Good Maths, Wrong Interpretations

When it comes to physics, scientists have made observations and described these mathematically for many centuries. The result of all this work is that we have a whole range of formulas that are remarkably accurate, and immensely useful.

There can be no doubt that many of these formulas are in fact spot on. They are used by engineers in all sorts of applications, so it would be delusional to think that modern day scientists have got it all wrong.

All formulas that have been tested and verified multiple times can be trusted with a great deal of confidence. However, this does not mean that the interpretation that people have given the formulas are necessarily correct.

Gravity is for instance interpreted by Einstein as a curvature of space. This seems to me like an overly exotic explanation when much, if not all, of Einstein's work can be explained just as well with neutrinos and photons made up of dielectric matter.

I much prefer Morton Spears' pragmatic interpretation than Einstein's ethereal explanation.

However, none of this takes away the fact that Newton's formula can be used for most practical purposes. When NASA calculates that Jupiter is hollow based on gravitational data collected from the space probe Juno, I have no reason to doubt them.

Likewise for quantum physics. Most of the formulas arrived at by quantum physics do in fact predict things correctly. They are correct in their assertion that things behave according to probability and statistics at the atomic and subatomic level. But this does not mean that their interpretation of things at that level are correct.

We do not have to live in a weird world where things are two places at the same time, and cats do not know if they are dead or alive, in order to explain observed quantum phenomena. An all encompassing ether made up of low energy neutrinos and photons can explain all the mysteries of optics.

The good news here is that we do not have to replace all the maths that quantum physics and general relativity have arrived at. All the maths that works, will continue to work, regardless of interpretation.

There is no need to come up with a whole range of new formulas. In fact, we cannot ignore the ones that work. Whatever alternative interpretation we come up with must fit the well established formulas.

What a new and improved interpretation gives us, is not a whole range of new formulas, but a story that can be used to expand on what has already been discovered. A better interpretation of what's actually going on will set us free from erroneous lines of thought so that we can continue to make progress.

Universe of Particles