Mathematics as unifying force for science by Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga

Dear Torsten,

This is: „in medias res":

„Of course I'm influenced by many other thinkers (Hegel, Russel, Gödel, Einstein, Planck, Helmholtz etc.) but I don't find direct places to cite them. I'm sure that my thoughts were also thought by others but I had no time to find the places in the literature." Me too.

Sorry for researcher, I thought in the sense of the obligation of professors at the university.

Essentially, I assume importance just a one number, which I call the Cycle, exp (2pi).

Relationships between physical values are essential, not any particular phenomenon, which is a consequence of those relationships.

It is wrong to bind the fine structure constant with one phenomenon, electric charge. This constant appears in many relationships. The more we know of those relationships, getting closer and closer we know that constant. Nobody has an explanation for this constant, me too.

I did not calculate the fine structure constant. I followed two physical constants: the relationship between the mass of protons and electrons and inverse fine structure constant. Sure, I could use some other two constants.

My Table is not numerology and do not need dimensions. It uses three fundamental properties of matter: mass, length and time.

From it we can conclude:

That the Mach principle is good, i.e. My statement is: "The whole and parts are immanently dependent on each other";

To grasp the essence of the Planck values;

That the singularity in physics, as well as in mathematics is not possible, because there will always be referring within the cycle.

That is irrelevant story about the number of dimensions;

The connection between physics and mathematics is true;

That the relations between physical constants are immanent;

With the Table can be determined and the relationships between other physical values;

And much more.

Note that: the Table does not deal with quantum gravity.

Note that: Math that I use (seven main mathematical operations and two natural constants) is not an invention. It should be the same for the aliens.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Torsten,

Your essay provides a clear assertion and rationale against the Platonic view of mathematics. Your discussion of the need for mathematical abstraction and the relationship to physical explanation, especially from the historical perspective, is excellent. I found your attention to how math and physics each developed further abstraction at various critical points along their historical connection, to be an intriguing insight that reveals the deeper connection to humanity. The specific examples you gave were very pertinent; in particular, the example of how entropy and thermodynamics became more abstract I think is pivotal, if not even profound. My essay also discusses changing the paradigm used in explaining physical phenomena and the subsequent effects on mathematical abstraction, and how changing the mathematical representation affects physical explanation. Your concluding discussion of topology was very informative and provided a great example of mathematical structure helping to qualitatively understand science. Your essay is an excellent contribution to this forum topic, and I give it the highest rating.

Please take a moment to read and rate my essay, as we have several points in common. Thanks,

Steve Sax

Hello Torsten,

Well done on your essay in which you properly identified and discussed the relationship between math and physics in such an interesting way.

While, I may not be a professional mathematician or an expert like you on topology, I wish to ask, if there is a conflict between what math says and what physics says on a given subject, who are we to believe and why?

In my essay, I seem to identify a possible area where what math says could be different from what physics (or physical reality) tells us. You may want to give an opinion.

In math, an infinity value is recognized but in physics, nothing that is certainly infinite in value seems realizable. Or am I wrong?

I therefore suggest that when there is a conflict between math and physics on a question concerning physical reality, physics should be believed since you have yourself rightly pointed out that math is an abstraction and the outcome of a creative process. Or do you feel otherwise?

All the best in the competition.

Regards,

Akinbo

Dear Torsten,

I just read your essay liked how it interwove conceptual considerations into a historical narrative of the relationship between physics and philosophy. One advantage of such a bird's eye view is that it allows one to better appreciate that we are merely observing one "slice", as it were, of a continually evolving relationship between mathematics and physics which may take us into directions which we would not have dreamt of, just as it would have been the case with our ancestor's ability to predict contemporary mathematics.

I agree that mathematics is driven by intuition and creativity, but I would say that is also true for many other fields, and so by itself not the unique defining characteristic; rather it seems that the ability to use one's intuition and creativity in utter freedom except for constraints of consistency is what sets mathematics apart form other endeavors. Many other fields, like the arts, lack a consistency constraint, while the science lack the utter freedom to use one's imagination because the range of possibilities is limited by nature.

Finally, I agree with your view of mathematics as a unifying force for science, and I think this will become much more apparent in the future than it is now.

Best wishes,

Armin