Thunderblogs

Mathematics in Quantum Physics and Cosmology

by Mathias Hüfner

When we look at the night sky through the James Webb Telescope with its millions of galaxies, we should understand that light, in the form of electromagnetic pulses, is transmitted to us by the smallest particles, the electrons, over eons, losing some of its original energy in the process. Quantum mechanics deals with these tiny particles. This isn’t entirely accurate, because quanta are “nudges” that distribute electrons among themselves, and a few of these nudges trigger a stimulus on the retina of our eyes. It’s not the particles themselves that are the issue, but rather their effect, which they transmit like a game of telephone.

James Clerk Maxwell described the mechanism of this nudge transmission in his often misunderstood system of equations. Misunderstood because he thereby introduced an asymmetry between div E and div B, without which dynamics would be impossible, and which Albert Einstein felt compelled to correct.¹

Engineers have created the technical means for observation. The fundamental knowledge behind this dates back to the 19th century, like most of the fundamental knowledge upon which our technological prosperity is based.

But what has quantum mechanics actually taught us? A lot of mathematics about probability densities and phase spaces in which points independently perform some kind of oscillation. But here, the relationship between these points is a matter of interpretation. For example, the equation in Figure 1 doesn’t describe the motion of a single particle, but rather of a “mind field” that is stimulated by a nudge. Its points, stimulated by the mind field, are supposed to move independently of each other in a Hamiltonian n-dimensional phase space and describe the total energy.

That’s where the conception ends, and with it, one loses control over the supposed equation, turning it into a magic formula meant to conceal the ignorance of the supposedly wise who look down upon it from above. The technical term for this is episcopic, derived from the Greek word episkopos, as opposed to ontological (the study of being). The word episcopate was used in ecclesiastical circles for episcopal oversight (in the sense of faith) before it entered philosophy. But what is a probability density supposed to describe?

Probability tells us something about the certainty of our knowledge, or lack thereof, about a particular fact. It says nothing about the fact itself. But then what is the point of density? Probability is not a mass concept. So, if the very term leaves room for interpretation, what insights can we possibly draw from it? Quantum theory raises more questions than it can answer. Nevertheless, its luminaries interpret the most wondrous things from the transformations of its equations, like Roman augurs.

One of these luminaries was Paul Dirac, whose 1939 lecture on the relationship between mathematics and physics² recently came into my possession. The text traces the development from the simplicity of classical mechanics, through the beauty of relativity and the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics, to cosmological expansion. It ends with the speculative hope that one day all of nature might be completely mathematically explainable by the properties of integers and complex function theory. But functions only divide spaces. According to Dirac’s authority, physicists still dream of the mistaken hope of being able to describe nature using functions.

I have outlined the stages of the mathematization of 20th-century physics in Table 1. After the 1930s, physics shifted from fundamental “revolutions” (relativity, quantum mechanics, cosmology) to an integration and refinement of these core ideas, and this trend continues to this day.

• Development of the Standard Model as a comprehensive theory of particles.
• Expansion of cosmology through the Big Bang, dark matter, and dark energy.
• New technologies (accelerators, quantum computers) are driving research.

In this process, criticism of the various details increases more and more, without really getting to the heart of the problem and without being able to offer an alternative in theory that would bring a qualitative improvement to the situation³, because according to Dirac, the method of mathematical thinking has been prioritized and experiments have been used to cloak the presented theoretical results, even though there are already other explanations for the cloak-like evidence of their desk discoveries, namely: the cosmic background radiation from the Big Bang, the alleged expansion of the cosmos, gravitational waves, black holes and, in the microcosm, neutrinos, the Higgs boson, and the quarks of QCD theory.

Under the umbrella term “Electric Universe,” pioneers in plasma physics have compiled a wealth of facts that contradict the standard theories of cosmology and particle physics (Figure 2). These facts are ignored, however, because they do not fit into the preconceived notion of a formative force arising from geometry: gravity. This demonstrates that once established in academic circles, belief in the divine power of the human mind can persist even without real facts. What is lacking is a paradigm shift to quantum dynamics based on Maxwell’s asymmetric theory, because the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics has already broken with it. Determinism became a nuisance to it. It evolved into a probabilistic quantum statics.

Table 1 highlights mathematical beauty as a guiding principle. But what is beauty? Here we have another vague concept, much like probability density. It likely refers to elegance and symmetry, which have been elevated to the point of super-symmetry. But beauty in its original sense signifies the promise of fruitfulness. While mathematical beauty implies stasis and death, real beauty implies life and movement. Movement requires asymmetry.

My criticism of the core idea is:

• If the mass of atoms consists of positively and negatively charged elements, gravity cannot be an independent force, but must be an electrostatic phenomenon.
• Space and time are not substances, but rather relations of order.
• Spacetime should be replaced by a process, since time is a function of movement in space. Time is not independent of space; otherwise, we wouldn’t need time zones.

The role of mathematics in physics needs to be reassessed:

• Mathematics is not an essence of nature, but merely a linguistic and symbolic tool for the ontological description of physical processes in nature by means of causal relations. Equality is only one relation among many.

This has the philosophical consequence that beauty as a criterion for research is problematic if it is not linked to fertility. Nobel established his prize for the person who has brought the greatest benefit to society in the preceding year. If the awarding of prizes in theoretical physics were judged according to the original criterion, a number of previous laureates from recent decades would have to return their prizes. Any critique should also include a future perspective. Table 2 outlines the path to a paradigm shift towards a process-oriented, primordial physics. This would shift research from an aesthetic standard (“beautiful”) to a productive standard (“fruitful”). In the long term, this could lead to a new synthesis of theory and experiment—similar to the theory of electricity in the 19th century, but with a deeper ontological foundation.

My credo regarding today’s physics can be summarized as follows:

This is true physics. It does not seek elegance, it seeks the new, the dynamic of nature, the experiment, the worldview, the technology that emerge from thought.

---

Footnotes

1. A. Einstein – Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper;
   Annalen der Physik 1905 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/andp.19053221004 (2.12. 2025) ↩︎
2. P. Dirac – The Relation between Mathematics und Physics;Veröffentlicht in: Proceedings of the Royal Society (Edinburgh), Band 59, 1938–39, Teil II, S. 122–129; http://152.84.50.234/fisica/Cursos/c2016/Dirac/The%20Relation%20Between%20Math.%20&%20Physics%20(1939).pdf (2.12.2025) ↩︎
3. J. de Climont – The worldwide List of dissident scientists; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342420797_The_worldwide_list_of_dissident_scientists_Critics_and_alternative_theories_see_verbete_Marcos_Cesar_Danhoni_Neves (2.12.2025) ↩︎

---

Dr. Mathias Hüfner is a German translator volunteer for The Thunderbolts Project. He studied physics from 1964 until 1970 in Leipzig Germany, specializing in analytical measurement technology for radioactive isotopes. He then worked at Carl Zeiss Jena until 1978 on the development of laser microscope spectral analysis. There he was responsible for software development for the evaluation of the spectral data. Later he did his doctorate at the Friedrich Schiller University in the field of engineering and worked there 15 years as a scientific assistant. Some years after the change in East Germany, he worked as a freelance computer science teacher the last few years before his retirement.

Since 2015, Mathias has run a German website of The Thunderbolts Project http://mugglebibliothek.de/EU.

His latest book is entitled Dynamic Structures in an Open Cosmos.

The ideas expressed in Thunderblogs do not necessarily express the views of T-Bolts Group Inc. or The Thunderbolts Project.

---