johnreed take 1
- From: randamajor@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: 8 Apr 2005 13:22:17 -0700
Today the mathematical descriptions of the universe on the blackboard
and in the published papers, are abstract and devoid of any conceptual
connection to physical reality. The American physicist, Steven
Weinberg, wrote, "... it is always hard to realize that these numbers
and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the
real world." With the phrase, "...something to do with the real
world", Weinberg reveals that the mathematician has an unformed idea
as to what his abstractions represent conceptually. Consider the
words of the late Hungarian mathematician and physicist, Eugene P.
Wigner, "...the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the natural
sciences is something bordering on the mysterious... there is no
rational explanation for it." It is in the contemplation of the
mathematics and the operation of the stable systems in the universe,
that I found the rational explanation for it. Galileo may have been
the first to formally assert that, "...the laws of nature are written
in the language of mathematics." Today we may elaborate. Stability
in the field requires economy in cyclic motion. The invariant aspects
of the stable systems within the physical universe, toward which we
necessarily direct our investigative efforts, derive from least action
functions*. It is illuminating to note that the action stable systems
must follow to maintain perpetuity in the field, is precisely an
action that mathematics represents well. The mathematics fits the
stable universe because mathematics easily represents the economic
properties of stable systems. Consider the continuing words from
Eugene Wigner, "... it is just this uncanny usefulness of mathematical
concepts that raises the question of the uniqueness of our physical
theories."
The uniqueness of our physical theories is defined by the properties
they retain after reduction to their most basic state. In this form
they are consistent with, or reduced to, the orders of form attendant
to an instant or complete cycle of stable system action, be it as in
the inverse square property of an economic sphere, the circumference
line segment ratio to its radially enclosed area in the Euclidean
circle, or the planet's trajectoral time interval ratio, and its swept
out area of the orbital conic.
Wigner approaches the idea that we can experimentally isolate a
quantity with a local numerical magnitude and if that quantity
operates within least action parameters, without influence, or effect,
it can be proportionally applied to other stable systems, by virtue of
the invariant, economic, time-area, or frequency-wavelength aspects,
common to each stable system. In fact, mathematical models of stable
physical systems are conceptual creations of the observers. The laws
that result from mathematical abstractions derive from a physical
system's potential for stability and not from its experimentally
isolated operational quantities. This is not to say that there are no
underlying reasons for the order we observe in the universe, beyond a
principle of least action. Rather, it is to say that our classical
laws are derived solely from the principle of least action and beyond
this we know nothing.
Aside from the kinematic quantities common to stable systems, our
operational quantities are limited by our sense perceptions. The
quantity of mass is clouded by our sense of weight and force. Mass is
not acted on by the Earth attractor** and operates within the least
action environment without influence or effect***. Therefore the
proportionality of the quantity mass, can be universally extended
beyond its local value to obtain a superficial fit with the non-local
observed system****#. Devising an operationally effective mathematical
scheme based on the quantitative notion of mass, OR high energy
particle collision data and principles of symmetry, does not raise the
operational quantities to the level of a controlling physical reality.
The fact that we can alter the energy of a proton into transient
energy states we call bosons and fermions causes us to conclude that a
physical proton object is composed of physical quark objects, whereas,
this does not reasonably follow. The quarks have a physical
justification that is dependent on the notion of symmetry and the
trails of transitory atomic
fragments, largely created by high energy collisions in the laboratory.
I
introduce the question here. Of what significance is an unstable
energy state? Murray Gell-Mann put the theory together from the
particle data available, but he did not originally believe that it
truly
mirrored, real world quantities. Consider Steven Weinberg's words
again "... it is always hard to realize ..."
Before the publication of The Physics Preview for the 21st Century,
the "... something to do with the real world" aspect of the
mathematics, had not been clearly articulated. As a result we assume a
too literal interpretation for the operational quantities within our
theoretical constructs, and the mathematicians and physicists are
taught, and accept the physical reality of the theories they learn.
What this means for the rest of humanity is: as long as the physicist
has something that works as a mathematical model for a physical
system's action, humanity is stuck with the operational quantities
used within that model. We are given these quantities as real, and we
are told that they are fundamental aspects of the universe. The most
recent additions are the logical result of an unquestioned, never
verified, one hundred year old seminal assumption***** Colored quarks
have no real existence in the universe, yet, today the academic
humanist must reason from a theoretical reality, composed of colored
quarks, joined together with gluons, within a time dilating, curved
space universe. Why? Because mathematics has something to do with the
real world.
* A simple example of an economic or least action function, in terms of
its form, is a Euclidean circle. The circumference is the shortest line
length to contain the greatest area. ** The Earth attractor is the
phenomenon that we presently call gravity, our feel force. *** The
Earth attractor does not act on mass during free fall acceleration,
during orbit, or during escape velocity from the Earth. ****# Emily
Noether concluded that space was symetric with respect to rotation and
that this guaranteed that the law of conservation of momentum would
hold everywhere.****See Takes 2, 3 and 4 for discussions on mass. *****
The assumption was that the electron manifests as a particle inside the
atom.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: johnreed take 1
- From: Bill Hobba
- Re: johnreed take 1
- Prev by Date: Re: Alice slays Mad Hatter
- Next by Date: Re: johnreed addendum to take 6
- Previous by thread: New improved facts appendix part 1v031
- Next by thread: Re: johnreed take 1
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
