Should we allow math to be our only definition of reality? | Unifying Quantum and Relativistic Theories

Please follow and like us:

Einstein’s Explanation of the Unexplainable

One thing all theoreticians especially physicist should be aware of is the fact there are many ways to predict observations but only one can define the reason why they occur.

History has shown assuming the existence of something based primarily on the predictive powers of mathematics and not on observations of how an environment evolves can be dangerous.

For example, in the Ptolemaic or geocentric system of astronomy, many thought the existence of epicycles, were required to explain the retrograde motion of the Moon, Sun, and planets.

It was not until scientific investigations were stimulated by Copernicus’s publication of his heliocentric theory and Galileo’s observation of the phase of the moons of Jupiter did many European scientists consider the fact that epicycles did not exist.

This is true even though many Greek, Indian and Muslim savants had published heliocentric hypotheses centuries before Copernicus.

However, why did it take almost two thousand years for them to realize their ideas were incorrect?

One reason may have been because the math that used epicycles was able to predict their positions within the observational tolerances of the equipment they used to define them. However, if the scientists who assumed the existence of epicycles had taken the time to observe how objects moved on earth, they would have realized there was a problem because, at least on earth, objects “naturally” did NOT follow the curve path associated with of epicycles.

However, because they were still able to make accurate predictions of a planet’s position based on the existence of epicycles, they were able to ignore those observations and suppress the more accurate Greek, Indian and Muslim ideas for almost 2000 years.

Yet they could not ignore the direct observational evidence provided by Galileo Galilei when in 1610 when he observed the evolution of phases of Venus that planets did not revolve around the earth. This caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of the universe.

Putting it another way, the heliocentric concept of our solar system could have become the dominate paradigm long before 1610 if European scientists had not ignored the how of objects moved or evolved on earth.

However, it would still be possible to use the math associated with the geocentric model along a powerful enough computer to predict the position of the planets within the tolerance of our modern instrumentation even though that math does not correctly define the evolution of their movement.

This FACT tells us that it is even more important now that we use observation of how a system evolves as well math to verify our understanding of their environments today. This is because the advance state of mathematics and computing makes it even more likely that models can be made that are within the tolerance of our observing equipment even though they may be based on a false mathematical premise.

For example, the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics assume particles exist in a state of superposition or exist in many different places before observed based solely on mathematical evolution the wave function. But it cannot explain why a particle only appears when it was observed in terms of observations of environment it is defining and therefore cannot be validated as a solution to its evolution.

However, it is possible to validate a mathematical solution in terms of the environment by using its observable properties to define the math instead of using math to define those properties.

For example, the science of wave mechanics and Relativity tells us an electromagnetic wave moves continuously through space-time unless it is prevented from moving through time by someone or something interacting with it. This would result in it being confined to three-dimensional space. The science of wave mechanics also tells us the three-dimensional “walls” of this confinement will result in its energy being reflected back on itself thereby creating a resonant or standing wave in three-dimensional space. This would cause the energy of an electromagnetic wave to be concentrated at the point in space were a particle would be found. Additionally, wave mechanics also tells us the energy of a resonant system such as a standing wave can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency that the wave function associates with a particle.

Putting it another way when an electromagnetic wave is prevented from moving through space time either by being observed or encountering an object it is reduced or “Collapses” to a form a standing wave that would define the quantized energy quantum mechanics associates with a particle.

The physicist Richard Feynman is credited with saying “The weird thing about Quantum mechanics is that no one really understands it” in part because it defines reality ONLY in terms mathematical properties a wave function which only collapses to it when it is observed or interacts with something in its environment. However. it cannot explain what causes that to occur.

However, as was shown above one can understand why in terms of the OBSERVABLE properties of our universe if one assumes that it represents an electromagnetic wave in a space-time because as was shown above if it is prevented from evolving through space by an interaction with it, it WILL and MUST present itself as a particle.

Scientists ESPECIALLY physicists should realize math is only a TOOL to define define reality NOT a replacement for it.

Please follow and like us: