A Proposed Physical Model for Our Mathematics by Ken Hon Seto

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

I noticed in your comments on another thread that you believe there is a need to change our emphasis from the mathematical development to the physical model development. I have done this in my current essay and invite you to read it and comment. You enumerated many of the nonphysical objects derived almost exclusively from mathematics, noting that these abstract mathematical objects are different physical aspects of one physical model of our universe.

Your essay presents your perspective on a physical model that attacks the problem (as outlined in your abstract). You point out that "the peril of mathematics begins when there is no known physical construct available to guide our interpretation of mathematics." You refer to Schrödinger's "probability wave front" for example. In my essay I quote Matt Leifer's observation that we still, in 2015, do not know what the quantum state is, or even whether it is epistemic (information-based) or ontic (physically real).

You observe that mathematical development alone will not lead to a theory of everything, then begin laying out your own model of physical reality. Your first rule, 3-D of space and one of absolute time, goes against current beliefs, but I've seen some interesting work lately that moves in your direction. I believe your "rules" for development of physics are generally appropriate, although I do not feel special relativity is "wrong" so much as mis-interpreted. Nevertheless, I am in sympathy with your ideas.

Your specific model does not agree with my own model, but that is not surprising.

Best wishes,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I have entered this contest with the prime idea that mathematics is misused in physics. I assumed I would be stoned for that. Instead essays like yours are in strong agreement. Could this be a sign that a division is occurring in physics demanding better use of modeling, reality, and mathematics?

Al Schneider

Many ideas in your paper are just "invented" you do not have any experimental data to build such proposals.

Real power of physics is creative imagination based on experimenttal data.

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

I read your essay, proposing model mechanics, in which E-strings rotate around E-matrix....and how attractive and repulsive forces arise. You need to specify the E-strings and E-matrix in detail; with the help of figures.

I feel, that you may find my essay in the last year's contest useful for further development of your model. The essay is titled: "On the emergence of physical world from the Ultimate Reality" and located at:

fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2001

With my best regards,

Hasmukh K. Tank

Hi Joe,

I disagree with your description of abstract physical processes. By definition

physical constraint cannot be abstractive....it restricts the math abstractions to conform to physical reality. The example I gave in my essay is a good illustrate of this concept....the physical constraint is that a fraction of a person does not exist in our universe and therefore all the solutions involving a faction of a person must be discarded\I.

Model Mechanics is a good physical model. It gives physical constraints for all our mathematics.

Regards,

Ken Seto

Re

Dear Ken Seto,

I never described "physical constraint." Physical reality cannot have physical constraints. "While Math abstractions can conform to abstract physical constraint, math abstractions confound reality. I agree with you that all fractions of abstract people cannot ever exist in a real Universe.

Joe Fisher

Dear Sir,

You have raised a very vital issue regarding physical constraints on mathematics. Suppose we reverse your example to say every apple is eaten by ½ persons, it is meaningless as there is no such thing as fractional number of persons. Since mathematics is a science of numbers and numbers are a property of all physical objects, it cannot be assigned to unphysical imagery. Hence it is not mathematics. This principle invalidates most of modern 'mathematical physics'. It is not that the physical constraints are not known (like in the above example). But in a hurry to score points, people overlook reason and blindly accept 'established theories'. Thus, even after more than a century of failures to find extra-large or compact dimensions, almost all scientists superstitiously subscribe to such fiction perpetuated by the novel FLAT LANDS. Dimension is the perception of differentiation between internal structural space and external relational space of an object. Since we observe through electromagnetic radiation, where the electric field and the magnetic field move perpendicular to each other and both move perpendicular to the direction of motion, we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions representing length, breadth, height that are invariant under mutual transformation.

Regarding your other example, while we know all about what an electron does, we still do not know 'what an electron is'. So we speculate many things like probability. When a ship moves in sea, it expels water in front to sideways, which reunites at the back. A similar phenomenon is seen in magnetospheric reconnection. Something similar happens with electrons. Positive charge of proton radiates out. Some of it is used up in n-p chain. Whatever escapes is blocked at the orbitals. It becomes visible as electron only at shifting intersections with the right orientation.

Even Schrödinger has followed wrong mathematics. The Schrödinger equation in so-called one dimension (it is a second order equation as it contains a term x2, which is in two dimensions and mathematically implies area) is converted to three dimensional by addition of two similar factors for y and z axis. Three dimensions mathematically imply volume. Addition of three (two dimensional) areas does not generate (three dimensional) volume and x2+y2+z2 ≠ (x.y.z). Similarly, mathematically all operations involving infinity are void. Hence renormalization is not mathematical. Yet we blindly follow these.

Recent discovery of galactic blue-shift, galactic merger and the absence of red-shift in galactic or lesser scales should prove dark energy a myth. Energy is perceived through its interactions. If it is not interacting, it cannot be energy. Fluids are also smooth and persistent. Interpretation of M & M experiment is faulty, as light is a transverse wave, which is background invariant. Like the solar system, the universe is spinning around a galactic center. Dark energy is the universal background structure. This implies the galaxy rotation curve and dark matter concept are also faulty. There is a need to review and rewrite physics.

Regards,

basudeba

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

Contests FQXi - this is a competition for new ideas. You put interesting questions and give original ideas. I agree with your search area. In addition to the idea of a "pyramid" may be considered "heavenly triangle" of Plato, as well as the dialectic of "absolute motion" and "absolute rest" of the matter. In basic science "crisis of understanding" (K.Kopeykin), the "crisis of representation and interpretation" (T. Romanovskaya). To overcome the crisis requires a deeper ontology. Fundamental knowledge - Mathematics and Physics require a deep ontological justification. In fundamental Physics is necessary to introduce an ontological standard justification along with the empirical standard.

Kind regards,

Vladimir

Your effort on strengthening the foundations of physical reality is a very good approach.

Best of luck!

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Dear Ken Seto,

Congrats on your essay. There are nuggets of truth in your Model Mechanics. I will discuss more later. For now, consider that it is your CRE force that is keeping the Moon and Earth from crashing into each other under gravitational attraction. Same with Earth and Sun, and Electron and the Atomic nucleus.

More later.

Regards,

Akinbo

Dear Ken Hon Seto,

I Just finished my essay and have just begun to read the other essays. It is very refreshing to see models to think about. Especially thought provoking is your model of both the strong and weak force. The illustrations of "The stacked-interactions and the electromagnetic interactions in a proton and a neutron." the talk of decay as "de-coupling of the stacked-interactions"

Found this part of your essay very good. Hope you have a chance to comment on the stacked quarks bonded with gluons making up the mesons and baryons in my essay.

Many regards and keep up the good work.

Ed