The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: number theory and quantum mechanics... are we missing the obvious?  (Read 3669 times)

Offline teh theory

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • http://dannyburton.wordpress.com/
    • View Profile
    • teh big bang theory
Seriously... what?

The human term ‘number’ and the concepts of a counting system are descriptions of difference between topologically whole areas. ‘Two fish’ decribes two discreet entities within a set ‘fish’. What we call number theory is the detailed analysis of how areas of difference within topologically whole entities organise efficiently within that entity.

The differences described however are not the result of human numbering, human numbering is a classification of already existing areas of difference within a given set. A number of fish existed, in an awful lot of discreetly different ways, before the human number system. If we insist that the different areas only existed as areas of discreet difference after they were perceived to, we are what is commonly termed ‘creationist’.

It is accepted that the universe (by definition) is a topologically whole entity. Physics is the analysis of the areas of disceet differences, and how they interact, combine and divide within the topologically whole universe. In physics these areas of difference, and the way they ‘organise’ are treated as the results of naturally-occurring phenomena. Physics has always used mathematical tools to analyse these ‘physical’ areas of difference, and many words have been written about the miraculous coincidence that the language of mathematics is so well suited to do such analyses.

but instead of numbers being miraculously suited to describing the universe; what WE call number is how the universe manifests its internal differences.

the relationship between the ‘naturally-occurring areas of discreet difference in the topologically whole universe, and their behaviours’ and ‘human numbering system, number theory and mathematics’ is the equivalent of the relationship between ‘the naturally-occurring force between masses’ and what we call ‘the theory of gravity’.

relationship N->n
equivalent to
relationship G->g

where the capital letter represents a natural phenomenon and the lower-case represents the human analysis of the natural phenomenon.

The implications are that the naturally-occurring processes that we call ‘number theory’ will result in the naturally-occurring processes that we call ‘quantum mechanics’ and further to all other naturally occurring processes that we eventually call ‘physics’.

If the universe IS a topologically whole entity, and everything within that universe is composed of various fractions of the whole: then inflation is in fact division and subdivision. The expansion is in the ‘numbers’ ie the discreetly different areas within the whole.

it is not a set of sets, which is then a set of set of sets… the set of sets is absolute by definition and any introduction of further sets merely shows subdivision of the original.

[inserted note for Prof Schiller, with added lolz --> the term 'discreet difference' is used to indicate that although there may well be a continuum of difference it's only when such differences are discreet that they interact as differences. i love my analogies, so think of a magnet. there is a continuum between N and S (the physical object is a whole unit), and the differences in polarity gradually converge to the grey areas where we can't tell if it's more N than S or more S than N... until we examine in MORE detail (so subdividing the continuum into its discreret differences). As soon as we're analysing using number we're separating it into discreetly different interactions. A curve on a graph is a continuum, but as soon as you wish to examine the value of a point on that line, you are separating it discreetly from the continuum of line before and after./note for prof schiller]

It is eminently testable as it predicts that ‘number theory’ and ‘quantum mechanics’ will become increasingly converged (ok, all areas of physics… but I say quantum mechanics because it’s at the narrow end of the decreasing complexity).

the prediction is: more and more ‘coincidences’ such as the riemann-zeta function will be ‘discovered’ at the LHC and other high-energy early-universe particle experiments. (In fact anywhere all naturally-occurring topological wholes being subdivided over time, when analysed mathematically should show evidence’s of ‘strange’ similarities between each other, whether it’s in physics, biology or any other field).

still with me?

:P


[oh... and if space, energy and matter really are just expressions of naturally-occurring mathematical functions governing the discreet fractions of a single existence... then shouldn't there be a new unit of existence? how about: Subatomic-To-Universal-Functions ... :D ]
« Last Edit: 16/06/2010 21:21:24 by teh theory »


 

Offline teh theory

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • http://dannyburton.wordpress.com/
    • View Profile
    • teh big bang theory
mystical numerology:

the human counting system and mathematics are miraculously suited to describing the real world and there isn't any way to explain. (this set includes most mathematicians and scientists, weirdly) (sorry for the dig, but it does doesn't it?)


rational science:

the human counting system and maths are so well suited to describing the real world because they are human names for natural processes which govern how differences organise within wholes. No mysticism, it's based on (long years of) observation and experimentation... (weirdly, by all the maths and science people who then insist that numbers and maths are magic.)
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
I have to say I'm quite sure what you're getting at, but (& excuse me if I've misread/skimmed your posts) the term number theory is generally understood (by mathematicians) to be a branch of pure maths, not an all encompassing term - You might want to request that your post gets retitled as this is confusing.

There is certainly a philosophical question about whether pure maths exists irregardless of reality or because of it.  However, unless your observations about the interdependency of maths and reality are likely to lead to testable predictions I'm not sure where this can lead; at least in the realm of science.
« Last Edit: 17/06/2010 10:47:08 by peppercorn »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
As Peppercorn said about the term "number theory", quantum mechanics is also a term with a well defined meaning that doesn't seem to have anything to do with your post.

Perhaps you should retitle the thread "Not number theory and not quantum mechanics; are we missing the obvious?"
To which I think it's fair to say the answer is  No, we are not.
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Perhaps you should retitle the thread "Not number theory and not quantum mechanics; are we missing the obvious?"
To which I think it's fair to say the answer is  No, we are not.

Damn you BC, I think you've just broken my sarcasm-o-meter!
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8669
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Just think what I would have been like if I were in a bad mood.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums