* Physicists lost reality in Mathematics

[socratus]

Physicists lost reality in Mathematics
a)
1905 - Einstein involved negative time in* SRT
( nobody knew what negative time really was)
b)
1908 - Minkowski* said that Einstein's* equations look ''ugly''
And he gave beautiful mathematical* solution changing
Einstein's ''ugly'' negative time into a positive time.
Minkowski* explained his solution as a* ''space-cone''
Today professors say to students:
''you cannot be physicists if you don't understand* Minkowski's
beautiful mathematical solution''*
( but nobody explains* what ''space-cone''* or 4-D* really is )
c)
Then in 1919* Kaluza and* O.Klein* involved* 5-D
And* in 1969* ''string''- physicists involved 11-D, 27-D, M-D*
These* super - D* have never been observed, but physicists believe
that they are on the right way

You cannot do more complex arithmetic if you don't know what* 2+2 = 4
and if you don't know what 4-D really* is,* then more complex dimensions
are only* mathematical play for mathematicians
====
a) Classic view: dimension = direction
There are Descartes' three dimensions in space as
three directions in space. The point where all directions
are united shows place where object is.
We don't need more dimension, 3-D is enough to solve problem.
Looking on watch we know at what time object was in this point.

b) Minkowskki view:
there are four dimensions in space as four direction in space
but this ''space'' is not ordinary but very specific '' an absolute spacetime''.
In this ''absolute spacetime'' we don't know the point and time
where object is exactly.
=====

 

[MHz]

That must be the place where gravity has slowed down light to something less than the speed of light.

They say it is an almost magical place, where you can enter but you can never leave. Sort of like NY,NY.

 

[Curious Cdn]

That must be the place where gravity has slowed down light to something less than the speed of light.

They say it is an almost magical place, where you can enter but you can never leave. Sort of like NY,NY.

...and then there is the Tachion particle that exists before it really does.

 

[socratus]

That must be the place where gravity has slowed down light to something less than the speed of light.

They say it is an almost magical place, where you can enter but you can never leave. Sort of like NY,NY.

SRT as ''an absolute spacetime'' have zero gravity.
===

 

[MHz]

...and then there is the Tachion particle that exists before it really does.

Hmmm, as long as you didn't thank it up it's probably true. That condition might sound rare but there are quite a few answers out there looking for just the right question before their real purpose shines through.

Guess dad was right in his assessment when I was about 3.

 

[socratus]

Just to ask right question is solved half problem.
Unfortunately, most cannot ask and not because they are mutes
====

 

[socratus]

A math point - particle
======
A point particle is an ideal particle (not real image of particle in nature)
A point particle* is mathematical idealization of particle heavily used in physics

Definitions:
zero-dimensional, a point- mass, a point- charge, a nonzero charge ,
an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume

Atom:
A proton do have internal structure ( made of quarks - ? ! )
An electron doesn't have internal structure
That is impossible because electron takes part in many different
actions that are reflected by many different laws and formulas
( E=h*f and e^2=ah*c , +E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2 ,
E=-me^4/2h^2= -13,6eV and E= ∞ . . . . . )

From far enough a way, any finite-size object will look like and behave as
a point-like object, but when we will come nearer, we discover out our error.

Until today we are still far a way, to understand the structure of an electron.
===============

 

[socratus]

a)
Mathematics.
The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set-theoretic geometry,
which states the following: Given a solid ball in 3‑dimensional space,
there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint
subsets, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield
two identical copies of the original ball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox
It is pure mathematics.
b)
Physics / chemistry
Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements:
oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements:
potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body
It is pure physics / chemistry.
c)
Philosophy.
Are you greater than the sum of all these stuff ?
It is scientific question, it is philosophy of science.
====

 

[socratus]

a)
Mathematics.
The Banach–Tarski paradox is a theorem in set-theoretic geometry,
which states the following: Given a solid ball in 3‑dimensional space,
there exists a decomposition of the ball into a finite number of disjoint
subsets, which can then be put back together in a different way to yield
two identical copies of the original ball.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach–Tarski_paradox
It is pure mathematics.
b)
Physics / chemistry
Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of six elements:
oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus.
Only about 0.85% is composed of another five elements:
potassium, sulfur, sodium, chlorine, and magnesium.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_of_the_human_body
It is pure physics / chemistry.
c)
Philosophy.
Are you greater than the sum of all these stuff ?
It is scientific question, it is philosophy of science.
====

Why does woman need only 270 days to give birth to a child
and a ''single-point'' had needed about 14 billion years to create a woman / man ?

Maybe the pregnancy of woman (the birth of child) is not going by the laws
of probability, and not by chance all chemical elements were gathered together
( during 270 days ) to create child.
And who would argue, that when the child gives a first cry,
he / she is a much greater than the sum of all his / her chemical elements ?
=========================

 

[Curious Cdn]

Hmm. Synergy as a Mathematical concept ... the so-called "force-muliplier".

 

[Torch light]

Why does woman need only 270 days to give birth to a child
and a ''single-point'' had needed about 14 billion years to create a woman / man ?

Not sorry to tell you: your philosophy is rubbish .. full of assertions .. the true Socrates condemns the false Socrates.. no thank you.

 

[socratus]

About ''real'' imaginary numbers in mathematics
and ''not-real'' imaginary numbers in physics.
#
Imaginary numbers are a fine and wonderful refuge
of the divine spirit almost an amphibian between
being and non-being.
/ Gottfried Leibniz /
#
One might think this means that imaginary numbers
are just a mathematical game having nothing to do
with the real world. From the viewpoint of positivist
philosophy, however, one cannot determine what is real.
All one can do is find which mathematical models
describe the universe we live in. It turns out that
a mathematical model involving imaginary time
predicts not only effects we have already observed
but also effects we have not been able to measure yet
nevertheless believe in for other reasons.
So what is real and what is imaginary?
Is the distinction just in our minds?
* / Stephen Hawking /
#
Pi is not merely the ubiquitous factor in high school
geometry problems; it is stitched across the whole
tapestry of mathematics, not just geometry's little
corner of it. Pi occupies a key place in trigonometry too.
It is intimately related to e, and to imaginary numbers.
Pi even shows up in the mathematics of probability
/ Robert Kanigel /
#
The more science I studied, the more I saw that physics
becomes metaphysics and numbers become imaginary
numbers. The farther you go into science, the mushier
the ground gets. You start to say, 'Oh, there is an order
and a spiritual aspect to science.'
/ Dan Brown /
======
Can imaginary numbers be real in physics ?
Can imaginary numbers show real substance in physics ?
=================================

 

[socratus]

In the real Nature every piece of math is a model of something in Nature.
===
Let's say math describes* nature by transcendental, complex and real numbers.
Let's say physics uses* these transcendental, complex and real numbers to describe nature.
Let's say transcendental numbers must be described not only by the mathematical
formulas but also must have a real image in the physical world.
And if we take the number (pi) then the first thing we have in brain is a circle: c/d=pi=3,14 . . . .
Can quantum particle have geometrical form of circle-membrane ?
=======
Math without physics is med subject.
Physics without Math if dead subject.
======.

 

[Danbones]

Dan Brown

Ummm..It's "Devine CHI" code, NOT "davinci code".

That should explain everything, but the mules won't get it.

 

[socratus]

In nature, in evolution of nature, in mathematics, in physics . . .
something complex was made from something more simple
Nothing new.
But if we take mathematics then, . . .* the evolution of mathematical nature
didn't start* from natural numbers* 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 . . .
The evolution of Nature started from transcendental and imaginary numbers.
Then complex numbers appeared and at last natural numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 ...
This is a mathematical model of evolution ''something'' in Nature.
(my opinion)
====

 

[Danbones]

The Babylonians had trig they have found. It was old then.

How many clues do you need?

 

[socratus]

The impossibly stubborn question at the heart of quantum mechanics
/ by Jim Baggott / August 2, 2018 /

Everybody knows by now that quantum mechanics is an extraordinarily
successful scientific theory, on which much of our modern,
tech-obsessed lifestyles depend. It is also completely mad.
Although the theory quite obviously works, we’re left to puzzle over what
we think it’s telling us, with all its ghosts and phantoms; its cats that are
at once both alive and dead; its collapsing wavefunctions; and its seemingly
“spooky” goings-on.
It leaves us with a rather desperate desire to lie down quietly in a darkened room.. . .

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/...rn-question-at-the-heart-of-quantum-mechanics

============

 

[socratus]

Tuesday, October 22, 2019
What is the quantum measurement problem?
---
Quantum mechanics tells us that matter is not made of particles.
It is made of elementary constituents that are often called particles,
but are really described by wave-functions.
A wave-function a mathematical object which is neither a particle nor a wave,
but it can have properties of both.
The curious thing about the wave-function is that it does not itself correspond
to something which we can observe. Instead, it is only a tool by help of which
we calculate what we do observe.
To make such a calculation, quantum theory uses the following postulates.
- - -
Posted by Sabine Hossenfelder at 8:46 AM
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/what-is-quantum-measurement-problem.html

 

[socratus]

Why some scientists say physics has gone off the rails
---
"All of the theoretical work that's been done since the 1970s
has not produced a single successful prediction," says Neil Turok,
director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada.
"That's a very shocking state of affairs."
This doesn't mean physicists aren't busy; the journals are publishing
more research than ever. But Turok says all that research
isn't doing much to advance our understanding of the universe —
at least not the way physicists did in the last century.
#
1 - Lots of activity, little progress
2 - Seduced by math?
3 - In search of simplicity
---
/ June 2, 2018, By Dan Falk /
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/why-some-scientists-say-physics-has-gone-rails-ncna879346
===