A Vulnerability in the Mathematics of Physics

The field of physics advances relative to the accepted tower of information that has emerged from the history of physics theory, mathematics, and experimental observation. When theory predictions match experimental observations to a high degree of statistical significance that is a factor that binds the experimentally supported theory into the tower of information. Of course we know that bindings of thought to reality can be perfectly sensible one day and overthrown the next day by a new paradigm that we find more sensible in our improved way of thinking that includes the history of science.

Let’s carefully examine what we mean by the following principle of the scientific method:

When theory predictions match experimental results to a high degree of statistical significance that is a factor that builds confidence in the theory.

When the scientific method is applied properly we must also consider the possibility that an assumption is FALSE.

Consider that the Planck length scale is some 15 orders of magnitude smaller than that detectable with circa 2020 experimental and observational technology which has about \mathbf{10^{-20}} experimental discernment. From the Planck length scale looking up, experiments in 2020 are a quadrillion units larger.



Circa 2020 the scientific method has been interpreted such that consideration of Planck scale structure is considered to be taboo because it cannot be falsified via testing. The Planck scale includes length and energy and other dimensions and measures. Let’s extend our claim beyond the Planck scale and include all scales of structure not currently observable by state of the art experimentation.

Proposition: For any theory of nature, it is possible that structure beyond the current capabilities of experimental observation could impact the assumptions or findings of the theory.

If the proposition were TRUE, then for each theory that relies on faulty assumptions, the statistical significance of the findings is invalidated and it must be re-evaluated theoretically and experimentally.

This proposition is not even close to being FALSIFIABLE give the state of physics and cosmology circa 2020. There are so many paradoxes and open problems that no scientist would say that we understand nature from its most fundamental level.

If the proposition were actually FALSE, then it would be the case that our experiments had reached the natural limit of experimentation. There would be no ‘plus ultra’, no more beyond and nature and the universe would make eminent sense. We’re not there yet.

The long con of physics is the degree of confidence attributed to various theories. Physics has many theories and narratives on why certain propositions we expected to be TRUE were actually FALSE. What if those propositions really were TRUE but science could not tell they were TRUE because state of the art experiments could not detect the underlying structure? What if physics has cemented one or more incorrect theories into the tower of information?

This is exactly the situation we find ourselves in with NPQG. The vast majority of scientists in the fields of physics, cosmology, and astronomy consider it nearly taboo to question GR, QM, or ΛCDM. However, as you study NPQG the case continues to build that structure outside our scales of detection lead to a new more sensible theory of nature and the universe.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : May 30, 2020 : v1

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s