I updated the previous post with a disclaimer, which I repeat here: my knowledge and understanding of physics is very limited.
In the past, this has withheld me a bit from asking the questions from the previous post, and their refining subquestions which I will put forward in the following posts. Because, obviously, this lack of knowledge and understanding often gives me the feeling of being a dilettante. But here the extra feature of writing a blog shows its merit: I’m not writing an article here, to be published in a journal. And I’m also not posting on a forum, where I would be hard put to understand most of the reactions given.
With my 47th birthday approaching, I think it’s time to put aside some ego considerations. I also feel that physicists should strive to formulate theories in a way that mathematicians (or to be more precise: I ;-)) can more easily follow them. Because, to be honest, I find a lot of texts on physics to be extremely hard to follow. It even frequently raises the impression with me that one has to be initiated in a form of mysticism in order to ‘do’ physics. I don’t think that this is what a physicist should want a mathematician to think…but perhaps their perspective is that I should try harder and (for example…) really take lessons in college (for which I am of course too lazy, and added to that is the experience of following a truly terrible class of Classical Mechanics in my freshman´s year of mathematics).
OK, almost enough said on my incompetence. I need to add that I am unfortunately also quite incompetent in large areas of mathematics. And don’t take that for false modesty. My hope lies with the simple fact that even a fool can raise valid questions. Sometimes, one has to be a fool to ask them. And in my case, I feel forced to ask them because they touch on a subject in which I feel at least competent enough to ask attention for my musings: constructive mathematics.