Re: 'Debunking Economics' - Ch. 10

["Harry Veeder" <veed0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

----------
From: "Gunnar Tomasson" <tomasson@xxxxxxxx>
To: "POST KEYNESIAN THOUGHT" <pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: 'Debunking Economics' - Ch. 10
Date: Thu, May 18, 2000, 6:59 pm

Gunnar Tomasson quotes Einstein:
---------------------------------
For if the statistical quantum theory does not pretend to describe the
individual system (and its development in time) completely, it appears
unavoidable to look elsewhere for a complete description of the individual
system; in doing so it would be clear from the very beginning that the
elements of such a description are not contained within the conceptual
scheme of the statistical quantum theory. With this one would admit that, in
principle, this scheme could not serve as a basis of theoretical physics.
Assuming the success of efforts to accomplish a complete physical
description, the statistical quantum theory would, within the framework of
future physics, take an approximately analogous position to the statistical
mechanics within the framework of classical mechanics. I am rather firmly
convinced that the development of theoretical physics will be of this type;
but the path will be lengthy and difficult." (Albert Einstein,
Philosopher-Scientist, pp. 671-672)
-----------------------------------

My response:

I agree and it will require a review of the assumptions
within classical physics that were never challenged by
quantum mechanics or general relativity.

One assumption is all mathematical formalisms which are
equivalently *useful* are considered to be automatically
physically equivalent. For example Hamilton's energy formalism
is assumed to be physically equivalent to Newton's force
formalism because it is equally useful.

((Since this is economics list, the above can be reworded
to address classical economics -- One assumption is all
mathematical formalisms which are equivalently
*useful* are considered to be automatically
equivalently moral.))

However there is a "hidden" assumption underpinning the formal
equivalence. It is that inertial mass is identical to gravitational
mass whenever the gravitational potential energy of a massive body
is converted into kinetic energy. A concise statement of the
assumption is:

Inertial and gravitational mass are energetically identical.

{This is to be distinguished from Einstein's
principle of equivalence:
A homogenous gravitational field is completely equivalent
to a uniformly accelerated reference frame.}

We can debate it, but more importantly we should try to test it.
Any experiment must minimize the effects of frictional forces.
Note: a refutation of this mass-energy identity will not require
a violation of the conservation of energy.  It will violate mass
conservation to be sure, but the effect will not depend on any
currently known nulcear interactions.

By performing the test we will also be challenging quantum
mechanics because it makes use of the same untested assumption.

Harry Veeder