Thought chains 1

Esprit De Lascaille

A series of notes on the development, branching and “coupling” of ideas from different fields of knowledge.

Part one.

“Unified Field Theory”.

Einstein’s unfortunate idea, which was to reduce all phenomena in our world to the interaction of fields, not particles. Einstein believed that the material particles in our physical space are some kind of unwanted guests, which should be disposed of and replaced with certain “fields”.
What was the guiding idea behind Einstein’s thinking?
UNIFICATION.
To reduce all the variety of phenomena and objects to a single basis.
(By the way, this tendency is obviously inherent in human genes: It is not for nothing that four thousand years ago one small tribe, the Jews, came up with the idea of unifying different gods, reducing all to one single and, moreover, invisible! This is how monotheism arose, and therefore most people are invisible, indistinguishable …)

Like any other reasonable idea, the idea of unification has a right to exist and it has repeatedly confirmed its validity. For example, the idea of atoms as some kind of “indivisible” particles of any substance.
But one of the “tricks” of our thinking is to KNOW WHEN “unification” is necessary and useful for moving thought forward, and when it should be discarded as vicious.
For example.
A very talented mathematician and teacher, Herman Minkowski, developed shortly before his tragic and ridiculous death from appendicitis in 1908, the so-called mathematical formalism of the Special Theory of Relativity. Which all theorists use to this day.
Albert Einstein himself was one of Minkowski’s students. When Minkowski was told that Einstein had put forward a very beautiful and revolutionary idea in the form of the Theory of Relativity, he asked with perplexity:
“Einstein??? Is this the one who was always skipping my lectures??? I would never have thought that he would be able to do something sensible!!!”
This opinion of Minkowski, as we can see, did not prevent him from supporting the Theory of Relativity with his significant work. I’ll say a few words about her.
In his “formalism”, Minkowski adds a fourth coordinate to the three axes of our physical (geometric) space: TIME. Introduces it as a kind of legitimate “time axis” and considers all phenomena in this four-dimensional space. “The World of Minkowski”,
The same idea of UNIFICATION.
I consider it absolutely wrong and illegal, although there seems to be a positive trend towards the same unification.
The time axis, where the time factor is denoted by the imaginary unit ict, can in no way be equated to the three ordinary geometric axes of our space. Theoretically, we can move freely along these three axes in any direction and stop at any chosen point in geometric space.
With the time axis, this is completely impossible:
We CAN’T stop time and stay at a certain point in it! In geometry, it’s easy!
We CANNOT move arbitrarily forward and backward along the time axis! In geometry, it’s easy!
We CANNOT compress or stretch certain segments on this axis, that is, compress or stretch certain time intervals, except by moving at sublight speed. Which is not EASY at all!
So this axis is a purely mathematical fiction that has no physical meaning and is convenient only for calculating various phenomena, but no more.
It often happens that “good” mathematics is “bad” physics.

(An example of the latter statement is the consideration of diffraction phenomena using the Huygens-Fresnel principle.  In accordance with this principle, light waves from a slit coming to a certain point (on the screen) with a 180-degree travel difference, half a period, DESTROY each other and therefore the point appears dark to us. And in the photos too! In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE to UNIFY by reducing waves in a medium or on the surface of two media that “destroy” each other, it is impossible, I repeat, to extend this phenomenon to waves of light! The energy of light waves CANNOT be mutually destroyed, it contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy! It is interesting that for two hundred years ALL the physicists of the world have interpreted diffraction precisely in accordance with this principle, “FUNDAMENTALLY” not noticing its blatant infidelity! With impeccable mathematical accuracy!)

In fact, Einstein was so captivated by this Minkowski formalism that he decided, contrary to his early and correct views on the role of mathematics in physics, that it was with the help of mathematics that he would be able to create the aforementioned Unified Field Theory. Like, the curve will take me where I need to go…
I DIDN’T TAKE IT OUT!
You just need to FEEL, if there is no other support, WHEN to unify, and WHEN it is wiser to abstain. Sand dunes are similar in appearance to frozen waves at sea. However, it would be absurd to consider that if so, it means (adored unification!) They are made of the same material! Sand is not water and water is not sand. They are somewhat similar in phenomena, but THEY ARE DIFFERENT! Different in physico-chemical properties! And it’s stupid to put an equal sign between them, even though sand can “flow” like water, and water in the form of snow or hail is slightly similar to sand. 
The world in which we live does not obey our conjectures and attempts to unify everything in it, to reduce EVERYTHING to one beginning! HE’S DIFFERENT! And just as TIME, due to its UNIQUENESS, cannot be reduced to the usual length, height and width, so it is impossible to reduce all the variety of phenomena and objects of the world to one basic concept, either fields or particles.
This, apart from the fatal and ridiculous confidence in the omnipotence of mathematics, was Einstein’s tragic, fatal mistake. (Practically, forty years of lonely struggle for the creation of a mathematical chimera of a Unified Field Theory!)

You, Asprey,” a very critical reader will say, “dare to criticize Einstein himself. Even if we assume that there is the slightest SHADOW, only a shadow, of justice in your criticism, then we can say:
To break is not to build! It is always easier to criticize what someone has created than to build it yourself! Even if you assume that you have a certain microdole of critical thinking, this is not a sign of your ability to create something YOURSELF! Analytical thinking is not synthetic! You should try synthesizing something YOURSELF!
Einstein is bad for you!
Your math is bad!
And what can you CREATE, not destroy???

My answer: The remark is generally fair, although it contains strong overexpressions and distortions of my thoughts, caused, I believe, by a discussion fuse.
I didn’t say and I’m not saying that Einstein is bad! On the contrary, I admire his way of thinking and his mental qualities and join his opinion on issues where he stands all alone against the completely gregarious among physicists (Think like everyone else!) representations.
I also did not say and am not saying that mathematics is bad.
Those who make a fetish, an idol, a totem out of this powerful and universal mechanism, which should be worshipped fervently and THOUGHTLESSLY, are bad!
I will quote the aphorisms about mathematics again:
“Mathematics, like a millstone, grinds what is put under it, and, as if you put a quinoa to sleep, you will not get wheat flour, so if you write whole pages with formulas, you will not get the truth from false assumptions” Thomas Huxley
“Mathematics can be not only a hindrance, but also an evil if it suggests that we know more than we actually know” by Henri Poincare.
This does not mean that I have a negative attitude towards a number of mathematicians. On the contrary, I really appreciate the talent and way of thinking of Norbert Wiener, the creator of the science of cybernetics, the outstanding scientist Henri Poincare, who ultimately proved himself to be an honest man and the equally outstanding German mathematician David Hilbert. When Einstein was on a short visit to Göttingen, the “mathematical capital” not only of Germany, but of the whole of Europe or even the world, he met Hilbert and they immediately liked each other.
David Hilbert is known not only for his great mathematical works, but also for a number of very reasonable and witty statements. When he, along with another famous Göttingen mathematician Felix Klein, wanted to arrange for a talented female mathematician Emmy Noether to become a privatdozent at the university, a whole group of German non-mathematical professors strongly opposed the appointment of a WOMAN to such a position. Hilbert sharply defended Noether, saying: “But, gentlemen, I do not understand why the gender of the candidate is an argument against electing her as a privatdozent? After all, this is a university, not a men’s bathhouse!”
The answer is brilliant in wit and sarcasm. But Emmy Noether was not hired THEN, although she worked with Gilbert for many years.
Another time, when Gilbert found himself sitting at a table next to the Minister of Science and Higher Education in the Nazi Reich, Bernhard Rust, he asked him, by the way, a pure-blooded Aryan:
“Is it true, Professor, that your mathematical institute suffered because of the expulsion of Jews and their friends?”
“Was he hurt? – Gilbert was surprised, – no, Mr. Minister, he was not injured. He just stopped existing!”
Such was this brave and wonderful man.


And I accept the challenge that a critical reader throws at me and I will try to show how I think and what I have come to.

“There is a part of God in us sometimes.”
“Our mathematical difficulties do not bother God. He integrates empirically.” A. Einstein
Since I, Esprit, am still a human being, then the definition from the Bible fully applies to me:
“God created man in his own image and likeness.”
Therefore, my stupidity in mathematics cannot prevent me from fruitfully and successfully thinking about the problems of theoretical physics and solving them! After all, being created “in the image and likeness”, I borrowed from God at least “a little bit” the ability to “integrate empirically”. That’s where I got the passion (and perhaps some ability) to solve physical problems, in particular theoretical physics, from, stupid people in mathematics.

To be continued.
10 V 2019