 Quote by 00Svo
For example, when a proton and an anti-proton collide, they cancel each other out. They become neutral. However when you multiply a positive and a negative number, you get a negative. You would need negative(electron) and a neutral(neutron) stay negative, but that would mean that our number system is missing an entire set of numbers.
If our universe consists of Positives(protons) Negatives(electrons) and Neutrals(neutrons) then how can we expect to describe its behavior using a number system that only consists of Negatives and Neutrals?
Should there be a third branch? Positive numbers, negatives, and neutral numbers? -1, 1, +1 all being different things?
Can someone explain this to me?
|
Hello 00Sv0 !
You first mistake is to make a confusion between "physical modelling" and "computation".
There is no inconsistency in mathematics used in the addition or in the multiplication of positive and negative numbers.
But numbers and physical objects are not the same things.
The inconsistency is in your way to model a proton and an anti-proton collision. Your false modelling involves a mathematical operation which is not the good one. Then, even if the operation is correctly carried out (without mistake in the mathematical process), it is not suprising that the result be false.
So, you should not write "Inconsistency between mathematics and our universe", but:
"Inconsistency between my own model of universe and our real universe".
Similar discussions for: Inconsistency between mathematics and our universe.
