Jan 19, 2020, 7:56 AM
Sorry all. Mathiness, and mathematical fiction in physics is definitely a problem, and attention whoring among mathematical physicists by selling those fictions is ridiculous.
But this is because they have no classical model (geometric) to explain their probabilism at the subatomic level. Even the most mathy idea – string theory – is likely very close to the explanation of how change moves through the underlying geometry – whatever it is.
Electric universe theory is simply a material theory and therefore easier to grasp without the mathiness. That said, it’s absolutely positively pseudoscientific nonsense. Same for plasma.
The reason all of these problems exist, whether mainstream mathy or fringe material, is that we simply haven’t figured out the underlying (and in my expectation, classical, structure of the universe at the sub-particle (wave) level.)
There is an elegance to P because it operationalizes the psychological, social, political world of thought. But human action is at human scale. That elegance isn’t available to use in physics at the sub-particle level because we can’t yet operationalize it.
So please don’t associate woo woo with my work because you RIGHTLY PREFER and TRUST a classical, geometric, material, operational description of reality instead of a mathy-probabalistic one. Realize this about YOURSELF and YOUR thought.
Just because P solves a problem and mathy-physics doesn’t, doesn’t mean mathy physics is wrong. It means it’s incomplete – but yes, when it is complete, I don’t doubt it will be expressible in operational and material terms.
Woo woo pseudoscience is what I say it is: nonsense.