See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/330482341

Is the math in current physics beautiful?

Preprint · January 2019

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36171.44325

CITATIONS READS

0 226

1 author:

Yin Zhu
Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China
52 PUBLICATIONS   17 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Observation of the neutralization of gravitational field View project

To spread that the theory of relativity is a faked story View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yin Zhu on 18 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Is the math in current physics beautiful?

Yin Zhu（朱寅）

Agriculture Department of Hubei Province, Wuhan, China

Email: waterzhu@163.com

(January 18, 2019)

In recent, Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder published a book “Lost in math: How beauty leads physics astray”. From

this book, an old problem was presented again: In the past 70 years, no valid new physics theory has been developed.

(I have not read this book. I only read the reflection to it in the internet.[1])

This problem was presented previously.[2] But, only little physicists really care about this problem. So, this

problem usually quickly disappeared from the mind of many physicists. Although Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder’s book

stimulated a general attention at this moment, I do not know how long its effect should be.

Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder thinks that current physics was lost in mathematics. In some degree, I think she is

right. I also presented in Ref.[3]

some of physicists believe that the mathematics and spacetime structure dominate the law of physics. Some

of the equations are so elegant that can be purely theoretical theory confirmation. It becomes a current way to obtain

a physical conclusion by the induction and derivation of some equations of spacetime structure. Unfortunately, the

most puzzled and difficult subject for these physicists is just the mathematics and the so called spacetime structure…

However, a well-trained scientist knows that any scientific theory need be proven experimentally. Or, the door should

be opened for pseudoscience.[29]

From the reference[2], we know, other physicists also criticized that mathematics was overused in current

physics.

But, I don’t think that the mathematics in current physics is beautiful. Instead, I think many of them are

wrong. In a widespread book “Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius”,[4] it was shown that, Einstein
made 23 mistakes in mathematics, almost including all of the main conclusions in his theory of relativity. But, from

the wrong derivations, he just obtained the current (in that time) conclusions. Logically, no one can always obtain

right conclusions from wrong derivations. So, this cannot be a “Failings of Genius”. Instead, we only can conclude

that Einstein faked his mathematics derivations and conclusions.

This problem was discussed in detailed in Ref.[3]. As Einstein’s main conclusions are based on wrong or

faked mathematics derivation, what does it mean?

But, Einstein’s field equation is regarded as the most beautiful equation of physics. Then, what does the

words “beauty” mean in current physics?

So, here, I will emphasize again: Einstein’s theory of relativity just is pseudoscience or a faked story. And,

just for that misled by Einstein’s theory of relativity, the development of current physics was stopped or slowed.

For example, the Hill sphere is the validly practiced theory. But, it has been known by little physicists only

for that it cannot be explained with Einstein’s theory of relativity. I think, the reason is that, Hill sphere shows that

Einstein’s theory of relativity is invalid to understand the Three-body problem. And, in fact, Einstein’s theory of

relativity is invalid to explain any orbit, including the orbits of the planets and artificial satellite. Because any orbit is

determined with N-body problem. This problem was clarified in Ref.[3] and the references cited in it.

Please do not doubt this sentence. You should argue that the orbit of the Mercury was better explained with

Einstein’s theory of relativity. But, very unfortunately, this is not true. In [3], this problem was certainly clarified: “As

a physicist claimed that the precession of perihelion of Mercury proved that Einstein’s curved spacetime is right, this

physicist has never known that the orbit of Mercury is perturbed by the oblateness of the Sun which cannot be

explained with Einstein’s curved spacetime. In the initial textbooks, it is taught that Einstein’s field equations only

can be used to solve the problem of a standard sphere. Therefore, this physicist only was cheat by a current

declaration. Unfortunately, this physicist transfers this cheat to the readers and students although not purposively.”

And, it is noted that, no literature of general relativity claimed that the N-body problem can be explained

with Einstein’s general relativity.

 Very bad, now, it is generally claimed that the gravity was well explained by Einstein’s general relativity.

But, factually, Einstein’s general relativity cannot explain any factual orbit. What does it mean?

Much worse, in current physics society, the basic scientific standard was neglected. Any theory or

experiment which claimed to prove Einstein’s theory can be published and widely spread although it is far away

from the clear and initial scientific standard. I think, the next three cases are typical:

First, the Hafele-keating experiment is taken as the strongest evidence to support Einstein’s time effect. But,

the Hafele-keating experiment was first performed in a vibrating and shocking plane. And, water, heat,

electromagnetism and so on also has effect on the atomic clock. It is clear, the time on the level of nanosecond cannot

be measured in such a condition. (Of course, there are other reasons showed that the Hafele-keating experiment is

invalid.[3])

Second, in the first paper of the LIGO’s detection of the gravitational waves, the predicted figure is almost

same as the measured one. It is clear, a good trained scientist should doubt this status. It is too beautiful for a real

experiment. So, in their later paper, they have great difference between the two kinds of figures. Very unfortunately,

I am sure, the LIGO’s detection of the gravitational waves is fake. Please see Ref.[5].

Third, Neil Ashby had several papers on the Relativistic Effects in the Global Positioning System. But, he

has never considered the real GPS. He only claimed that there are some thought effects on it. In more than ten years,

Neil Ashby had several papers on the subject that he has never understood. Therefore, a trained scientist is easily able

to know that his work is far away from the criterion of a scientific paper. But, such kind of work was taken as the

strongest evidence for Einstein’s theory of relativity. Please see Ref.[6].

On the other hand, Einstein’s theory is usually used to reject the observation and experiment that are not

accordant with it. For example, the Lorentz transformation (covariance) is usually used as the law of other physics

laws. The condition to accept a new result is that it need be accordant with the Lorentz transformation. This is a

typical feature of pseudoscience. We know, observation or experiment cannot be denied or rejected with any theory.

Conversely, a theory need be falsified with experiment and observation. As new results from observation and
 experiment is rejected with Einstein’s theory of relativity, the development of physics is of course to be stopped or

slowed.

We know, physics (and other science) is developing. It determines that a theory of physics is open and

incorporated. In another word, this theory is a successive to the old theory and is helpful to develop a new theory.

But, now, the development of physics is stopped or slowed. I think, the main reason is that the pseudoscience

dominated the whole physics. It just is the pseudoscience that makes the scientific standard neglected. As the scientific

standard is neglected, how can the theory be developed?

In conclusion, we know, the development of physics has been stopped or slowed in the past 70 years. And,

we need physics have a new development. In some degree, this is a common view. But, only little mainstream

physicists accepted that, Einstein’s theory of relativity is simply pseudoscience which is the main reason that resulted

in the current status of the development of physics although a few of mainstream physicists presented whether it is

time to discard Einstein’s theory of relativity.[2] I think, new theory of physics can be developed only under the

condition that whether Einstein’s theory of relativity is pseudoscience can be discussed and argued publicly.

References

[1] http://blogs.nature.com/onyourwavelength/2018/04/06/interactions-conversation-with-sabine-hossenfelder/

[2] J. Bekenstein, Physics crunch: Time to discard relativity?https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257092601_Trouble_with_physics_Time_to_discard_relativity

[3] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326398504_Anti-ethics_and_pseudoscience_On_Albert_Einstein's_theory_of_relativity_V2

[4] Ohanian H. C., Einstein's Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius

[5] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321671671_A_Simple_Comment_on_LIGO's_Detection_of_Gravitational_Wave?_sg

[6] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325297171_Einstein's_Relative_and_Curved_Spacetime_Needs_Valid_Evidence

View publication stats