Essay Abstract

The validity of a mathematical statement is judged by its logical consistency. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality. Relations between material objects must be expressed in a language compatible with the way in which objects in the real world actually interact - through the transmission/reception of mass/energy/information. Often we overlook this aspect and land at undecidable propositions - mathematics not in conformity with physics. These are mistaken as mathematical structures, though real mathematical structures are natural laws that give quantitative descriptions of physical phenomena - hence related to observables only. Mathematics explains how much one quantity, whether scalar or vector; accumulate or reduce linearly or non-linearly in interactions involving similar or partly similar quantities and not what, why, when, where, or with whom about the objects. These are subject matters of physics. Transgressing the strictly defined boundaries create pseudo-mathematical structures with undecidable propositions. After creating a problem, we search for ways to solve the problem and are lost in the enigma. We collect too much information and reject most without proper analysis (like at LHC). Some 'theories' provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better. For every quantum system and phenomenon, there exists a macro equivalent. But to see these, we have to get rid of the incremental approach of building on 'established theories'. Instead of sticking to these 'accepted theories' superstitiously, if we re-envision classical and quantum observations as macroscopic overlap of quantum effects, we may solve most problems. After the observation of blue-shift and galactic merger, should we stick to dark energy? After failure to detect extra dimensions for over a century, should we stick to it? Let us be

Author Bio

Independent researcher interested in fundamental principles of Nature. Believes in explaining everything from fundamental principles.

Download Essay PDF File

Dear basudeba mishra,

You begin very nicely, with: "The validity of a mathematical statement is judged by its logical consistency. The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality." And you observe that Wigner "admits not only the incompleteness of mathematics but also its manipulation according to the aesthetic sense of the operator."

You then proceed to some statements that are not obvious to me. For example you state "No computer algorithm is possible using complex numbers." That is not immediately evident to me. Then you say that no mathematics is possible without infinity. That seems an over-statement to me, as I do not really understand infinity mathematically (other than as 'unbounded') nor believe it is relevant to physics. I do however agree that 'mathematics is not the sole language of nature," and I like your examples. I also enjoyed your section on mathematical physics.

In your section on 'missing the woods for the trees' you tackle a number of specific examples which lead you to conclude that there is a need to ponder these issues and rewrite physics. Without commenting on the individual examples, I concur with you that physics is in need of reformulation. In many cases the mathematical trees obscure the physical woods, and in some places mathematical trees appear where there are no physical woods.

My best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

    Respected Sir,

    Thank you for your comments. We will try to clarify your observations.

    What is aesthetic sense? It is subjective to the individual and there is no standard candle. Thus, it cannot be logically consistent - hence not mathematics. By extension, its manipulation cannot be mathematics. This cannot be used to show the incompleteness of mathematics.

    Can computer programs be written using complex numbers? The binary system uses yes/no command for something physical. A program can execute something only when it has physical existence. Can non-physical representations be codified in a computer program? If so, can we verify the authenticity of such operations? If yes, how?

    We said no mathematics is possible with (not without) infinity, as all operations involving it will have undefined dimensions - thus indistinguishable from each other. The "unbounded-ness", as you put it, makes them indistinguishable. For any value of x, в€ћ В± x = в€ћ. Since this is not logically consistent, it is not mathematics. Infinity is the reason for renormalization, which is an important factor in mathematical physics. All we want to say is that it is renormalization is not valid mathematically. It points to some missing parameters or a novel phenomenon not considered earlier.

    Sir, if you concur that physics needs to be rewritten, at least you can contribute by rejecting the superstitious belief on "established theories".

    With regards,

    basudeba

    Basudeba,

    An interesting read with many good quotations. I'll try to condense your ideas into a simple statement of logic.

    If Physics, then Math.

    The contrapositive to that is

    If not Math, then not Physics.

    The Venn Diagram for this would have Physics completely contained within Math.

    The problem is that there is a lot of Math that is outside of Physics. That can definitely cause mischief. But consider this ... Physics can grow and frequently Mathematics can point towards new areas for Physics to study. And Physics can provide a tangible meaning to many of the abstractions that occur in Mathematics.

    Best Regards,

    Gary Simpson

      • [deleted]

      • Post #5

      Dear Sir,

      We request you to kindly read our paper. We have shown that mathematics is not the sole language of Nature, but only the quantitative aspect of it. Thus, your opinion: "If not math, then not physics" is opposed to our views. Further, we have not given lots of quotes, but examined some and refuted many. Your comments on the Venn diagram and your reference to "new areas", which you possibly refer to quarternions, appear to be misplaced as explained below.

      The Venn diagram does not represent "everything" in the universe that are inter-related, but only the things "we are dealing with at here-now". Thus, it explains only certain aspects over the exclusion of others. It can show some overlap in set membership by overlapping the circles - the "intersection" of the two sets, though it can also be used for unions, complements, and subsets. Venn diagrams can also demonstrate "disjoint" sets that have no overlaps: their intersection is empty. It may explain certain symmetries, such as rotational symmetry, polar symmetry, etc. A necessary condition for the existence of a symmetric n-Venn diagram is that n be a prime number restricting options. When drawing Venn diagrams, having four or more circles becomes astonishingly complicated. Thus, it is not a very good tool for physics.

      In mathematics, the quaternion is a number system that extends the complex numbers. It is a form of algebra where each object contains 4 scalar variables (Euler Parameters), one real dimension and 3 imaginary dimensions (a superset of complex numbers with two additional imaginary values, the explanations of which are questionable), though the term dimension is not appropriate for their description. Hamilton tried to find a three dimensional number systems, but failed. Then he manipulated 4 dimensions. The objects can be added and multiplied as a single unit in a similar way to the usual algebra of numbers. However, unlike the algebra of scalar numbers, quaternion multiplication is not commutative. This is against fundamental principles of mathematics. We have discussed all these aspects in our essay to show their inherent fallacies.

      Some think of quaternions as an element consisting of a scalar number together with a 3 dimensional vector, we have to combine the 3 imaginary values into a vector. Others see it as the product of two independent complex plains or as a division of vectors. While using quaternions to represent rotations in 3 dimensions, the quaternions are restricted to unit length and only the multiplication operator is used. There are other notations and ways to think about quaternions also, all of which are questionable. These cannot explain physics, because they do not correspond to reality: which must exist, capable of being expressed in a language and capable of being known.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      ???

      I read your essay twice before posting a comment. Now I've read it three times. I get the same meaning as before ... specifically that there are things predicted by Math that have nothing to do with Physics. Is this the essence of your essay? The answer should be either yes or no.

      I stopped counting quotations at (10). For a paper with 10 pages or less, I'd say that's a lot, although you do primarily use one author. Whether or not you refute a quotation has nothing to do with my statement.

      Regarding logic and Venn diagrams, what I describe is consistent with math making predictions with no physical meaning. If I have missed your meaning after three readings then I'm probably not going to get it.

      If a statement is logically true then its contrapositive must be true. If A then B is equivalent to if not B then not A.

      Regarding quaternions ....

      Good Luck and Best Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      Dear Sir,

      Regarding "If a statement is logically true then its contra-positive must be true. If A then B is equivalent to if not B then not A", it is not always true. The contra positive of "If cow, then an animal" - "If not cow, then not an animal" is obviously not true. What we said can be summarized in two statements:

      1. All of mathematic is quantitative description of Nature.

      2. All so-called "mathematics" that are not logically consistent, are not mathematics. Unfortunately, most of mathematical physics belong to this category.

      We were responding to your description as "good quotations", which includes even those which we have refuted. At least we cannot say those are good quotations.

      Regards,

      basudeba

      Basudeba,

      You have not correctly stated the contrapositive. The contrapositive negates both of the arguments and swaps their positions. The contrapositive of your statement is "If not animal, then not cow". This is obviously true.

      It sounds like you are attempting to say that some concepts that are considered to be mathematics are not really mathematics. I can sympathize with that statement but I cannot agree with it. I'll let the mathematicians decide what is mathematics and then decide whether or not it describes physics. Given that, my statement that "all physics is mathematics" but "all mathematics is not physics" seems to be completely true. Your quotes from Wigner seem to support this.

      Best Regards,

      Gary Simpson

      Dear Basudeba Mishra

      I read your essay with interest. This essay-contest is like a conference. Major conclusions emerging from the discussions, e.g. current physics needs revision, should be published in leading news-papers.

      In my essay, titled: "On the connection between Physics and Mathematics" two anomalies in the general relativity theory are indicated; (i) If the space between the galaxies is expanding; but the space within the galaxy is not expanding, because galaxy is a gravitationally-bound structure, then the space at the boundary of the galaxy would break, or get torn-out!

      (ii) My second question is: According to GR, the space around the Sun has got curved, so planets, like the earth, are in inertial-motion along the geodesic curved path. My question is: Inertial-motion of objects can be at any speed; can the planets move at any speed they like? Can they take a coffee-break, and then proceed further, like we do while traveling along hilly roads?

      I am eager to know your comments.

      Yours sincerely,

      Hasmukh K. Tank

        Dear Sir,

        You have raised some very interesting and important points.

        Both your questions are valid. You might have noticed we have questioned the concept, the description and the mathematics of GR. One fact that may interest you is, the planetary orbits are not elliptical as it never closes, but spirals due to the movement of the star. The orbits are circular around the star (geodesic curved path, as you say), but appear elliptical due to the same reason. Over the years (over 26000 years for the Sun), the spiral closes in a chain of another bigger spiral at the galactic scale (dolana gati - as the star completes its rotation around galaxy). This leads to another bigger spiral (manwantara). The stars and galaxies are intermediate between quarks and the universe - the two extremities. These extremities move in closed loops - the quarks forming protons and neutrons and the universe forming kalpa. We have given reference to observations that prove blue-shift and galactic collision. Thus, the expanding universe theory is myth. Actually, the universe is revolving around its own axis like stars. Just like we observe apparent atichaara and vakra motion of planets, where they appear to speed away or close in, we are observing galactic red-shift and blue-shift.

        Space has no physical existence, but is a mental construct (buddhi nirmaana), as it is 1) the interval between objects (sarva samyogina) and 2) the primary base that connects everything (aadhaara shakti prathamaa). What Einstein called space is really alternative symbolism for the interval between objects and the geometry of space is actually the geometry of objects that determine the boundary of 'space'. One major overlooked fact is that while the other fundamental forces; i.e. strong, weak and electromagnetic interactions are intra-body phenomenon dependent on the ratio of mass/energy of the particle, gravitation is an inter-body phenomenon independent of any intra-body factor, as here the body behaves like a point particle. Further, while the other forces behave as monogamous pairs, gravitation is polygamous. Thus, graviton will never be discovered and standard model (with its extension quantum gravity) must fail. Just like tidal forces push away other bodies, the bow shock effect of planets and stars in the universal background structure creates eddy current type areas in their path. You must be aware of the interplanetary super-highways (IPS or bhuta-shakti pravaaha maarga called patha). These are of 5 types: rekha, mandala, kashya, shakti and Kendra. Their interaction (pravaaha dwaya samsargaat) creates 5 types of eddies (aavarta): shakti, vaata, kirana, shaitya, gharshana respectively. These determine the movement of bodies in space that otherwise move at a fixed velocity due to inertia. These motions are perpetual. Hence no coffee breaks till the condition of maximum entropy (pralaya), after which the process reverses and repeats again and again.

        You must note our definition of space, time and coordinates in the essay. Time is not a dimension in the same sense as the other three space dimensions, which are invariant under mutual transformation. We can exchange any of the space dimensions with any other without disturbing the structure, i.e., the interface between the external relational space with the internal structural space. But such transformation is not possible with time. Thus, we describe these as: being (situation leading to its creation; or as you put it, motion - the substance of existence), becoming (its creation itself; or as you put it, time), growth (due to addition of other molecules, which, along with the two other factors following, can be in the three spatial dimensions), transformation (as a result), transmutation (due to the same effect - incompatible addition), destruction (change of form as a consequence; or as you put it, duration - the instance of existence). The motion transformations are perpetual (due to inertia) and deterministic processes. The duration transformations are action induced by the freewill of a conscious agent.

        Regards,

        basudeba

        Shri Basudeba Mishra Sir,

        Many thanks for your kind reply to my questions. I read your essay and found that i should ask these questions to you.

        I am eager to read the book mentioned by you.

        With best regards,

        Hasmukh K. Tank

        Dear Sir,

        If everything is abstract, unless you eliminate from everything, you should not be writing this essay, which is not abstract, but real. Reality for us is whatever exists, is intelligible (knowable) and communicable (describable). Thus, your essay and our explanations are real. Whatever corresponds to it; is a physical statement. Incidentally, you are also talking about everything real.

        Yet, whatever you have mentioned about observations etc., and whatever we could see from a cursory reading of your paper, you are correct in describing space, time, dimensions, etc., are abstract, as they do not physically exist, but inferred with alternative symbolism of whatever exist physically.

        In spite of apparent differences in approach, we find, we have much in common at the fundamental level (including low scores). We will go through your essay in depth and comment soon.

        Regards,

        basudeba

        Dear Basudeba,

        I just finished reading your essay. It is certainly a new way of looking at physics and I agree with one of your opening statements, "The validity of a physical statement is judged by its correspondence to reality". This will remove much mystery from our physics.

        However, you make some statements that are untrue. Some that cannot be decided whether true or false, by using logic. When you say: "Zero is the absence of something at here-now that is known to exist elsewhere (otherwise we will not perceive its absence at all)", what of a Dragon (snake that breathes out fire)?It is absent at here-now, BUT DOES NOT EXIST ANYWHERE ELSE. Or do I misunderstand your meaning?

        Lastly, thanks for commenting on my essay. You said there was a distance between points, which I depict as ._._._. Where can you cut? You cannot cut the point ., and you cannot cut that distance _. And if you claim you can cut that distance, its extremity will be a point ., thus contradicting the statement that no point exists in the distance between the initial points.

        Regards,

        Akinbo

          Dear Sir,

          Thanks for you comments.

          Your example proves our statement. As you put it, the mythological dragon is a snake that breathes out fire. We know about snakes, fires, breathing and know the mechanism of breathing. But the special relation between them is non-existent, which makes the creature non-existent physically (at here-now). We see many such things in dream, where the constraints of the physical world are not present. But they are physically not possible. That relationship is zero, though the components are true and physical.

          Regarding the points about your essay, by definition, a point has existence but no dimension. You can only cut fixed dimensional objects (you cannot 'cut' air or water). Since a point has no dimension, you cannot cut a point. Similarly, the distance is space (if it does not belong to fixed dimensional objects) that exists and has dimension through alternative symbolism (interval between objects). You cannot cut space, but change the interval by moving objects. Here you change the interval between the two pieces of bread through your 'cutting'. This is not the same as cutting the point.

          Regards,

          basudeba

          Dear Basudeba,

          Between two fixed dimensional objects, you say and agree that there is space. You say you cannot cut space but can you not swing a knife between those two dimensional objects and it passes through?

          Akinbo

          Dear Sir,

          Swinging a knife is motion and all motion takes place only in space. Cutting means dividing something into parts. If you measure the interval, you can divide an equal interval depicted by an object, but you cannot divide space, as it has no structure of its own.

          Regards,

          basudeba

          Dear Basudeba,

          I enjoyed in your essay that you are trying to question things, trying to look at things from a different angle. On the minus side, I could not understand your examples because of my poor knowledge of physics and mathematics.

          In my view, if you question physics and mathematics, go for the simple stuff, show that today mathematics are not adequate to describe daily life events, higlight what more can be perceived.

          Because even if the event of relativity being wrong as you said, it changes nothing of the effectiveness of today science. People will be happy to rewrite physics if it brings more tools and ressources to solve their daily life problems.

          Regards

          Christophe

            Dear Sir,

            We question the modern system of scientific research, which is more tilted towards career advancement than quest for knowledge. What you call "tools and resources to solve their daily life problems", are related to technology and not science. While science without technology is lame, technology without science is blind. With over-emphasis on the effectiveness of technology, its 'blindness' is increasing, which is manifest in various social and environmental problems. A very large number of people enjoy a cozy life in pursuing and teaching nothingness or self-destruction. We may enjoy temporarily, but ultimately everyone is going to suffer.

            Regards,

            basudeba

            Dear Basudeba,

            Very interesting, profound essay and interesting ideas. I agree with you: "The physics community blindly accepts rigid, linear ideas about the nature of space, time, dimension, etc. These theories provide conceptual convenience and attractive simplicity for pattern analysis, but at the cost of ignoring equally-plausible alternative interpretations of observed phenomena that could possibly have explained the universe better. Modern theories do not give a precise definition of the technical terms used, but give an operational definition that can be manipulated according to convenience."

            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

              Dear Sir,

              Thanks for your comments. We expected more comments on our examples.

              While science without technology is lame, technology without science is blind. With over-emphasis on the effectiveness of technology, its 'blindness' is increasing, which is manifest in various social and environmental problems. A very large number of people enjoy a cozy life in pursuing and teaching nothingness or self-destruction. We may enjoy temporarily, but ultimately everyone is going to suffer. There is an urgent need to review and rewrite physics.

              Regards,

              basudeba