Essay Abstract

Mathematics by themselves cannot wonder towards a goal as they represent only inert symbols invented by humans with implied meanings, still residing in the human brains. The biological entities do have goals, from virus to humans. The goal of the human engineered mathematical theory of physics is to help us understand the ontological reality by mapping the interaction processes. This will help us become better innovative engineers and solve problems that enhance our survival goal while ameliorating threats to sustainability of the biosphere. Hence, we should adopt evolution process congruent thinking into our current mathematical epistemology.

Author Bio

ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri is now a retired Research Professor at the University of Connecticut. He has held various research positions in industries (TRW, Perkin Elmer and United Technologies) for 14 years. Chandra has developed a very wide range of interests both in Nature Engineering (Physics, Chemistry, etc.) and in Social Engineering (economics, politics, etc.); almost everything that is heavily influencing and directing human social evolution. He has re-discover Non-Interaction Waves (NIW), a generalized property of all waves; which we have been neglecting for centuries. He has recently published the book, "Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves" [CRC, 2014].

Download Essay PDF File

I will be delighted to see critical comments on my essay, "Empower Mathematical Equations Using Evolution Process Congruent Thinking". This will allow the evolution of my thinking logics in stead of staying stuck with my current state thinking.

Chandra

Dear Chandrasekhar

It is a pleasure to see your essay here - having previously appreciated your unique talent both for proposing fascinating new physics concepts, and presenting them humbly, patiently explaining things while relating them to the wider context of both cosmic and human existence and goals. These qualities are fully evident in your present essay. You have remained faithful to the essay topic and answered it brilliantly and deserve full marks.

Some random comments: you say mathematics represent "only inert symbols invented by humans" - in a previous faqxi contest I concluded that since the brain evolved from primitive organisms that themselves interacted with molecular forces, the physical structure of the Universe, the human brain and mathematics all naturally share the same attributes. Later on in your essay however your do touch on the molecular origins of intelligence and mathematics, again demonstrating the wide scope of your vision asking "What are the meaning and purpose behind this evolution, from the galaxies, stars and planets to the roles of humans in it?"

You also ask questions and make statements near to my heart: "Has the foundation of edifice of human scientific knowledge already been finalized by QM and Relativity?" No! لا !Nein ! नहीं !

"We are interpreters, not the observers"Yes! Щ†Ш№Щ... Yavole! हाँ!. in my fqxi essay I attribute much that ails physics today to Einstein's introduction of the observer to physics.

"We must consciously promote more frequent challenges to our working theories" Absolutely - I have done that in my essay as far as my abilities go somewhat rashly imitating Kali who necessarily destroys prior to the act of creation.

BTW I have finally understood what you mean by Non Interaction of Waves - you simple mean a medium-free interaction is impossible - again I heartily agree.

Wishing you all the best to continue your journey in these perilous times,

Vladimir

    Dear Valdimir:

    I deeply value your appreciation and praise for my essay. I will have to read carefully your previous essay in the FQXi forum to appreciate your contribution further. But, let me make a comment on your comment here (quoted below, first);

    "I concluded that since the brain evolved from primitive organisms that themselves interacted with molecular forces, the physical structure of the Universe, the human brain and mathematics all naturally share the same attributes."

    I agree with this statement. Nevertheless, it does not underscore the deeper limits behind human invented mathematics.

    There are ontological Cosmic Logics that are behind all the natural evolutions; which have been set in motion long before even the earth was born. Then we have 3.5 billion years old Biological Logics in our biosphere, subjectively customized differently by different species. The limits of biological logics in different species have been well demonstrated by many extinct species. Best recent example is from the most intelligent living species, the humans. A big percentage of them are still reluctant to take preventive actions to slow down the Global Warming. Why? Because most of them still believe in the paradigm of their current economic science. It proclaims perpetual growth and consumptions are the best developmental state the humans can achieve. However, the paradigm of irreverent perpetual growth within a finite biosphere is a decisive path towards courting definite extinction!

    I will try to demonstrate the limits of Mathematical Logics in emulating Cosmic Logics. Mathematical Logics are no more than a product of biological logics out of human brains, not god's logics. Why would I then believe that human invented current mathematical logics system is infallible, especially, in its current form? In fact, we have been failing to appreciate generic natural tendency of Non-Interaction of Waves (NIW) for a millennia by falling victim to mathematical logics. Why? Human mathematical rule allows us to take the "detector constant" as a common factor out of the summed-detector-excitations induced by the multiple stimulating waves. Then we get a sum of pure wave amplitudes. We have been interpreting this as interference of wave amplitudes!

    However, we have generalized the sum of amplitudes as a real operational property of nature -Principle of Superposition or PS; even though the sum operator "" does not represent any force of interaction between pure amplitudes in a non-interacting linear environment. PS for EM waves is not an observable phenomenon. Superposition Effect (SE), as experienced and reported by detectors as their physical transformation under the simultaneous influence of multiple waves, is an observable phenomenon. Thus, recording SE in the absence of a detector and in the presence of only single wave-entity is physically impossible. Do you now see why "interference by single indivisible photon" cannot be an observable phenomenon? However, many of us have been claiming it to be true while presenting the "click-data", the response by the detector-electronics assembly as validation. Electrons are quantized particles with quantized binding energies in all materials. That is where the quantumness resides. It is not in the EM waves. Had Einstein assigned the quantumness in the photoelectric data as due to the electrons; he would have invented quantum mechanics two decades earlier than 1925. We now have built up a consensus opinion that EM waves are quantized and then manipulate math to represent our belief-system.

    This is why I have claimed that our current "correct" mathematics, by themselves, cannot wander around towards mapping the ontological Cosmic Logics! [For more detail with equations, see Ch.10 , "A causal photon without duality" in Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves, by C.R., Taylor & Francis, Paperback, 2017.]

    Chandra.

    Hello Chandra

    I am quite pleased, and impressed by your essay.

    You clearly stated things which I had been thinking but have not found a way to express so powerfully and succinctly.

    For our future, and our progress, we need to recognize that our working theories are not hallowed and unshakable, but just the best we have done so far. We have that instinct to do better, and we should. Holding onto our "popular" theories at all cost can and is hindering our ability to broaden our understanding and a more accurate perception of nature.

    You have made this and other important points so elegantly.

    Thank you.

    Chip Akins

      Dear Professor Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri,

      Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

      I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

      Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

      The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

      A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

      Joe Fisher, Realist

      Nice essay Prof Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri,

      Your ideas and thinking are excellent for eg...

      '1. Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics is still wandering and evolving. Critical opinions published by Schrodinger and Einstein have actually gave birth to a completely new sub-field of entanglement with many engineering implications.

      2. The depth of thought, which goes into the formation of the mathematical concepts, is later justified by the skill with which these concepts are used. The great mathematician fully, almost ruthlessly, exploits the domain of permissible reasoning and skirts the impermissible..... E. P. Wigner

      etc...are very important observations'

      A Good idea, I fully agree with you............

      ..................... For a change, I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ...............reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc...just have a look at the essay... "Distances, Locations, Ages and Reproduction of Galaxies in our Dynamic Universe" where UGF (Universal Gravitational force) acting on each and every mass, will create a direction and purpose of movement.....

      I think intension is inherited from Universe itself to all Biological systems

      For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

      Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

      With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

      Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

      Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

      http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

      Best wishes to your essay.

      For your blessings please................

      =snp. gupta

      Dear Чандрасекар Roychoudhuri

      I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it. If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

      I inform all the participants that use the electronic translator, therefore, my essay is written badly. I participate in the contest to familiarize English-speaking scientists with New Cartesian Physic, the basis of which the principle of identity of space and matter. Combining space and matter into a single essence, the New Cartesian Physic is able to integrate modern physics into a single theory. Let FQXi will be the starting point of this Association.

      Don't let the New Cartesian Physic disappear! Do not ask for himself, but for Descartes.

      New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show potential in this essay I risked give "The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural" - Is the name of my essay.

      Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. After you give a post in my topic, I shall do the same in your theme

      Sincerely,

      Dizhechko Boris

      Dear Joe Fisher:

      I have quickly read your essay. You have raised some interesting points.

      It is obvious that we think differently and model the perceptible universe differently. This is very healthy because none of us can understand everything we see. However, by comparing and contrasting or models we can keep on arrive at better models of the universe as we keep on evolving. In Plato's allegorical story of imprisoned cave-dwelling people, the prisoners are making a model of the external universe based on the shadows cast inside the cave. All our experimental data are like Plato's shadows. Now, we can apply the Indian allegorical story about how five blind people make reasonably realistic model of an elephant by comparing and integrating their notes generated by touching the elephant at different parts of its body. Therefore, the combination of the stories of the "Cave People" and the "Blind People" help us keep on iteratively enhancing our knowledge of the universe. This iterative approach is the best approach to allow the evolution of our mind and the evolution of our models of the universe.

      I see and perceive the world as three-dimensional. You have concluded by saying:

      "The real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light."

      Unfortunately, I am unable to integrate this model in my 3D perception.

      You have also underscored simplicity as a key to understanding the universe. An amoeba's survival skills and repertoire are complex emergent properties out of billions of molecules working in harmony that are still beyond our accurate modeling capacity.

      Sincerely,

      ChandraSekhar.

      Thanks Chandra for reiteration your positions relating to the details of wave supeposition and the mind etc. - depending on our models we may be talking along the same lines ... or not - I could not decide which at this moment. More power to you.

      Vladimir

      Dear Sir,

      Your reference to the questions about the nature of mass is important and timely. QM and its extensions are wandering to solve many problems, but without any direction. The various competing theories and interpretations impede progress. One such area is mass, "evolving from material content in a body to the assembly of stable elementary particles, representing "pure energy" in some form (m=E/c^2)". If you look at our ancient concepts, they insisted on three complimentary characteristics of matter, energy and perception called Tama, Raja and Sattwa, which coexist everywhere and cannot be separated fully. The determining character is dominance of one over the others. Thus, energy confined as mass, which is evident from your notation: m=E/c^2. Here E is confined in an area represented by c^2 (otherwise m will continue to increase per every second, which is contrary to observation) to provide a density gradient, which is mass in that context. Similarly, when mass is moved and inertia overcome, it is called energy. Everything in the universe is in a state of perpetual transition. This transition is perceived as mass or energy based on their degree of dominance.

      In a previous paper in this forum (REASONABLE EFFECTIVENESS OF MATHEMATICS), we had shown that the usually accepted views of Wigner and Gödel are questionable. The success of mathematics can only be attributed to "using strictly logical language of mathematical relations, set as cause-effect relating equations", as you put it. For this reason, we have pleaded for Physical Mathematics instead of Mathematical Physics in our essay this time. You also appear to agree when you say: "The limits in our discovering the ontological rules behind the biospheric and cosmo-spheric evolutions are not due to the equations alone; but from what input and output physical meaning we assign to the starting mathematical symbols and the connecting operators".

      You are right that "the Cosmological Redshift is definitely not a Doppler Effect". But concluding that it indicates expanding universe may not be correct because of several reasons: 1) our observation in cosmic scales are insignificant, 2) blue-shift and galactic mergers have been observed, and 3) expansion is seen only in larger scales of galactic clusters and no less. If we look at everything from atoms to stars and galaxies, the universe may replicate the solar system with galactic clusters as planets around the Sun. This will imply a closed universe, but some cosmological models propose this also.

      When you talk about "the '+' operator now implies real interaction between the particles followed by real energy exchange, followed by physical transformations (changes in excited states)", these do "give rise to measurable data if it happens inside a human constructed apparatus". However, we think there are some missing parameters we are not considering sufficiently. These include the "nature and source of the operator" and "what is an electron", which points you have also raised subsequently in the essay.

      Regarding biological evolution, "the perpetual evolutions towards higher and higher forms of biological species" is a debatable proposition. What is meant by higher and higher? Evolution of intelligence within a species has not been proven, though there is an hierarchy with humans at the top. In fact, we are becoming more informative and less intelligent. Since "viruses and the bacteria just started evolving out of the inanimate atoms and molecules to the living species", they have not changed and are the same they used to be before 3.5 million years ego. There is plenty of literature, which discuss Desire, Belief, Faith, and Hope in depth. There is also much literature about mind and its functions, which are mechanical in nature and about which we have replied extensively to Dr. R. K. Singh's post in our thread.

      Regarding Dark Energy and Dark Matter, you must be aware of the mismatch between theory and observation, which differ by a factor of 10^120. This is called the biggest mismatch in history. Though it has been narrowed down to 10^55, it is still too big to make a claim for a "theory". You have clearly demonstrated the deficiencies of the modern approach. Your modified approach and conclusion: "to incorporate the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) in physics" is significant and needs follow up research. We thoroughly enjoyed your essay.

      Regards,

      basudeba

        Dear Basudeba:

        I appreciate your positively inclined comments. Thank you!

        I am a hard-core experimentalist. You appear to be a thoughtful theoretician. It is obvious from your very carefully written essay. We have a major commonality that modern physics has deviated from seeking ontological reality. The transformation would require forming new-dedicated research group. Interested?

        My approach to seek the "truth" could be different from yours and others in details. However, this is a healthy requirement for humans to keep on advancing their understanding of the universe without staying stuck in anthropomorphism. This is a bit sad because over two thousand years ago Plato gave an allegorical story to remain critical about things that may appear to be a "sure thing" to eyes. The story could be described as limitations of "Cave People Modeling outside World from Shadows Cast Inside". The shadows are our modern data. That is why I proposed incorporating Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology to emulate the Indian allegorical story, "5 Blind People Modeling the Cosmic Elephant". This is a superior instruction compared to that given by Plato. It provides path towards reality even though the data (shadows) does not directly allow access to the reality. The concept is buried into the story. Although, individually each blind man draws, correct, but almost laughable model for an elephant; when they sit down together to find conceptual continuity between each other's observation while imposing the logical congruence utilizing the over-arching knowledge that it is a living animal; then their model tends to converge towards an elephant-like animal! Therefore, I have proposed that: We now have to keep on iterating all working theories by challenging the foundational postulates behind the original theory.

        I will address to your specific points another time. You can go to this web to download many of my papers, including some on cosmology, Doppler Effect, Fresnel drag experiment, etc.

        http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/

        My re-discovery of Non-Interaction of Waves is profoundly important to re-shape physics. Wave-particle duality is destroying physics. It is resolved in my book, "Causal Physics: Photon Model by Non-Interaction of Waves" [low cost paperback is now available].

        Feel free to contact me at chandra.roychoudhuri at uconn.edu, if you want to discuss possible collaboration.

        Chandrasekhar Roychoudhuri

        14 days later

        ChandraSekhar,

        That was so great I read it twice! I pulled off sentences I really liked, but I seem to have much of the essay! Lets just say I agree and applaud about all, and, shockingly, have some mega breakthrough answers you'll love to test. See some of the recent blog comments too, and the video links.

        I hope you get there in time to score it too! Yours was going to get a well deserved 30 but apparently I could only give it 10! Sorry for that.

        Very best.

        Peter

        Peter: I have read your article. It is a scholarly article with strong bent towards intellectual logician. We have both agreements and dis-agreements. I can learn a lot from you; which means we can collaborate and complement each other, if you want. Chandra.Roychoudhuriatuconn.edu. You can also download some of my selected papers from http://www.natureoflight.org/CP/. Specifically, I would suggest down load the paper "2014.2". It explains my methodology of thinking in more detail.

        "At present we're wandering in the dark. We do know physical motion and interactions exist, but we won't know if any algorithm is correct

        until we fully understand the mechanisms."

        AGREE.

        My methodology of thinking is that we must implement Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology (IPM-E) over and above the prevailing Data Modeling Epistemology (MDM-E).

        "Our brains themselves are part of the system as part of the observer."

        DISAGREE.

        Human brain is only the interpreter. It is physically separate and independent of the data-generating instrument where the interaction processes are going on (invisible to us; and that is the problem. Counter example: Unless, of course, you are analyzing your own brain. Say, you inside an fMRI machine and interactively trying to interpret the images while the images are dynamically changing as your logical brain is WANDERING to find the intellectually most pleasing solution.

        Again, thanks for writing an excellent article.

        ChandraSekhar Roychoudhuri

        Dear Sirs!

        Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use spam.

        New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

        New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

        Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

        Sincerely,

        Dizhechko Boris

        Dear Chandrasekhar,

        With great interest I read your essay, which of course is worthy of high rating. Excellently written.

        I agree with you

        «This will help us become better innovative engineers and solve problems that enhance our survival goal while ameliorating threats to sustainability of the biosphere. Hence, we should adopt evolution process congruent thinking into our current mathematical epistemology.»

        «My proposal is to incorporate the Interaction Process Mapping Epistemology ... in physics thinking to empower the prevailing ... approach.»

        And I tried to implement it.

        I wish you success in the contest.

        Kind regards,

        Vladimir

        Chandrasekhar,

        I believe your MDM-E approach might incorporate my idea expressed in my essay of a field-level speculation regarding the nature of dark matter and perhaps allowing discoveries like the supervoid challenging orthodox views arising from the CMB.

        I interpret you statement: "We must consciously promote more frequent challenges to our working theories, whether meant for Nature Engineering (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.), or Social Engineering (politics, economics, religions, etc.) to assure that we are not getting trapped on our old success rut that have become incongruent with our sustainable evolution." in this manner.

        I would like to hear your views on my essay concepts.

        Regards,

        Jim Hoover