Essay Abstract

The mathematical abstraction of geometry has a good fit to physical law. A pair of very basic geometric forms can be linked to mutually define the size of the most basic units of measure, a unit length and a unit time duration and produce a mathematically defined value for the speed of light. One does not need to know ahead of time the actual physical size of the dimensions used to describe the elements of the triangles. The result of the paired geometric process identifies the perfect union between space and time.

Author Bio

The author received a BS in electrical engineering after his military participation in the Korean War. So far, he hasn't retired from learning.

Download Essay PDF File

John,

I stated in the first paragraph, "I do not believe there is a mysterious connection between physics and mathematics;" I do not know why the contest title used the term mysterious. If we use the premise that specific mathematical structures, such as arithmetic, geometry, algebra, etc., were developed to solve a type of problem, there is nothing mysterious about that. Basically, what we possess is incomplete information as to why certain mathematical structures were originally developed; algebra and geometry are examples.

To illustrate there is no mystery, I restructured the explanation of the concept that was published in an IEEE publication to show how a slight change in the mathematical structure of geometry can provide a numerical solution to a physical law that cannot be done with measurements.

Perhaps scientists will now understand why the transcendental numeric value of 6.28317...., which we symbolize with 2pi, has a good fit in equations dealing with physical law.

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Your quote of Bertrand Russell is quite apropos. "Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world, but because we know so little; it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover."

My essay did not attempt to define space, "whatever its composition." My essay identifies a mathematical relationship between space and time. Please note that I adjusted the time unit scaling to 10-6 to reflect our human perspective of time. I do not know if the mathematically defined time unit duration, without the 10-6 adjustment, has a relationship to an event duration mentioned in your essay.

Frank,

This was an interesting essay. Is it possible that the angle associated with your triangles is 26.565 degrees instead? If so, you might be interested in a paper that I have posted to viXra.org. The title is "The Wave Medium, the Electron, and the Proton - Part 1".

It is a minor point, but there are several places where you wanted to express meter second^-1, but the text does not indicate this.

Many of the essays discuss geometry in one way or another. This seems to be a general consensus regarding part of the effectiveness of mathematics.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

    Gary, Sorry, the approx. 26.25400 degrees is the angle that applies to my triangle pair when expressing the angle related to the time duration of the second.

    The conclusion of your vixra paper stated, "Therefore, the author believes that the electron and the scalar field are identical. The electron is the scalar field. The scalar field is the electron. They are the aether. "

    Astronomers use the term "dispersion measure" to describe the presence of electrons in space that cause the low frequency component of a signal to be received at a later time than the high frequency components. I became acquainted with the term when I read about "Fast Radio Bursts." Astronomers must agree with you that electrons are uniformly distributed throughout space.

    12 days later

    Dear Mr. Makinson,

    You wrote: "Time is not something we can ignore, nor space, which has a dimension in all directions. How space and time are interrelated has consumed immeasurable hours of effort by philosophers and mathematicians."

    For the first time in your life Mr. Makinson, please behold unified reality: Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

    Warm regards,

    Joe Fisher

      Your lack of space is not compatible with the core mathematics described in my essay. I do agree that the current definition of space that is generally accepted is lacking. No one seems to challenge the basic assumption that is the basis for the Michelson-Morley experiment, in 1887. Those two individuals made their assumption based upon incomplete information, which is why their experimental result is basically invalid. I stated in my essay, "In 1908, Minkowski and other scientists of that era were unaware that we are constantly bathed in broadband electromagnetic (EM) radiation from the cosmos."

      It seems obvious that the universe is a complex EM Energy Transfer Structure (EM-ETS). I have another paper that I am working on that will upset the conventional thinking on how energy is exchanged in the universe. I will work on that paper when I get time from promoting my most recent paper, "The Electromagnetic Cause of Shell Shock." viXra 1502.0196

      Frank,

      Good to see you back, and with another valuable perception of underlying matters. I suspect the 'off topic' comment above took the literal sense not intent of the subject.

      You'll recall I agree with your fresh and perceptive views from previous discussions, and I found your original twin triangle approach fascinating and valuable. I feel the need to further explore it when time allows. I certainly think it deserves far higher scoring and am glad to help. I also look forward to reading the paper you mention soon.

      My essay also identifies fundamental flawed assumptions with major consequences, apparently missed by the first few scorers. I'm sure you'll see them and look forward to discussion.

      Best wishes

      Peter

        Peter,

        Yes, it has been awhile. I had prepared my paper for another purpose, but then found it could be applied to this years' FQXi essay contest. In the response to my first essay comment I stated, If we use the premise that specific mathematical structures, such as arithmetic, geometry, algebra, etc., were developed to solve a type of problem, there is nothing mysterious about that. Basically, what we possess is incomplete information as to why certain mathematical structures were originally developed; algebra and geometry are examples. As man began to quantize the characteristics of the environment in which he lived, additional mathematical processes were developed to assist in the process.

        Your essays' final statement is right on the mark, Mathematics itself then works nicely to local domain limits but is easily misused and we can't assume algorithms which work also accurately model nature. The importance of improving breadth of input and or deriving initial conceptions unimpeded by prior assumptions emerges.

        Unfortunately, it seems our scientific establishment revels in using prior assumptions and or creating an assumption that has no basis in fact. Astronomers use of dispersion measure (DM) is a good example. DM assumes there is a uniform electron density throughout the universe. This assumption ignores the existence of gravity, which tends to aggregate everything that possesses mass. Everything should be denser as one gets closer to a large aggregation of particles.

        I do not trust many of the conclusions radio astronomers make when they ignore the fact that their listening point is inside the Suns' heliosphere, which some studies indicate is a very energetic medium that produces many electromagnetic emissions. I produced the following paper, "Cosmic Dust, Refraction and Emissivity" after reading about the BICEP debacle. http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0103

        I refer to the Suns' heliosphere as Van Allen Belts on steroids.

        I was tempted to put the following statement in my original paper, but I knew that would never get past peer review, "Every intelligent species in the universe, after discovering the relationships identified in the triangle pair concept, structured their scientific units of measure based upon the units revealed in the concept." Strangely, my original IEEE published paper is getting attention from a particular corporation.

        Dear Frank,

        Have you tried to consider the ontological interpretation of equilateral "heavenly triangle" of Plato, where the parties (vector) - representants of absolute states of matter (absolute forms of existence)? Edmund Husserl in "Origin of Geometry indicated a sure way to primordial structure of space: "Only to the extent, to which in case of idealization, the general content of spatio-temporal sphere is apodictically taken into account, which is invariant in all imaginable variations, ideal formation may arise, that will be clear in any future for all generations and in such form will be transferable by the tradition and reproducible in identical intersubjective sense ."

        This requires deep digging to the most remote depths of meanings - in the ontology and dialectics of Nature, dialectics logos and eidos.

        I think that first need to "grab" the primordial structure of space and only then possible to understand the nature of primordial fundamental constants and the nature of time as polyvalent phenomenon of the ontological (structural, cosmic) memory.

        Kind regards,

        Vladimir, electrical engineer

        17 days later

        I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

        All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

        Joe Fisher

          The scientists of a century ago were wrong about a lot of things. They were aware of light coming from the stars, but they were unaware of the broadband electromagnetic spectrum being emitted throughout the cosmos; this wasn't revealed until 1940 when Grote Reber managed to get his paper, "Cosmic Noise," published. Minkowski was on the correct path when he stated, "The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality" He really couldn't do much more than what he did, as he was limited by the incomplete information available to him in 1908.

          Also, my paper indicates that geometry has a basic link to space-time, thus I cannot agree with the statement presented in your papers' title. If Tegmark reads my essay, he will have a very simple example of how the universe is linked to mathematics.

          12 days later

          Frank,

          Thanks, we agree on most things, indeed I find it hard to understand how so many self apparent truths are ignored in favour of unproven but entrenched doctrine.

          I've not read many but I'm now crazily speed reading trying to catch up. I hadn't applied your (high) score but will now. I hope to get to your other paper, do please send me or post a live link if you can.

          Thanks Best of luck.

          Peter