Theory of Everything.

[DaveC426913]

So semantics becomes the basis of the discussion , rather than the discussion of physical material things themselves ?

It means you haven't asked a coherent question that can be answered.

What about "The list that includes physical things."?

You asked for an example of math not based on physical things. I provided.

 

[Write4U]

river said:
All mathematics is based, fundamentally, on the physical material objects . Higgs Boson included .

I would put it a little differently.

First, I would suggest that the emergence of Higgs bosons itself depends on mathematics (chaos theory). They do not exist independently, but emerge from the Higgs Field.
Peter Higgs developed the theoretical mathematical model of values and functions required for a Higgs boson to become manifest in physical reality. When those maths were fed into the Cern collider and the mathematically required amount of energy was applied, presto a Higgs boson materialized for an instant and promptly decayed again.

IMO, pure Mathematics are descriptive of the essence of universal relative values and functions. The universal potential and ability to do work.
Human mathematics are the symbolic representations of the universal relative values and functions, enfolded and unfolded physical patterns.

A cosmologist once said "If you ask the universe a question and you ask it nicely (using the proper mathematics), it will give you the correct answer, every time".

If this is true, then that proves the hypothesis of a Mathematical Universe.

When we ask the same question but use the wrong maths, the universe will not respond as expected, which is the falsification as required for theory, no?

Mathematics allows us to "communicate" with the Universe......

 

[DaveC426913]

IMO, pure Mathematics are descriptive of the essence of universal relative values and functions. The universal potential and ability to do work.
Human mathematics are the symbolic representations of the universal relative values and functions, enfolded and unfolded physical patterns.

Well, this is the Alt Theories section, so you're good with "IMO". Well done.

 

[river]

It means you haven't asked a coherent question that can be answered.

What about "The list that includes physical things."?

You asked for an example of math not based on physical things. I provided.

I did .

Yet thought is based on physical , biological , entities .

 

[DaveC426913]

I've given you a list of several branches mathematics that have nothing to do with any physical applications.

 

[river]

I've given you a list of several branches mathematics that have nothing to do with any physical applications.

Therefore irrelevant to the any discussions on this thread .

 

[Write4U]

Well, this is the Alt Theories section, so you're good with "IMO". Well done.

Sighs.......

 

[DaveC426913]

Therefore irrelevant to the any discussions on this thread .

Yes. Exactly as irrelevant to the thread as the (false) statement you made:

All mathematics is based, fundamentally , on the physical material objects . Higgs Boson included .

Like I said: refrain from stating things you know nothing about. That will raise the signal-noise ratio of this thread.

 

[river]

Yes. Exactly as irrelevant to the thread as the (false) statement you made:

Like I said: refrain from stating things you know nothing about. That will raise the signal-noise ratio of this thread.

Go on .

 

[paddoboy]

I've given you a list of several branches mathematics that have nothing to do with any physical applications.

Your patience is worth an Oscar Dave, truly.
I like describing maths as the language of physics.
I understand that I don't speak that language very well.

 

[exchemist]

I would put it a little differently.

First, I would suggest that the emergence of Higgs bosons itself depends on mathematics (chaos theory). They do not exist independently, but emerge from the Higgs Field.
Peter Higgs developed the theoretical mathematical model of values and functions required for a Higgs boson to become manifest in physical reality. When those maths were fed into the Cern collider and the mathematically required amount of energy was applied, presto a Higgs boson materialized for an instant and promptly decayed again.

IMO, pure Mathematics are descriptive of the essence of universal relative values and functions. The universal potential and ability to do work.
Human mathematics are the symbolic representations of the universal relative values and functions, enfolded and unfolded physical patterns.

A cosmologist once said "If you ask the universe a question and you ask it nicely (using the proper mathematics), it will give you the correct answer, every time".

If this is true, then that proves the hypothesis of a Mathematical Universe.

When we ask the same question but use the wrong maths, the universe will not respond as expected, which is the falsification as required for theory, no?

Mathematics allows us to "communicate" with the Universe......

BINGO!

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

If particle and wave is the same thing u should also write zero point wave

 

[Orion68]

If particle and wave is the same thing u should also write zero point wave

A particle consisting of multiple db's will imprint an extra curvature on the spacetime surface between the db's. In this a particle is not a wave, it is a cluster of more than one interacting db's. The wave property it possesses are its internal db-movement tracks in time. These movement tracks in time can be described as a wave function. A singular db does not have a wave property.
So particle and wave is not the same thing.

Edit: Although it can be said that in case of a multiple db particle the extra curvature imprint on spacetime is a wave function in itself, so then the particle equals that wave function it exhibits in time. One can say that the multiple db particle is in a sense the fluctuating spacetime surface and is in this case the wave.

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

A particle consisting of multiple db's will imprint an extra curvature on the spacetime surface between the db's. In this a particle is not a wave, it is a cluster of more than one interacting db's. The wave property it possesses are its internal db-movement tracks in time. These movement tracks in time can be described as a wave function. A singular db does not have a wave property.
So particle and wave is not the same thing.

Edit: Although it can be said that in case of a multiple db particle the extra curvature imprint on spacetime is a wave function in itself, so then the particle equals that wave function it exhibits in time. One can say that the multiple db particle is in a sense the fluctuating spacetime surface and is in this case the wave.

How Will this particle be affected by time?

 

[Orion68]

How Will this particle be affected by time?

The higher the curvature of the multiple db particle, the slower its internal movements will seem for the outside observer. Internal time dilation because of the relative strong bending of spacetime.

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

The higher the curvature of the multiple db particle, the slower its internal movements will seem for the outside observer. Internal time dilation because of the relative strong bending of spacetime.

Is it similar to black hole.

 

[Orion68]

Is it similar to black hole.

The singular db has a property that is almost similar to a black hole. The db has a black hole like curvature imprint on its surrounding spacetime. The db is a singularity, the curvature of the particle is infinite (or so to say, spacetime is infinitely bended) on the location of the db. The difference is that the db particle has no spatial dimensions (length, width, height) and a black hole does.

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

The singular db has a property that is almost similar to a black hole. The db has a black hole like curvature imprint on its surrounding spacetime. The db is a singularity, the curvature of the particle is infinite (or so to say, spacetime is infinitely bended) on the location of the db. The difference is that the db particle has no spatial dimensions (length, width, height) and a black hole does.

It is hard to imagine particles without spatial dimensions. It is almost similar to energy.
For my own knowledge, if black hole reaches singularity why does does it emit radiation. Could this mean that when something reaches singularity it changes its dimension to energy?

 

[Orion68]

It is hard to imagine particles without spatial dimensions. It is almost similar to energy.
For my own knowledge, if black hole reaches singularity why does does it emit radiation. Could this mean that when something reaches singularity it changes its dimension to energy?

Only the db itself has a really infinite curvature, the black hole has an enormous curvature, so enormous that at the event horizon it looks like it is infinite. This is not the case, the curvature is just very, very, huge, just not a singularity. A black hole has an enormous curvature on it’s event horizon, but it is limited in it’s amount of bending of spacetime, the more mass, the more spacetime bends. The bending of space on the event horizon is such that it destructs all traditional known particles, but the curvature experienced by the particles will not be infinite, but is dependant on the internal db quantity of the black hole which lead to a specific curvature strength at the event horizon of the black hole.

A black hole can emit various types of radiation. Within the theory of the db there is of course db-radiation. This can occur in various ways. Db’s, if under the right angle and right speed, can leave the black hole system and one could say that it is db radiation. Furthermore all types of radiation will be emitted in the process of decomposing particles that get to near to the event hoirzon of a black hole. Those particles are ripped apart due to the tidal forces of the black hole. The elements of the decomposed particle that can escape the event horizon will be the observed radiation.
In the db model only the db itself has an infinite cuvature and is the only singularity that exists. All macro structures, from elementary particles to black holes, exist out of those singularities but are never a singularity on it’s own. They can get very high curvatures, but always a fraction of infinity.

So in our universe nothing but the db ever is a true singularity.

Energy is always a resultant power of miscelleneous variables and is a property of spacetime. The more spacetime bends within the multiple db particle, the more energy the particle contains. But it will never contain an infinite curvature on the spacetime surface between the db’s so even if singularity changes its dimension to energy, it will not happen since none of the multiple db particles will ever reach singularity.

 

[Ethernos D Grace]

Only the db itself has a really infinite curvature, the black hole has an enormous curvature, so enormous that at the event horizon it looks like it is infinite. This is not the case, the curvature is just very, very, huge, just not a singularity. A black hole has an enormous curvature on it’s event horizon, but it is limited in it’s amount of bending of spacetime, the more mass, the more spacetime bends. The bending of space on the event horizon is such that it destructs all traditional known particles, but the curvature experienced by the particles will not be infinite, but is dependant on the internal db quantity of the black hole which lead to a specific curvature strength at the event horizon of the black hole.

A black hole can emit various types of radiation. Within the theory of the db there is of course db-radiation. This can occur in various ways. Db’s, if under the right angle and right speed, can leave the black hole system and one could say that it is db radiation. Furthermore all types of radiation will be emitted in the process of decomposing particles that get to near to the event hoirzon of a black hole. Those particles are ripped apart due to the tidal forces of the black hole. The elements of the decomposed particle that can escape the event horizon will be the observed radiation.
In the db model only the db itself has an infinite cuvature and is the only singularity that exists. All macro structures, from elementary particles to black holes, exist out of those singularities but are never a singularity on it’s own. They can get very high curvatures, but always a fraction of infinity.

So in our universe nothing but the db ever is a true singularity.

Energy is always a resultant power of miscelleneous variables and is a property of spacetime. The more spacetime bends within the multiple db particle, the more energy the particle contains. But it will never contain an infinite curvature on the spacetime surface between the db’s so even if singularity changes its dimension to energy, it will not happen since none of the multiple db particles will ever reach singularity.

So which dimension does db particles exist in??