0.9k
1.1k
788
404
1kMost physicists would agree that one of the primary goals of their discipline is to explain why the laws of nature are what they are. However there is very little consensus on how to achieve it.
For example, there are some who believe the best way is to observe the environment and then extrapolate those observations to the unobservable.
Isaac Newton used this approach to derive the law of gravity by making the assumption that mass generates an attractive gravitational force on all objects based on physical observations he made on the earth. The universality of its existence is based on the fact that one can determine the motion of all objects in the universe by assuming this force was responsible for it.
However, we cannot “see” a gravitational force. How then can we be sure that it really exists?
The answer is we cannot. We can only assume it does based on the fact it allows us to predict and explain the motion of objects that at the time were unobservable.
For example the position of Neptune was mathematically predicted using Newton’s concept of gravity before it was directly observed.
However, there are some who take the opposite approach.
Quantum mechanics assumes one can define the laws of nature only in terms of mathematics and not the environment that surrounds them.
For example it defines the position of a particle by mathematically defining their probability distribution but says nothing about how it got there.  Â
This differs from the Newtonian method in that it defines the solution to where an object was in terms of how it got there whereas quantum mechanics as motioned earlier defines it only in terms of where it is.
Both of these methods are valid because they give scientists the ability to make accurate predictions of future events.
However physics as the name implies is the science that deals with physical properties matter, energy, motion, and force and not with abstract mathematics. Therefore, physicists should look to their observable properties as the primary vehicle to guide their understanding instead of mathematics.
The trouble with modern physics is that many have got lazy in their pursuit of reality. Instead of taking the time and effort to observe it many scientists make a few observations and turn to mathematics not observations of the environment they occupy to interconnect them.
For example the article “Why is energy/mass quantized?†Oct. 4, 2007 can understand the quantum properties energy/mass by extrapolating the observations of a three-dimensional environment to a matter wave on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
Briefly it showed the four conditions required for resonance to occur in a classical environment, an object, or substance with a natural frequency, a forcing function at the same frequency as the natural frequency, the lack of a damping frequency and the ability for the substance to oscillate spatial would occur in one consisting of four spatial dimensions.
The existence of four *spatial* dimensions would give a matter wave the ability to oscillate spatially on a “surface” between a third and fourth *spatial* dimensions thereby fulfilling one of the requirements for classical resonance to occur.
These oscillations would be caused by an event such as the decay of a subatomic particle or the shifting of an electron in an atomic orbital. This would force the “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold to oscillate with the frequency associated with the energy of that event.
The oscillations caused by such an event would serve as forcing function allowing a resonant system or “structure” to be established space.
Therefore, these oscillations in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold would meet the requirements mentioned above for the formation of a resonant system or “structure” in four-dimensional space if one extrapolated them to that environment.Â
Classical mechanics tells us the energy of a resonant system can only take on the discrete or quantized values associated with it fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.
Hence, these resonant systems in four *spatial* dimensions would be responsible for the discrete quantized energy associated with the quantum mechanical systems.
This shows that one can contrary to what physicists tell us that one can understand why energy/mass is quantized by extrapolating observations of a three-dimension environment to the quantum mechanical world.
However this is not the only example because as we have shown throughout this blog there are many more.Â
For example both the article “Is Quantum Mechanics a Fundamental or emergent property of space-time?” shows how one can integrate quantum mechanics with the classical properties of space-time and the article “The “reality†of the Higgs field“ explains why it is responsible for mass by extrapolating observations of a three-dimension world to their enviroments.
As mentioned earlier physics is the science that deals with physical properties matter, energy, motion, and force and not with abstract mathematics. Therefore, the primary criteria for the acceptance or rejection of a theory should not be mathematical but observational.
Later Jeff
Copyright Jeffrey O’Callaghan 2011
0.9k1.1k7884041k
I don’t see what’s lazy about using a model of an aspect of the world that fits observations. To me, it seems lazier to assert that a hypothesis is a better physical explanation without building a corresponding mathematical model to make predictions that can be tested.