Essay Abstract

Everything in the universe is interrelated and interdependent. The laws of physics are same everywhere. The macro and the micro replicate each other. By properly correlating them, we can know about each other. Completeness must be viewed in that context. Incompleteness is the reductionist approach - hence limited in scope. Extending information on part to the whole leads to confusion. Language is the transposition of information to another system/person's CPU/mind by signals/sound using energy. Mathematical equations transpose SCALAR QUANTITATIVE ASPECT of information only. Thus mathematics is a language only for quantitative aspects of Nature. Physics is mostly vector - hence not confined to mathematics only. Equations in math are different from those of physics and imply special conditions for interaction. Exchanging both (as in renormalization or brute-force approach) is like extending limited information to build abstract models without the restrictions imposed on them by rules of the physical world. This leads to incompleteness issues. 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. The way math is now being done is incomplete and inconsistent. The problem is with dualism of bivalent logic of propositional calculus or sentential logic that leads to incompleteness based on linearity. Mathematics deals with scalar numbers. Physics is all about interactions, which makes it vector. Scalars and Vectors do not follow the same math rules. This dualism must be sublimated within formal systems by logically consistent reasoning - both mathematical and physical. Napier's logarithms, Hilbert's problems, Gödel's negative solution and Wigner's Unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics - all tend to limit the limits of probability in formal theories. They arise out of improper extension or non-inclusion of sectoral issues with consequential implications in fundamental interactions and other theories in physics.

Author Bio

seeker of truth.

Download Essay PDF File

Hello Basudeba, Happy to see you on this Contest, congrats for your ideas, regards

I am going to make it also maybe , we have some Days to do it with Ulla Mattfolk,friendly

    6 days later

    Wonderful words My dear old friend basudeba mishra sab,

    " Equations in math are different from those of physics and imply special conditions for interaction."

    I know our thinking goes in similar fashion, why dont you see my essay "A properly deciding, Computing and Predicting new theory's Philosophy" and confirm your self???

    I am waiting for your post on my essay....

    Best Regards

    =snp

      5 days later

      Thanks.

      I was otherwise busy. Now I will start visiting other's essays.

      basudeba.

      Extending abstract linear propositions not bound by the strict principles of causality to formulate physical theories that are non-linear and causal, is a problem of mathematical physics. Generalizing the part to cover the whole is against natural principles. It works in scalar numbers, which follow a general principle for accumulation and reduction. But it won't work in physics, where the conditions are not linearly additive or reductive.

      Let us take one example given by a friend of the collection of electron orbitals for the carbon atom is the domain for a singular function Q. Wherever f(x) in set Q is = f(y) in set P, a hydrogen atom, then there is a natural implication that x=y, meaning that an electron in the carbon atom with corresponding or analogous values to an electron orbital in the hydrogen atom as imputed by internal or external condition that exceeds the parameters of the sets Q and P, x=y can become an independent position. In this case of electrons, the spectrum of binding could increase to function with more complex synthesis to give rise to organic life.

      Hydrogen has only one shell K and one electron in a spherical orbital 1s close to the nucleus. It consists of only a single proton - atomic number = mass number = 1, and its mass is 1.007825 amu. It is like a book - an element of a set.

      Carbon has two 6 electrons arranged 2 each in 1s, 2s and 2p orbitals. Shell number one can only hold 2 electrons, shell two holds the rest 4. Atomic number of carbon is 6 and mass number of carbon is 12.1. It is like a library - a set of books.

      But a book is not a library. A set with a single element is void. Otherwise it will lead to Russell's paradox. The shells and orbitals are not just higher numbers. They are not linearly additive functions. They have different physical properties.

      Though hydrogen and carbons belong to a set of atoms, when we go into details, they are different classes like apples, mangoes, oranges, lemons, grapes, berries, are all fruits, but are not the same. The non-linearity in the above example comes from the nature of shells. The first shell can hold up to two electrons, the second shell can hold up to eight (2 6) electrons, the third shell can hold up to 18 (2 6 10) and so on. The general formula is that the nth shell can in principle hold up to 2(n^2) electrons. The moment you introduce higher number of cells, we introduce exponential terms that breaks linearity.

      Hence, if we say that the collection of electron orbitals for the carbon atom is the domain for a singular function Q. Wherever f(x) in set Q is = f(y) in set P, a hydrogen atom, then there is a natural implication that x=y, meaning that an electron in the carbon atom with corresponding or analogous values to an electron orbital in the hydrogen atom as imputed by internal or external condition that exceeds the parameters of the sets Q and P, x=y can become an independent position - it is not only misleading, but also outright wrong.

      In this case of electrons, the spectrum of binding could increase to function with more complex synthesis means they belong to different classes not subject to additive or reductive process.

      Parameters of function can be exceeded under the right conditions. But unless those conditions are taken into account, abstract mathematics cannot explain physics.

      Dear Basudeba,

      A very important essay and deepen ideas. Especially important is a journey to the origins of mathematics. But it seems to me that in order to establish the limits of the "limit" in the broadest sense, it is necessary to add the deepest ontology. But ontology is also in crisis. Crazy ontological ideas are needed.

      Good luck!

      Respectfully,

      Vladimir

      2 months later

      Dear basudeba

      Glad to read your work again.

      I greatly appreciated your work and discussion. I am very glad that you are not thinking in abstract patterns.

      "The laws of physics are same everywhere. The macro and the micro replicate each other".

      While the discussion lasted, I wrote an article: "Practical guidance on calculating resonant frequencies at four levels of diagnosis and inactivation of COVID-19 coronavirus", due to the high relevance of this topic. The work is based on the practical solution of problems in quantum mechanics, presented in the essay FQXi 2019-2020 "Universal quantum laws of the universe to solve the problems of unsolvability, computability and unpredictability".

      I hope that my modest results of work will provide you with information for thought.

      Warm Regards, `

      Vladimir

        11 days later
        Write a Reply...