Mathematics and Physics problems

http://www.nature.com/news/paradox-at-the-heart-of-mathematics-makes-physics-problem-unanswerable-1.18983

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Going back to the article, they seem to be talking about a certain kind of problem which reminds me of that Principle. Not revoking Heisenberg’s principle itself, but applying known unknowns to problems that divide between theoretical equations and actual experiments.

The reason why certain issues in physics have yet to be solved, is because the model is incomplete. And has been incomplete since forever, from the human pov. That doesn’t require the use of a broken mathematical equation. It just requires a different way of looking at the model of physics.

The mass-gap problem relates to the observation that the particles that carry the weak and strong nuclear force have mass. This is also why the weak and strong nuclear forces have limited range, unlike gravity and electromagnetism, and why quarks are only found as part of composite particles such as protons or neutrons, never in isolation. The problem is that there is no rigorous mathematical theory which explains why the force-carriers have mass, when photons, the carriers of the electromagnetic force, are massless.

The fundamental question of “what is mass” has been under research since a long time now. People thought the atom was indivisible once before. Then thought protons, neutrons, and electrons were indivisible, that this was the basic of matter. Then quantum mechanics went further and discovered something else.

The point is, hypervolumes, higher dimensional intrusion in lower dimensions. Experimentally, it is unfeasible, because the human ability to manipulate mass in other dimensions is limited, or rather non existent at the moment. Mathematically, equations can account for higher dimensions or lower ones.

As I may have mentioned before, fluid dynamics, light speed and gravitational lens warping, those things could not be calculated without an actual comprehension or model of the physical phenomenon. Theoretical mathematicians can create equations for them, but until they have a model from which to view the effect, they cannot find the cause or even close to it. Mathematicians need to know the unknown unknowns, the variables, into known unknowns. Thus Newton could use differential equation, calculus, to solve gravitational issues, on a planet. Yet Einstein used the same calculus field to calculate the manipulation of the space time field by masses of gravity. E=mc^2 is merely a rather cut down version of the longer differentiation equation. In a physical world where light traveled at different speeds depending on time, not space, it would be hard to create experiments for it and thus even harder to generate an actual eq with it as a constant. If it isn’t a constant.

The current model of the world under physics is incorrect. Thus until the defects are “corrected” to be more accurate, certain problems cannot be solved. Any more than the invisible energy of the magnetic field could be predicted without a comprehension of the energies at work.

I take a guess at higher dimensions as that which requires a better human comprehension, before mass and quantum particles may be better understood. I also take a preference at the Dirac Sea pov, as well as observational minds collapsing quantum wavefronts into physical phenomenon.

Once a consistent physical model of the universe is set down, it is often “good enough” to last a few generations before it is in need of an overturn or overhaul. That’s because as mad scientists keep pushing the barrier of human knowledge, there begins to be things that the current model can no longer adequately explain or calculate.

This has been true even for electricity and magnetism, let alone fields of physics where the human ability to influence or generate experiments is effectively close to zero.

The best tools humans have for finding weird quantum particles has been the particle accelerators, smashing one particle against the other to figure out if any new ones may be unaccounted for or missed due to the energy traces.

For example, http://home.cern/topics/higgs-boson

Hawking, in public, bet his reputation to Higgs’ face that such a particle did not exist presumably because Hawking’s “Equations” stated that it would not exist.

So much for his God Equations.

If there is a universe inside the Dirac Sea (to account for the infinite/extra energy) or negative dimensions within or below the various quantum particles in the Standard Model, it would become easier to generate models and mathematical equations for various physical particles. At that point, it might become feasible to determine why things have mass or not.

The way the quantum particles pair up and line up, seem very strange. Almost as if they are merely the consequences of some other thing at work. Or perhaps that is merely the normal human pov for something that doesn’t adhere to the classic system. For relatively new models of the atom, such as the electron cloud, neutron and proton in the element tables, it still felt similar to the gravity binding planets and comets. Barely within the same conceptual framework, but still within the paradigm.

Modern quantum physics seems much like a child smashing apart radios and miniature models, to figure out how the internals work. How such things are constructed, is beyond present day comprehension. The theoretical models seem to be holding as accurate, for now.

The problem is the things which currently have no models to describe them. How can people figure out where mass comes from, when they don’t even know about what matter consists of?

For Newton’s equations, they were accurate since space time distortion and warping didn’t exist on planet Earth to such a degree that it required equations designed to account for black holes or light speed limits.

However, when dealing with mass and elementary sub particles, it is all around us and within us. Mathematicians and physicists can no longer have an easy approximation of the prediction. Magnetism and electricity can be turned on and off, in order to experiment with it. To a certain degree, overriding whatever exists in nature.

Yet does humanity have the ability to turn off the existence of particles and their mass, to do enough experiments to equal humanity’s comprehension of electricity and magnetism? Ohms and Maxwell were human individuals who tore through the barriers. Perhaps humanity lacks the individual strangeness and or the technological metallurgy to do the same with mass and gravity. For now at least.

Humanity has often been on the wrong path to no where. It is only individuals that were ever any different. It is the individuals, outliers, which pulled humanity along on the endless path.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: Science

4 Comments on “Mathematics and Physics problems”

  1. G6loq Says:

    This book is a good place to start:
    http://tinyurl.com/poe9a2h

    Read over and over again. Very elusive concepts ….

  2. G6loq Says:

    Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness

  3. G6loq Says:

    As it is, a major component of the very predictive Quantum models is the conscious observer.
    Only if/when observed are the probability functions collapsed into – perceived – material reality.
    There is no models for consciousness at the moment …

    Segway into Tai Chi. I studied with William CC Chen and it was all body mechanics, vectors and applying force with maximum leverage.
    Then a few years ago I ran into some push hand players in the DC area who’d have none of it. They move me around as if weightless.
    Is all ‘energy’, no muscle whatsoever, from their point of view.

    See Scott Meredith’s work:
    http://cattanga.typepad.com

    Book: JUICE Radical TAIJI Energetics

    After 25+ years, back to square one.
    That’s the path I guess ….

  4. ymarsakar Says:

    Observation bias is also present in experimentation with water. And observation contamination of observed effects was what I found most useful from Heisenberg’s Principle, that seeing something can change enough factors for it to be changed. Of course, many people stated that this only applied to particle interactions (electron microscopes), not macro scale events. But I have my own doubts, given there is no current theory explaining macro scale events in this fashion. It’s not like humanity understands particle and sub particle interaction fully enough to state that it would have no effect on macro interactions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: