Replies

Let me apologize in return for being dismissive. When I see someone say, "I still don't believe . . ." on a science question, and "no math" on a physics question, I get irritated - not at you personally, but at the society where beliefs and armwaving replace real science.

Yet that doesn't mean someone can't honestly try to understand, yet feel inadequate to follow the math.

Nonetheless, a true, compelling argument must involve math. It is in the math that quantifiable, verifiable predictions can be made - and that is what allows one to choose among varying potential explanations. So, I'll address some of your points with specific responses, recognizing that again and again the true answer will be based on a mathematical language. As I used in my previous note, an analogy would be someone blind trying to address light. Another way to look at it is that mathematics is the language of physics, and if you (or I) don't speak the language, then we can't really communicate. More importantly, we can't really prove anything. So, what follows is not proof - only vague generalizations.

I will start by saying that mathematics has never been proven wrong. It has sometimes been limited (such as before people codified ways to discuss fractions or negative numbers), but it is inherently just a language. What one says with it can be wrong, but the language is itself correct. 2 + 2 really does equal 4, and always will (yes, I understand about other than base 10 math, but I'm going to take some shortcuts). However, one can add two horses and two rabbits and not get a tasty rabbit stew for four people. So once one applies that language to specific situations, there is room for error.

The best way to understand some of the evolution of our understanding of physics is to start with Newton. Before him, we didn't really approach the real world in a 'scientific' way - particularly not in a 'physics' way. Physics is the application of mathematics to the real world, and he was the first to show how it could be done.

At one level nothing he said is wrong (at least, nothing in Principia Mathematica and other publications, though some of his private writings were more speculative than scientific). However, as conditions vary further and further from "room temperature and pressure" refinements need to be incorporated. This is especially true at the very small and the very large. Yet those are refinements. So, Einstein's theory of gravity (which is the basis for "General Relativity") predict a few arc-seconds difference in the observed position of stars near the sun, visible during an eclipse (otherwise the brightness of the sun hides stars close enough for a measurable effect). That's a numerical prediction based on a mathematical formula, and one 'believes' it or not based on whether the numerical prediction is accurate. And it is. More accurate than Newton's equations. But it is only the difference of a few arc-seconds in the observed position of stars, and in the extreme conditions of light waves passing very close to the most massive object in the solar system. There is a similar small but measurable (math again) difference in the position of Mercury in its orbit between Einstein's formula and Newton's formula, and Einstein is right. Again, the difference is very small, so Newton is not 'wrong' when the measurements take place in normal conditions, but there is a refined and better answer as conditions become extreme. Note: Einstein's equations also work for benign conditions. They just work for more extreme conditions as well.

There is another level of understanding that goes beyond equations. "Why" do Einstein's equations work and Newton's show small errors? That is where PhDs come from. Anyone who says that "science is settled" is not a scientist. Every major breakthrough in science came from someone extending (or at least challenging) conventional scientific explanations. They have the burden of ensuring that their explanations are consistent with all observed data (math) and they need to show an ability to predict results of future observations. But sometimes that can happen.

The biggest challenge in physics since Einstein's theory of General Relativity has been the attempt to show a cohesive mathematical way to predict all results of observations from the very small to the very large. Quantum mechanics is very solidly demonstrated in any number of quantified results, yet how does it relate to gravity? Why are electromagnetic effects 31 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational effects? This quest for a 'unified field theory' to relate them was Einstein's goal in the latter years of his life, and the goal of all physicists since. String theory arose from that.

The problem with string theory - to us - is that it is leaps very far out into mathematical language; so much so that nothing in our sensory experience provides any anchor to link between what we observe and what the mathematics expresses. It requires the existence of dimensions we cannot observe, and describes things like quarks as the various motions that a string can demonstrate. It can be curved back on itself as a ring, and so a string that is unwound might describe gravity while one that is curled into a small space might describe the weak nuclear force. It can vibrate, and with various harmonics. These variables offer a mathematical way to describe results we observe, but we can't directly observe the strings because they are not limited to the three dimensions (plus time) that we can observe.

We can use the math to predict results, and sometimes observe the results to confirm the predictions, but the mechanism that generates the results is unobservable. Because of that, we have only the pragmatic 'proof' that the quantified results do or do not show that the predictions were accurate. That gap between a means of predicting observable results and an understanding of the underlying mechanism that causes those results shows up in all of physics. Even Newton didn't explain how the sun reaches out to tug on the planets. He just showed how to calculate the amount of the tug. Einstein's field theory offers an explanation to go with the prediction. That explanation is the existence of a space-time "continuum" which "curves" due to the presence of matter in such a way that an object moving through that continuum follows the most direct path - which is a curving path because space-time itself is curved. That can't be 'observed' by our senses except through the resulting motion of objects we can observe. It requires a higher dimension to contain the curve of space-time since - in our perceived dimensions and to our senses - space is empty vacuum. To solve the equations (to make the math "work"), time needs to be one of the dimensions. If that is true, then there will be conditions where different observers perceive time as passing at different rates. And that has been shown to be true as well, so Einstein's formulation for space-time has been demonstrated to be accurate for all observed phenomena other than the very small (quantum mechanics) and the mundane (lifting a rock with a lever - though in fact Einstein's equations still predict what will happen - they're just practically unsolvable at that scale and Newton's simpler equations work with sufficient accuracy).

Hawking provided some predictions of effects in the near vicinity of black holes (another extreme condition), and to the best of our ability to measure they have shown to be accurate. Yet he didn't find a cohesive unified field theory either.

What we (all of us) need to do is recognize the difference between observed phenomena (like the motions of stars in galaxies) and explanations for it that provide mathematically verifiable predictions (like dark matter). And we also need to recognize that there are levels to the explanations. Thus, if something is causing stars to move as though there were more matter than we can observe, we can label this effect dark matter - which is one level of explanation - while still trying to understand what that dark matter itself is (WIMPs). That doesn't mean that 'dark matter' doesn't exist at the level of predictably explaining the motions of starts in galaxies. It might mean that WIMPs are not the right explanation at the next level.

And so on through all of physics, and ultimately, all of the universe around us.

I thank you for your apology. However, you go on to convolute simple arithmetic with advanced Algebra, Calculus, Trigonometry, Geometry and other advanced mathematics.

Newton has been proven partially wrong. Copernicus was absolutely wrong in his math about the Sun being stationary and the center of the Universe. Einstein's and Hawking's math are now in question, as has others through the centuries. Mathematics is not an exact science. It's guys on a chalk or white board replacing certain numerical values with certain symbols and doing the basic arithmetic from there.

I will ask you the same 2 questions I've asked everyone on this thread:
1. Is there such a dimension called time or is it a human mind construct?
2. How did the singularity (super-heated basketball) poof into existence out of nowhere?

Don't give me math equations, tell me why you believe time is real. Then give me an explanation that the basketball magically appeared out of nowhere. You can't.

I thank you for any courteous reply, but I will tell you and other mathematicians and/or physicists, you will never know the answer to those two (2) most basic questions. I doubt our species will ever evolve enough to answer those questions. Theories will come and go, but doubt those 2 will ever be resolved.

Plus what the heck is gravity? Some other apparently learned poster on this thread told me Einstein explained it in his THEORY of Relativity. Plus he said it was not a true force, but an apparent force.

But then some entity from a parallel universe may appear and give us the answers to the Universe, which is more hokum from physicists who need to write papers for their graduate degrees and sell books.