Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Physics= only Math?

  1. May 28, 2004 #1
    Question 1:
    What is Theory Development ? An help for people who try to develop new theories? I do appreciate all commentaries that I could read in the different threads. There is a lot of things to learn for people like me (amateur). I personally try to develop a small theory but I am certain to do it on what everybody call the poor man way. It is certainly inside the normality for someone who leaved the University for about 20 years! One cannot stop the progress and it is a very good thing.
    This said, I get the feeling, may be because of my reduced acknowledges in the mathematical world of today, and even if one cannot do physics without to have to manage with mathematics (I agree), that one tries to put the different pieces of the puzzle (GR, Quantum Theory, …) together with a super collection of very good mathematical theories but in forgetting the evidence of the reality. I try to explain: why are we sure that the connections between the different theories are to be found in a better mathematical model and not in a better analysis of the facts leading to a new theory of physics? Is it because this way of doing was successful in the past (e.g.: Electricity and magnetism with J.C. Maxwell; after that EM and Relativity with A. Einstein)? Is there not a risk that we built a beautiful house without real connections to the reality? Or said with other words: what are the recent experiments giving us the insurance that all these new theories (superstring, …) belong a little piece of the “not to wrong” explanation of our world?

    Question 2:
    I learnt (GR) that there is no better frame than the others. That means, we get a free choice of the frame where we want to work into. Is there someone who knows in which type of frames the original Maxwell’s Laws for vacuum (No source) in the 3-dimensional versus are valid? If I refer to what I have read, to the history and to the logic, I would propose: in every Euclidian frame at rest? Is it correct?

    Thanks / Blackforest
  2. jcsd
  3. May 28, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    One could think that reality is mainly a linguistic act. Then sharpening the language (ie the maths) is a suitable approach.

    In can be said that in this way we renounce to known everything. But it depends of your meaning of "everything".
  4. May 28, 2004 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The math on paper and the reality in the universe are connected by the experiments on the universe that give the data that goes into the math on paper.
  5. May 28, 2004 #4
    That's true: we try to deal with our eyes, hears and hands to win informations and inputs in our brain and after that, after having being thinking about that, we try to explain our thoughts with words and symbols. The best way for me is may be to explain my reasonment.

    If any frame is or should be equivalent to all other one, I certainly get advantage to choose one giving me the possibility to make a rational representation of the place where I am living and in which I can realize the following mental representation. ​

    Forgetting for a while the very hyper-modern constructions (Superstring Theory, …) it’s actually accepted that this place could be somewhere in a Riemann’s space with quite no curvature. In this space a random fluctuation occurs starting from the origin of the frame at the origin of the chronology. This could be an EM fluctuation but it could be a geometric fluctuation of the frame itself too. In any case the thing reach a new position pointed out by its vector r with a speed V and an acceleration G. If this acceleration would have found its reason in a central field acting in this frame, it would be proportional to the position of the thing*.

    Supposing that Laws of the Quantum Theory (QT) are as valid than those of the General Relativity (RG) in this frame and considering that the latter possibility* could appear:
    a) Acceleration and speed should be independent unknowns of the motion as long as the contrary is not proved to be a necessity; that means we should not always “a priori” write that acceleration is the derivate of the speed; and if we have to write it, we should deeply investigate the consequences of this. I guess that we get a quantization…
    b) A material object should always be associated with this thing moving like a wave. Such object, according to the usual considerations of the GR has a volumetric density of matter, occupies a volume and moves with speed v and acceleration dv/dt. This said, its easy to show that we have: F/t = [r°/dt + r°. (dt/dt)/t]. v + r°. (dv/dt).

    The first problem is to express the same force for the fluctuation. My first choice is based on an abstraction of a formula that I demonstrated in a 3-dimensional space and for whom I believe its beautiful symmetry is an invitation to generalize it (poor argument). An other and better argument is that forces in a 4-dimensional space use actually to be derivates from tensors, that the Lorentz force in particularly owns such a formalism. So I am sure that my argumentation at this place must be criticized. Nevertheless, it’s not forbidden to test an idea. That’s why I propose that at least one part of this force should have the following formalism: F/t = c0. T2(°)(, G). G +…

    Than we get a beautiful challenge: How can we connect the both expressions of the same thing occurring in the same frame? It’s exactly the moment to introduce precisions concerning the mathematical structure of the space. According to some formula concerning the divergence in any real Euclidian frame (Sorry, I actually don’t know the equivalent formula for a Riemann’s space), I can always make a progress on the road driving us to the connection if I precisely define the relation between the speed V and the acceleration G in a manner that gives the certitude that this fluctuation will also obey to the usual equations and laws of the GR. It means, there is no good reason to explain that a wave could not deal correctly with respect for the GR. A strange thing in the modern palace of the physics seems to be that everyone is thinking that matter and waves who are defined to be equivalent would live into two different worlds. They don’t. The boat and the wave associated to it move exactly on the same ocean.

    Is that a correct way to discuss about a possible connection between GR and QT in our world without immediately fall down into the schizophrenic delirium of the modern mathematics? Did someone still have seen, observed and made measurements concerning the 6, … 11th dimensions? Or where is my fundamental error in the discussion above ?
    Thanks for your threads.
  6. May 29, 2004 #5
    Dear russ_watters,
    it is a really beautiful sentence; yesterday evening I was tired and I could not really find the time and the words to give my impression about it. The explaination of my theory is certainly not so interesting and, sorry, when I speak about schizophrenic delirium of the methematics I don't want to hurt anybody here on this forum. I am afraid that I am just speaking about the danger for me to fall down in such a sickness if I do not meet anybody to speak with about my own work; that's why I am here.

    What I really mean is:
    I think we should not forget the rationality to make progresses. And I suppose we have a long and difficult road in front of our feet because we are not authorized to see behind the horizont of the actual world of our aknowledges as long as we do not recognize and respect the laws of the Plan. And it is one of the big difficulty in the research: on one side, we should not be affraid to (or more precisely we must ...) open our eyes to new rivers and unexplored sides of our minds, but we should never forget to confront these dreams with the reality. Our mind is like a telescope looking for news stars (new ideas) and our body which is deeply involved in this universe is obliged to install a filter (the rationality) for the investigations of its brain. And it is a challenge because our body itself is the connection between the invisible and the visible part of the world. We are like a tree with a head in the invisible Plan and a root in the visible world of experiments. We feel the flows and try to catch them.

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Physics= only Math?
  1. Math For Physics (Replies: 8)

  2. Physics and math (Replies: 3)