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

Seminal motion

  1. Jul 13, 2005 #1
    It appears that string theory is very dependent upon mathematics; pure mathematics at that.

    I understand that Kurt Gödel, in the early 1930s, with little opposition during his lifetime, argued that mathematics could not be proven because “one” could not be proven.

    If such is the case, then it would seem that string theory, as well as, all other theoretical physics is on shaky ground.

    Has anything since Gödel’s argument been provided to alleviate this problem?

    It would seem that a “proof of one” would provide the required fundamentals for describing seminal motion that should provide an understanding of the internal structure of “strings”/light in such a way that explains how “dark” energy morphs to “dark” matter; which would relate the elliptical curves of gravity directly to the sinusoidal curves of light.

    Does anyone have a comment regarding the above logic?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 13, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I don't know where you get this "proof of one". Perhaps your memory has slipped? Goedel proved that any formal system which is sufficient to derive artihmetic formally is incomplete, that is is contains propositions that contradict themselves. Tarski proved that geometry, and by extension real measure theory is complete, from which one might conclude that iti si impossible to derive arithmetic formally from measure theory. None of this affects physics, nor can it be used to derive new physics.
  4. Jul 13, 2005 #3
    That's a slightly contentious opinion given that these days physics is mathematics, and I'm not sure you're right. Stephen Hawking concludes that the incompleteness theorems have direct consequences for physics. He's posted an essay online called 'Godel and the End of Physics' arguing that the incompleteness theorems show that physics cannot be completed consistently. On whether it is complete or consistent right now he feels that "the smart money is on incomplete", as one would expect. But physics has to be one or the other or both according to him.
  5. Jul 13, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    First of all, physics is not mathematics. That's like saying all of Mozart's symphonies are just musical notes on paper.

    Secondly, since we're dropping names, I can drop one too - Eugene Wigner.


    Thirdly, and this seems to be glaringly overlooked, IT WORKS! People seem to forget that the use of mathematics in physics produces the RIGHT values observed experimentally, and not just for one, two, three, ... phenomena. In established physics, nowhere has there been any First Principle derivation in which the mathematics led to the wrong physics!

    If someone can show where the Uniqueness theorem in E&M, for example, goes wrong due to this "incompleteness" in mathematics, then I'd pay more attention to this assertion.

  6. Jul 13, 2005 #5
    The Mozart analogy does not seem to be pertinent. The original implication was that physics is based upon mathematics; not that: physics is mathematics. Mathematics is as fundamental to physics as are the four forces (or three, or five, or whatever is currently in vogue.)

    Wigner is essentially correct with his analysis of the effectiveness of mathematics; and also, with its formal beauty akin to poetry as observed by Russell.

    However, Gödel observed that, fundamentally, mathematics is self referencing, which reduces to the need for a “proof of one.” Thus, despite Wigner’s detailed ode, mathematics, fundamentally, is unprovable . . . incomplete.

    Mathematics does work as far as it goes; however, the faults of a self-referencing system may well be the crux of why physics doesn’t work.

    Currently all physics must be considered as “wrong physics.” A discipline which cannot reconcile its major theorems certainly cannot be relied upon to explain fundamental issues . . . such as those required by TOE.

    Possibly, rather than approaching the problems of TOE with conventional physics: i.e. Big Bang, quantum mechanics, undefined strings, multiple theories, etc., a better approach would be to first seek a non-self-referencing foundation for mathematics.
  7. Jul 13, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    "Physics is based upon mathematics" is not the same as "Physics is mathematics". I have no problem with the former.

    Sorry? Since when is a complete understanding of the universe is required for there to not be a "wrong physics"? Is Newtonian laws wrong even to construct your house here on earth? To what decimal points do you consider the experimental verification is needed to verify something? Infinite?

    And let's not get into this TOE nonsense. There's enough number of prominent physicists (Laughlin-Anderson-Pines axis) to argue that there's no such thing as a TOE. And people on here I'm sure have gotten sick of hearing the same argument from me why such a thing is a fallacy.

    Again, people pay very little importance to the fact that it works, and it works the way we understand it so much so that we can USE it and depend on it. There is nothing else that I know of that confirms the validity of something. Do you?

  8. Jul 13, 2005 #7
    “Wrong physics”

    You may have misunderstood my comment regarding “wrong physics.” I certainly agree that conventional physics “works” within its carefully described parameters.

    However, I intended to convey the thought that no discipline that can not internally reconcile its paradigms, that do not reconcile externally between themselves, can ever be considered complete. Perhaps, I was a bit strong with “wrong.” Please note there was a reason that I placed the word in quotes.

    I do contend that “wrong” is not too strong for the Big Bang theory. Physicists must begin to understand that there is an alternative force to the Big Bang to oppose gravity. Until physicists can define gravity and its opposing force, as demonstrated by accelerating galactic recession and the Pioneer anomaly, theoretical physics is little more than a miasma.

    I see no difficulty in demonstrating TOE with little more than logic based upon current observation and simple mathematics.

    Your bias concerning TOE reminds me of those who ridiculed Democritus and Boltzmann. I have no doubt that your views will fall to the same fate. And, sooner, rather than later.
  9. Jul 13, 2005 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    What about "incomplete"?

    It is obvious that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete. It is why scientists are still employed and it is why I look forward to coming into work each day. However, equating that with "wrong", even in quotations, is misleading at best. It isn't wrong or else it would not work! It is as simple as that!

    Then please confine your comment to the "Big Bang Theory" and do not over generalize it to all of physics.

    I could say the same about your views too and none of us can prove that we are correct. You are confusing "unification" with "TOE". If you think those two are the same, then as Bob Laughlin has challenged his graduate students to do, start with all the necessary and basic interactions of each individual electrons in the conduction band of a metal, and derive out of that the phenomena of superconductivity. Till you can show that it can be done, your "faith" in the existence of a "TOE" is unjustified.

  10. Jul 13, 2005 #9
    Carefully described parameters

    You seem to have missed my inclusion of “carefully described parameters.” Currently, the paradigms that are the whole of conventional physics are contrived, including mathematics, which remains fundamentally unprovable because of its self-referencing fundamentals . . . much like physics’ definition of dimensions.

    However, reconsidering and with respect to the fact that all the fundamental forces of physics, as currently defined, are metaphysical, I do not understand any error in contending that: physics does not work beyond its “carefully described parameters”; and, that physics is fundamentally wrong.

    I find it difficult to understand how anyone intimately acquainted with the subject could conclude otherwise.

    Seldom is anything in the real world as you state “as simple as that!” Simplicity is reserved for fundamental phenomena. As an example: TOE must be pluperfect simplicity.

    I am not confusing unification with TOE. I define unification as applying to the metaphysical forces of physics. TOE I understand as applying across all disciplines.

    Bob Laughlin’s challenge is nowhere near the requirements for a justified faith in TOE. Describing how seminal motion manifests as the observed particle/wave of light; or, how light morphs to mass; or, the internal structure of a light wave; or, why there Is a duality of gravity as observed by Cosmic Inertia; etc., etc. would be more appropriate. And, not too difficult to logically arrive at explanations.
  11. Jul 13, 2005 #10


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    I am now certain that, despite what you think you know, you have no clue what Laughlin was trying to illustrate, nor are you aware of the significance of emergent phenomena.

    Furthermore, I will caution you that if you have somehow missed what you agreed to when you signed up for this forum, that currently we do not support "personal theories", especially one that have not made it into peer-reviewed journals. Unless you can show exact citation for this "seminal motion", "cosmic inertia", etc... this thread will end. I suggest you wait until July 15 when a new section opens with a new set of requirements for personal theories.

  12. Jul 13, 2005 #11
    Seminal motion is not meant to be a theory; it is an attempt to describe the most fundamental motion. Whatever that motion may be.

    Cosmic inertia is an attempt to describe something that differs from Newtonian inertia, which is not a force as it is without acceleration. The literature is rife with citations regarding the accelerating galactic recession. The term cosmic inertia is not a personal theory; it is an attempt to describe, a now commonly, observed phenomenon.

    There is room for disagreement as to whether a rationalization of superconductivity, and its ramifications, qualifies for TOE; without more input, I don’t believe its requirements are beyond a concept of hyper-relativity, which is controversial; but, certainly within the literature.

    I am quite “aware of the significance of emergent phenomena.” More pointedly, the question is: do I understand emergent phenomena?

    Rules and fine print can be difficult to interpret when free expressions of ideas are interchanged. I certainly have no intent beyond intellectual inquiry.
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook