Wednesday, August 22, 2012

Has Physics Become Irrational?

I've been reading up lately about mathematical physics, including General Relativity, Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory.

These fields of study are incredibly complex and difficult. But I have wrapped my head around a fair share of difficult subjects in the past, so I figured I'd give it a shot.  Well, I was wrong.  Not only was I baffled, but I think I found some contradictions and irrational proposals in all 4 fields.

These proposals and contradictions include:

Mathematical fields and waves existing as objects.
What is this field made of? What physically causes this action? Is it an object or the motion of an object?
This medium must have some structure to be bent, it must be an object... not a concept.
Other concepts such as space and time are presented as objects which may be warped, bent, flowing, and probably more that I couldn't find.

"Massless" objects exist.
What is this cone made of?

The concept of energy exists as an object.
What is lightning made of? It's certainly not made of concepts.
Over the next few pages I will attempt to prove to you that, while some of these concepts may describe relationships quite accurately, strange and irrational conclusions may be drawn when they are treated as objects in the way that modern physics has done.

This article is part of a Series questioning modern physics:
1. Has Physics Become Irrational?
2. Objects vs Concepts
3. Time
4. Specific Quantum Strangeness (Soon to come)


  1. I think the goal of a lot of modern science, in its exposition of its own ridiculous irrationality, is to demonstrate that our current model is flawed, and needs to be re-thought.

  2. I'm relieved to hear someone else has the same problems with modern physics that I have. If you can't explain what you're talking about without using self-contradictory or obviously irrational statements, you either don't really know what you're talking about or you're using the words wrong. I also notice that many popular media physicists seem to relish spouting gibberish, perhaps with the idea that it makes them sound profound or somehow possessing knowledge forever inaccessible to their lay audience.

  3. I think they've convinced themselves that it's profound. There's a peacerevolution podcast that explains the whole history of this dating back to Kant who proposed that we can only know how things "appear" and so only "appearances" exist.

    So they've locked themselves in an ivory tower where if you don't understand then clearly you're "not a physicist".

  4. Check out this blog!


  6. You have no idea how relieved I am to encounter people who realise that modern 'science' is completely insane. We should organise a conference so that we philosophy-first thinkers can share all of our ideas. 'Science' is a religion, fundamentally no different to any other. Rather than build a new 'science' in its place, I suggest we just call it applied philosophy and go from there. 'Science' can keep string theory, genetics and Al Gore's hockey stick. I say we create an organisation that people such as ourselves who have begun to burst the bubbles, can join and share ideas in.

    Whaddya say?