- #1

- 2

- 1

Thanks in advance for help from some of you more experienced people in answering this question.

- Thread starter ben krempp
- Start date

- #1

- 2

- 1

Thanks in advance for help from some of you more experienced people in answering this question.

- #2

- 30,861

- 7,466

Axioms are the building block of geometries, not tetrahedrons.

- #3

jedishrfu

Mentor

- 12,519

- 6,307

Welcome to PF!

This is a mistaken concept. There is no evidence that supports selecting the simplest geometric shape and saying it must be the building block of nature. Math is a language we use to understand nature. There is no reason to say that nature uses math to do what it does.

Latching onto preconceived ideas can lead one astray as you attempt to fit nature to your idea. What scientists do is to fit the math to nature. In other words, math is good at describing patterns, nature exhibits patterns and so in our describing these patterns with math we discover new things. Some discoveries pop out of the math and some disagree with the math so we find a new way to describe it using math.

Historically Kepler had a similar view of the planetary orbits matching nested geometric solids but it just didn't work. He was smart enough to realize that and discovered the elliptical nature of the orbits. Although he still tried to hold his geometrical view as God's plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterium_Cosmographicum

Lastly, here's an article describing various views of the universe and some associated math concepts being applied:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec15.html

This is a mistaken concept. There is no evidence that supports selecting the simplest geometric shape and saying it must be the building block of nature. Math is a language we use to understand nature. There is no reason to say that nature uses math to do what it does.

Latching onto preconceived ideas can lead one astray as you attempt to fit nature to your idea. What scientists do is to fit the math to nature. In other words, math is good at describing patterns, nature exhibits patterns and so in our describing these patterns with math we discover new things. Some discoveries pop out of the math and some disagree with the math so we find a new way to describe it using math.

Historically Kepler had a similar view of the planetary orbits matching nested geometric solids but it just didn't work. He was smart enough to realize that and discovered the elliptical nature of the orbits. Although he still tried to hold his geometrical view as God's plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysterium_Cosmographicum

Lastly, here's an article describing various views of the universe and some associated math concepts being applied:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec15.html

Last edited:

- #4

- 158

- 23

In contrast, Newton's law of universal gravitation, as a statement, allows us to predict the trajectories of planets to a reasonable accuracy. General relativity allows us to predict macroscopic phenomena to a extremely precise degree, and for all reckoning seems to be our best model.

What you are saying is essentially not science; it has the flavor of popular science e.g. "Hey man... what if the universe was made of little vibrating strings?" or "Hey man... what if the universe was made of a grid with a unit size of planck's constant?" or yet "Hey man... what if the universe was made of little vibrating tetrahedrons?" All right, now what would that imply?

I think you meant 'tetrahedrons are the building blocks of geometrical shapes'. Electrons and other particles essentially don't have 'shapes' with any real bearing on their function. They have charge, spin, and mass. Position and velocity.

Why do articles still say the universe may be infinite? Isn't it obvious there is a finite amount of mass in the universe, if Big Bang cosmology is true? Even if it isn't, the observable universe (the part of the universe where we get light from) is a finite volume.Lastly, here's an article describing various views of the universe and some associated math concepts being applied:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast123/lectures/lec15.html

- #5

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,105

- 4,934

No, the big bang theory places no such constraints on the total mass of the universe.Why do articles still say the universe may be infinite? Isn't it obvious there is a finite amount of mass in the universe, if Big Bang cosmology is true?

- #6

- 1,184

- 223

Ha! This question reminds me of ancient greek philosophy about nature.I am new to physics, and my studies have taken me to this question. Mathetmatically, the tetrahedron is essentially the building block of geometries, does this make it then the building block of our universe? Though I understand this hasn't been proven and we haven't seen this, if mathematics is the lanuage of nature, it would seem that this would be true.

- #7

- 158

- 23

All is fire!Ha! This question reminds me of ancient greek philosophy about nature.

- #8

Doug Huffman

Gold Member

- 804

- 111

- #9

- 2

- 1

What I am saying however is if Einstein is essentially talking about the building blocks, those same building blocks we are still unearthing the details of, is it theoretically possible that math can be the "language" as he says that describes them, a language that we still don't have the equipment to view in detail enough to understand. Thanks in advance.

- #10

- 30,861

- 7,466

- #11

DennisN

2020 Award

- 1,637

- 3,584

I recognize this too, I think it's part of what is called "Causal dynamical triangulation"; e.g.I have seen a diagram of tetrahedra analogues of space. I'll have to think about which book argues so, likely one of Smolin's, for the topic and timing in the sequence of my reading.

I don't know much about it, but I have heard about it. I've also seen an animation of this somewhere on the net, but I can't remember where. But this CDT stuff really belongs in the subforum "Beyond the Standard Model", IMO.

- #12

DaveC426913

Gold Member

- 19,198

- 2,692

Rather than making assumptions about what that means, I'd very much like to hear some examples about where you see the tetrahedron being employed as a building block in the universe.Mathetmatically, the tetrahedron is essentially the building block of geometries, does this make it then the building block of our universes?

- #13

- 30,861

- 7,466

I would encourage the OP to read the scientific references that are cited in the above articles (not just the above articles) and ask any specific resulting questions. The BSM forum is indeed more appropriate.I recognize this too, I think it's part of what is called "Causal dynamical triangulation"; e.g.

I don't know much about it, but I have heard about it. I've also seen an animation of this somewhere on the net, but I can't remember where. But this CDT stuff really belongs in the subforum "Beyond the Standard Model", IMO.

- Last Post

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 9

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 68

- Views
- 8K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 924

- Last Post

- Replies
- 14

- Views
- 1K

- Last Post

- Replies
- 15

- Views
- 9K

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 1K