0.9k
1.1k
788
404
1kThe future of science may depend on looking to the past to determine the best way forward because most modern theories are based on mathematics which cannot be understood or interpreted in terms of our physical environment.Â
For example the standard model of particle physics mathematically defines a particle as a one dimensional or point object. However such an object does not exist in our physical environment.Â
Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity first by developing a conceptual understanding of how objects interacted in an observable environment. He then used those concepts to define a mathematical language to quantify them. His theory gained general acceptance because the mathematical language he derived from direct observations could make accurate quantitative predictions of planetary motion.
However, many modern physicists seem to have taken a different road to understanding the laws that govern our world.Â
For example, “The Standard Model of Particle Physics” the currently accepted theory defining particle interactions was created by developing a mathematical language based on the quantitative results of those interactions and then they are used to qualitatively define their environments.Â
These methodologies differ in that Newton’s extrapolated a conceptual understanding based on qualitative observations of how objects interact to mathematically define future interactions while the Standard model uses the quantitative observations of particle interactions to derive the qualitative properties of the environment in which those interactions take place.
However, the Newtonian method of conceptualizing a theory first through qualitative observations then developing a mathematical language from those observations allows it to be verified through qualitative observations.
While the Standard Model’s method of using the quantitative observations of a particle’s environment to derive a mathematical language which in term is used to define the qualitative properties of that environment is self-validating and cannot be verified though observations of the environment because those equation are what defines that environment.
Some try to justify using a mathematical language developed by quantitative observations to develop a conceptual understanding of the process involved by saying that the observational technology has not advanced enough to allow direct observations of the environment where they take place.Â
However, as mentioned earlier Newton was able to extrapolate a qualitative understanding of gravity based on observations of the earth’s environment to at the time the unobservable environment of the universe.
It has and will be shown throughout “The Road to Unification” that it is possible to derive a detailed conceptual understand of mathematical predictions of the Standard Model based on as Newton did the qualitative properties of our observable three-dimensional environment
Later Jeff
Copyright 2009 Jeffrey O’Callaghan
0.9k1.1k7884041k
Revolutions are nurtured by the few spreading the truth to the many.
Jeff
Hello Jeff,
I became aware of ‘Shadows’ some years ago(while it was still hosted on a comcast site). Since then the ideas and concepts you posed have become a part of my paradigm of life. So my most pressing question is, when will this be accepted and seriously studied? I know we can not count on the science community to pursue serious ends with ‘Shadows’, there are entire generations of physicists with their lively hoods and reputations tied up in mainstream quantum physics and ‘Shadows’ simply defies all that prevailing thinking. Like its historical counterparts ‘Shadows’ may be stonewalled by those aspects of humanity that have more in common with big business and commercialism then honest scientific inquiry. It is, however, heartening to consider that truth will always be true regardless of what humans think. On the bright side, at least you haven’t been tried by the Pope and placed under house arrest. That’s progress.
Thank you for sharing.
I’m about to be a grad student and until just recently I avoided/Feared ever taking a Physics course, but my program requires it. Needless to say Physics falls nothing short of intriguing to me.
The reason I avoid ever taking a physics course is the same reason why I Hate chemistry, but Love Biology. It’s the same reason I hate Algebra I, II & any variation of it, but think geometry is God’s greatest gift. “Math speaking wise”
I can see, picture, and conceptualize almost anything you can imagine, but when it comes to mathematical and scientific equations, I loose that sight.
Liked your post allot, Thank you.
I really like your post. Does it copyright protected?