need it at all

So where does all of this lead us. QM is a totally useless and totally
wrong theory. Never mind the inconsistency of QM.

Regarding the wave functions and wave equations. As I pointed out, a wave
equation is a particle  differential equations and so have infinitely many
solutions. It is unreasonable to expect that a property which is conserved
under the spacetime coordinate transformation  for one particular solution
(wave) can be preserved to all solutions. So, there is nothing wrong with
that Galilean transformation does not transform wave equation to wave
equation. I do not understand why Lorentz panicked when he observed that
GT of wave equation is not an wave equation. So, why do we need Lorentz


Minggu, 26 Februari 2017

QM is deeply inconsistent and full of contradictions


I mentioned that from a contradiction, one can prove anything. Here is an
explanation for this well known result in logic.

Historically there was a long lasted dispute on the meaning of logical
implication P-->Q.
The following table is currently accepted meaning of P-->Q

                    P Q   P-->Q
                    t t     t
                    t f     f
                    f t     t
                    f f     f

This is called material implication and the dispute on this is for the
case P=f. There are still some philosophical dispute on this meaning going
on. But in mathematicians community this is well established. The reason
why we need this "strange" truth values for P-->Q when P=f is simple. We
need it to make sure that the logical equivalence P<-->Q
which has the following truth table for meaning

                    P Q   P-->Q
                    t  t    t
                    t  f    f
                    f  t    f
                    f  f    t

Naturally we expect P<-->Q is the same as P-->Q & Q-->P. Then we need the
material implication.

It is this material implication which logically derives any proposition Q
from a contradiction. Contradiction is f (false). So in a system which is
inconsistent (which derives f) we prove f and so using the P-->Q with it,
we can prove Q for any Q. This is what logicians call "deductive
explosion". It is precisely for this reason, we mathematicians reject any
theory which is inconsistent. An inconsistent theory will tell you that
everything is true.

In case of Relativity Theory and QM they assume 0/0=hf. This leads to a
contradiction as


So, from any theory which assumes 0/0=hf, we can prove anything. This
means such theory is inconsistent and totally useless. Only geniuses of
theoretical physics think such theory is correct.

Humanity does not need geniuses. We need good thinkers.


Dear Akira,

Consistency of any theory is tested by individuals, it is not assessed by
some abstract universal and objective agent.  The question whether QM is
consistent in my estimation is, indeed up to me as far as whether I expend
time entertaining this question.  That is the point of my comment, not
whether QM is consistent as a purely objective question.  In any case, it
seems to me part of the challenge here is whether the question is clear
enough to be considered objectively answerable.  It is not, as stated in
this forum.



Here is a good argument which will enlighten physicists regarding
contradiction. Contradiction could be very constructive too. Physicists
think that contradictions are inconvenient truth (negative truth) which
has to be covered up or ignored. I presume that this is a common human
nature. But if you think about the history of mathematics, you will be
amazed by the constructive role contradictions played in maths.

Ancient Greek geometers extensively used the proof technique of "proof by
contradiction". It is unfortunate that due to the upstart Americanization
(globalization) of education, nowhere in the entire world, students learn
Euclidean geometry properly. I am sure that this ancient discipline of
mathematics is way more important than the upstart Computational
Complexity theory which some upstart American Computer scientists such as
Ullman and Hopcroft developed.

The infamous Zeno's paradox taught mathematicians that the structure of
the collection of rational numbers is not sufficient to build mathematics
which works in real life. This eventually lead to the discovery of real
real numbers and limits yielding what we now call calculus.

From the lesson of Cantor's paradox, Alan Turing reached the concept of
formal computation in his attempt to clarify what do we mean by
mathematical proof. With this, Turing knew that most of the mathematical
functions are not computable. He proved this result aka the Halting
Problem using proof by contradiction. It goes ad follows: Assume that we
have a program which given a program D applied D to D itself and determine
if the computation stops or not. Let H(D) be such a program. From this
H(D), we can write a program H'(D) such that it terminates when H(D) does
not terminate and it goes into infinite loop when H(D) terminates. What
happened we execute H'(H'). At the pain of contradiction, we can conclude
that there is no way to write a program H(D).

Unlike arrogant theoretical physicists, mathematical logicians humbled
themselves after learning this deadly result of Turing. In theoretical
physics, I am sure he would well have been dismissed as "lunatic fringe"
or "crank". So I wonder who are real crank, lunatic fringe.

So, the consistency of a theory is not something which theoretical
physicists think.



Here is a perfect example of how Cantor's set theory was shown to be
inconsistent from which we mathematicians have not recovered yet as we do
use set theory in contemporary mathematics.

In cantor's set theory, the first set theory ever defined, we define a
using a predicate P(x) as follows:


denotes a set of objects x such that P(x) is true. For example we all
what {x:0<x<1} means. it is an open interval (0,1) in calculus. All 19th
German mathematicians at Gottingen were very happy with using this
in very elementary way in the development of what we now call
analysis. In his attempt to show that the Fourier expansion is unique,
Cantor pushed the limit of set theory to where all elements of any set
sets, the so called abstract set theory. He introduced the above
way of defining such set, namely the axiom of comprehension.

In his developing of transfinite set theory to consider hierarchy of sets
in his typeless set theory, he discovered that his set theory is
inconsistent. When he announced this, mathematicians community was
and refused to accept Cantor's announcement. It was Bertrand Russell who
tried to debunk Cantor's inconsistency result discovered that there is a
simple most proof for that cantor's set theory is inconsistent. Here it

Let R={x:x not in x}. This is a set. So either R in R or R not in R.

(Case 1): R in R.
Then by the definition of R, R is not in R. So, contradiction.

(case 2): R not in R.
Then by the definition of R, R is in R. Again contradiction.

So in either case, we have contradiction.

This simple most refutation of Cantor's set theory was well understood by
mathematical logicians who think most precisely among mathematicians.

However, virtually no mathematical physicist understood this argument.
Their rather elementary criticism was that R is  very unnaturally
though they could not say what is natural here. Never the less if the
Fourier expansion is unique or not is not the matter of concern for
mathematical physicists.

To respond to this petty criticism from mathematical physicists,
showed the following more intricate proof for the inconsistency of
Cantor's set theory. He defined that a set X is "well founded" if there
no element in X from which there is an infinite descending chain of
membership (in) relation. Then he defined W to be the set of all well
founded sets. You can check your self that if W is well founded then we
have a contradiction. If W is not well founded, we also have a
contradiction. Quite clearly this remarkable argument of Miramanov was
much work for mathematical physicists who criticized Russell's paradox.

So, what can we do. Physicists have no patience to understand mathematics
they use. For them Mathematics is just a language. Let me say that if you
want to use a language, you better understand the language. From
mathematician's point if view, what is happening in theoretical physics
just all wrong.

I personally tried many times to tell physicists that their theory is
fundamentally flawed mathematically. It is all pure nonsense.

They say that they have experimental verification. I ask verification of
what? When yoy have no coherent definition of a theory, how can you
it. Almost all the so called experimental verification are flat wrong.
They are assuming much more than the theory to be verified allow. As they
have no idea what is the precise definition of the theory, fortunately
they will not realize their fatal errors.

As I pointed out, the worst of all is QM. The Uncertainty Principle
that when localized a particle turns into wave and this is how they
explicate the double slit experiment. Then how is it possible that a
particle which hit a water molecule in Wilson Chamber will leave
trajectory? As you know the resolution of the localization by slit is
much lower than that of a water molecule.

Sorry for being direct and rude. But I have to say that Physicists are
most dishonest political animals I have ever dealt with in science.
Virtually all of them respond to this kind of fatal criticisms with
political repression, name calling.

It is my personal but quite accurate view that any field which needs
"geniuses" are not worth taking seriously. In mathematics, we have no
geniuses. A lot of us refuse to put name on results.



What do you mean by theory then? What do you mean by testing a theory?
can an individual test the theory?

It was Bertrand Russell who killed physics completely. He said when we
verify a physical theory using experiment we use the theory to verify
devise the experiment and so it is vicious circle. When we refute a
physical theory by experiment, we also use the theory to refute to
the experiment. So, this is self-refutation (contradiction).

This very clearly tells us that it is impossible to refute or verify
physical theory by experiment.

How about logical inconsistency? When a theory is logically
it proves false. Then from the laws of logic, we can prove anything
we prove false. This means a logically inconsistent theory is totally
useless as it proves any prediction. So, it was Karl Popper who said
we must reject any theory which proves false (is inconsistent). Only
Physicists do not understand this simple principle.

For example, Einstein's claim that 0/0 = hf is false. Assume it is true


Also (0/0)x(hf)=0x(hf)/0=0/0=1.

So we have hf=1.

This is an elementary school level mathematics which only Physicists do
not understand.

I spent time to learn about physics to discuss it. I do not think
physicists are willing to learn about mathematics and logic. When
theoretical physicists accepted that 0/0 =hf, theoretical physics
an absolute joke among those who think. As far as I can see,
physics is much worse than religion.

Never mind Einstein, he also was a victim of the wrong culture of
theoretical physics. Assume m and M pull each other with the
force GmM/r^2. Then for M, m is approaching with acceleration GM/r^2.
m, M is approaching with acceleration mG/r^2. So if M=/=m m and M are
moving towards each other with different speed?! It took me a while to
find out what went wrong with theoretical physics regarding this. Let
tell you that Newton was the only one who dealt with this problem

Some German Prof. of Physics told me kin panic that this problem was
resolved by Feynman's QED?!

So, the consistency of physical theories is extremely objective. It
requires some solid back ground to consider this issue. ....

Dear Akira,

Consistency of any theory is tested by individuals, it is not assessed
some abstract universal and objective agent.  The question whether QM
consistent in my estimation is, indeed up to me as far as whether I
time entertaining this question.  That is the point of my comment, not
whether QM is consistent as a purely objective question.  In any case,
seems to me part of the challenge here is whether the question is
enough to be considered objectively answerable.  It is not, as stated
this forum.


Sent from Outlook<>

From: Akira Kanda <>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 1:11 AM
Cc: Victor Christianto
Subject: Re: QM is deeply inconsistent and completely waste oftime

Dear Siegfrid,

I do appreciate the offer to discuss further, but to me QM is not at

If some theory is consistent or not has nothing to do with a
individual.  It is a purely objective and universal question. The
is not if QM is consistent for you or not. It is if it is consistent

In decent science, scientists have duty to take this kind of


Dear Siegfried

Thank you for your clarification, yes it seems we disagree on the
source of so many contradictory interpretations of wavefunction. My
assertion is that the Schrodinger wavefunction is unphysical,
electromagnetic waves.

Please check my paper:

This paper was inspired by reading papers of Dr. George Shpenkov,

Ps: dear Dr. Shpenkov allow me to introduce you to Dr. Siegfried, a


Victor Christianto
*Founder and Technical Director,<>
E-learning and consulting services in renewable energy
**Founder of Second Coming Institute,<>
Twitter: @Christianto2013
Phone: (62) 812-30663059
***Papers and books can be found at:

On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:29, Siegfried Bleher <> wrote:

Dear Victor,

Thank you for responding.  I agree there is an ongoing debate on
interpretation of QM.  But, may I offer that the debate is not
use or usefulness, rather with its interpretation, as you point
The two items you point to highlight potential inconsistencies in
Schrodinger equation itself, not with the interpretation of QM,
my first response tried to emphasize, there are no inconsistencies
the derivation of the Schrodinger equation, nor in its
Physicists typically are happy to discuss issues that are
falsifiable.  The ongoing debates have more to do with our own
discomfort with QM's predictions than they have with something
inconsistent with QM.  The main point of debate is really why
there be or what is the meaning of the tremendous reduction in
possibilities represented by the Schrodinger equation when an
observation takes place (from infinite to one).  So, in fact the
argument appears when we try to make the SE conform to our notions
what is physical or real.

Just a note on your second point—the Schrodinger equation is
similar in mathematical form to the classical wave equations
equations for electromagnetic waves), except it contains a first
partial differential term with respect to time, instead of
terms.  The wavenumber k may vary in the case of the classical
equations, if there is a medium with variable dispersion relation;
the speed of  sound varies with location within the medium that
the wave.  For example, if the density of a material varies with
to displacement within it, then k = k(x) is no longer a constant.

Also a point of clarification regarding the ubiquity of QM in
electronic devices.  As you point out we do not yet have
available quantum computers.  But that's not what I was pointing
All modern devices make heavy use of semiconductors, the complete
understanding of which is not possible without QM. Band-gap
electron and hole transport theory all require QM to understand
implement, especially at the tiny scales we build integrated

I do appreciate the offer to discuss further, but to me QM is not