Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

James Hoover: on 4/26/15 at 5:24am UTC, wrote Paul, Your review of my essay was quite an undertaking. Thanks for taking...

Paul Butler: on 4/26/15 at 4:18am UTC, wrote Dear James, As you requested in your comment to me on my page, I read your...

James Hoover: on 4/20/15 at 23:09pm UTC, wrote Paul, Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read to assure...

James Hoover: on 4/19/15 at 4:54am UTC, wrote Paul, Gaining new insights through your 5 suggestions have been proven in...

Paul Butler: on 4/12/15 at 18:48pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, You are right that my example of the piece of wood was based on...

Joe Fisher: on 4/5/15 at 0:25am UTC, wrote Dear Paul, The first thing you must do is to stop confusing abstract...

Paul Butler: on 4/4/15 at 15:26pm UTC, wrote Dear Joe, I thought that I already had received a comment on my paper from...

Joe Fisher: on 3/31/15 at 15:09pm UTC, wrote Dear Mr. Butler, I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Steve Dufourny: "I must explain what is the real meaning of Spherisation in my theory.It is..." in Mass–Energy Equivalence...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Robert, thank you. I now understand the difference between decisions and..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Robert McEachern: "Making a decision, means selecting between discrete, a priori established..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Eckard,you seems persuaded by your Words and thoughts.I don t understand..." in First Things First: The...

Eckard Blumschein: "In Darwinism/Weismannism there is no first cause, just a causal chain...." in First Things First: The...

Steve Dufourny: "lol no indeed it is not a lot,like I said I liked your general ideas.I have..." in The Demon in the Machine...

Steve Agnew: "There are three assumptions...is that a lot? The aether particle mass, the..." in The Demon in the Machine...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
October 15, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: The Truth is that the Connection Between Physics and Mathematics is Not at all Mysterious by Paul N Butler [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Paul N Butler wrote on Jan. 16, 2015 @ 21:22 GMT
Essay Abstract

Our only way to get an understanding of the nature, structure, and functioning of our universe is by our observations of it in one form or another. Our senses provide the only inputs of information from the world that we live. As such, our minds are designed to accept and process those inputs and extrapolate useful information from them. Things that we observe come in various quantities, sizes, shapes, and masses, etc., and are connected to each other by various relationships, so mathematics is built into the world. The biggest problem that we have at present is that we are trying to understand things that are too small or for some other reason can’t presently be observed directly and some that we can’t even observe indirectly. There are 2 approaches that can give us an understanding of these things. First we can look at those things that we can observe and try to find clues about the nature of that which we are trying to understand from those observations and from similarities between the known structure and functioning of the things we are trying to understand and the structure and functioning of larger scale things that we can observe because often the same patterns exist in many different things on different size and other scales. The other approach is to look for understanding by the use of mathematical models by starting with known relationships and quantities, etc. and attempting to extrapolate the thing’s structure and functioning from known quantities. Currently the math approach has generally come to be looked at as the best approach. This paper attempts to show that both approaches are necessary to obtain a full understanding of our world.

Author Bio

The author has long been interested in how the world is structured and how it functions, etc. This paper is the result of many years of work in that endeavor.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 17, 2015 @ 23:27 GMT
Dear Paul,

I do agree that the connection between physics and math is not mysterious, although it's not necessarily simple either. My essay begins with my view of the connection, which I invite you to read.

You say, science is only useful in the world of logical structures, rules of construction, and operation or actions, and, "it is good for us that our world is built that way." Amen!

In general I don't view particles as requiring five dimensions, but I did find your analogy of magnetic energy converters (MECs) to particles quite interesting. You say "matter particles work in somewhat similar way, but can be very stable." This is very close to my own idea on particles, so of course I agree with you here! In this vein I very much agree with your first conclusion, on the importance of the ability to visualize structures in one's mind.

So, as is often the case, we agree on some major points but differ on some details.

Thanks for writing your essay, and good luck.

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 00:24 GMT
Dear Edwin,

I am glad we both agree that the relationship between physics and math is not mysterious and that it is not necessarily simple either, because although (at the level of structure that man is currently aware of) it begins with only 2 basic structures, which are simple motions and the dimensional system that they inhabit and interact in, the motions can be built up in the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



basudeba mishra wrote on Jan. 21, 2015 @ 13:18 GMT
Dear Sir,

We enjoyed your essay thoroughly. Your description of what is physics follows a very practical approach. Your description of language giving the example of car is also practical and resembles the form of our 2013 essay in this forum. The content of all information has the form “this (an object car) is like that (a concept signified by a known sequence of sound)”. Language is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 21:49 GMT
Dear Basudeba,

I am glad that you enjoyed my essay. I try to keep my information presentation as practical and simple as I can. I don’t think that I saw your 2013 essay, but I am pleased to see that we agree about language concepts. Although most people do not think much about it because we are so used to using abstract spoken or written languages, the most basic language distinction...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Bob Shour wrote on Jan. 21, 2015 @ 20:38 GMT
Dear Paul N. Butler.

I liked your To be successful in advancing Physics list and your observations under What is mathematics (the idea of language as abstractions). Are there articles that discuss the four dimensional aspect of photons you refer to under the heading Energy Photons that you could refer me to?

Regards,

Bob Shour

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Bob Shour,

I am always happy when others understand and appreciate the concepts presented in my essays. I am not currently aware of any other sources in this world for the information that I have provided concerning the four dimensional aspect of photons. I have presented some other aspects in my earlier papers on this site, so you can check them out. If you have any specific questions concerning the subject let me know and I will try to answer them if I can.

Sincerely,

Paul N. Butler

Bookmark and Share



Sophia Magnusdottir wrote on Jan. 22, 2015 @ 07:55 GMT
Hi Paul,

I find this a very interesting essay! In fact, it has much similarities with the argument in my essay ("Beyond Math", in case you have the time, I'd be interested in your opinion). There is one point though in which I disagree with you. I know it is often said that science is about finding recurrences, and that is arguably how it works, but strictly speaking this is not necessary. What you really need is to find systems that are similar to each other. These may or may not be recurrent. The problem is of course if they're not recurrent, they're hard to find. Cheers,

Sophia

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 02:14 GMT
Hi Sophia,

I am glad that you find my essay interesting. I have not had the chance yet to completely go over your essay, but I took a quick look at it and do find some similarities, especially in the concept that physics can sometimes be advanced by analysis of observations without the use of math structures. I will try to look at it more and comment on it on your paper’s space. It is...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Koorosh Shahdaei wrote on Jan. 23, 2015 @ 12:22 GMT
Dear Paul,

Thank you for your contribution, I also share same view as yours i.e.: “The biggest problem that we have at present is that we are trying to understand things that are too small or for some other reason can’t presently be observed directly and some that we can’t even observe indirectly”. I’ve also been addressing this view in my article.

Good luck

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 06:42 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

You are welcome. I looked at your paper and found it very interesting. You are right that many of the problems in physics today have to do with the inability to observe many things due to size, speed, or other scale limitations. Sometimes even though we cannot observe the actual thing, we can observe effects that it causes and these effects can give us some understanding of...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Koorosh Shahdaei replied on Jan. 25, 2015 @ 22:09 GMT
Thanks for the discussion, summarizing your comments, I think the bottom line is somewhat similar to my view "this world and all of its matter and energy, etc. structure could be just the output of a more complex background structure that we can’t sense?" 

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 13:37 GMT
Dear Koorosh,

It is good that we agree on that. One thing that I find interesting is that after working for many years to gain an understanding of much of the information that I am currently giving in my papers, I came across a book that had been written about 2 thousand years ago that gave information about the world and not only included many of the concepts that I came up with from analyzing scientific observations that have been made only in about the last 100 years by man, but also gave other new concepts that I was not at that time aware of. It also describes a framework structure that our world is built upon that we can’t see and gives many details about it.

Sincerely,

Paul

Bookmark and Share



Demond Adams wrote on Jan. 24, 2015 @ 21:32 GMT
Paul,

I do not believe we as theorists, actually preference one method over another. There are those that demand we represent a conclusion with an experiment and test the motivation using mathematics, but this request is one way of illuminating a perception of reality in which our senses are often fooled into believing. Relativity offers many of these perceived examples.

Furthermore although there are dimensions we can not observe, they are not beyond our ability to detect and describe considering we persist in our efforts of resolving these observations. We currently detect distant planets within our vast universe that we initially have no sensible way of assuming their existence otherwise.

Einstein did not prefer mathematics or observation...he relied on intuition as a guide, and no one can argue if it was not a preferred method.

All in all, I agree we should not exclude or prefer one method versus another.

Best Regards,

D.C.Adams

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 26, 2015 @ 13:09 GMT
Dear Demond,

If when you say we as theorists, you are referring to you and me, you may be right in your belief, but I don’t believe that applies to all theorists. There are many in this world (both those who base their theories primarily on observations and those who base them mostly on mathematical models) who do not believe in a balanced approach especially if such an approach would...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Amrit Srecko Sorli wrote on Jan. 29, 2015 @ 13:52 GMT
Theoretical physics is lost in mathematical models. String theory is good example. Basic laws of the universe one find only on the base of experimental observation.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Jan. 30, 2015 @ 05:05 GMT
Dear Amrit,

I agree with you that many current math models have strayed far from observed reality. I also agree that experimental observation is the most important element necessary to find and understand the basic laws of the universe. The one thing that I find most missing today in physics is those with the ability to logically analyze the results of observations and generate a logical...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 09:09 GMT
Your work had the simplicity relations of relativity which uses the framework to devise better mysteries and complexities simultaneously with some pinches of salt.

Best reagrds,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 22, 2015 @ 23:50 GMT
Dear Sujatha,

Thank you for your positive comment, (if I am correctly interpreting it.) I read your paper and noticed that it seems to be based on belief in Indian (Hindu) religious principles and texts, etc. It appears that according to them the ultimate creator of the universe is called Brahman.

1. Is Brahman considered to be eternal or does he enter into the cycles of existence...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Sujatha Jagannathan replied on Feb. 26, 2015 @ 18:19 GMT
Dear Sir,

You must have heard about Lord Krishna and His foundations through many temples like Iskcon and other well-known establishments.

Your doubts and the reasons for the causal is well written in that Spiritual book called "Bhagavad Gita" which is composed by the all-pervasive Krishna 'the Brahman' Himself.

Have a great time in reading!

I appreciate your interest.

Sincerely,

Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Mar. 1, 2015 @ 05:42 GMT
Dear Sujatha,

I was hoping that you would be able to answer my questions since your paper is based on that belief, so I thought you would have expert knowledge of it. I am sorry if I was wrong about that. I am not sure where I could find the book you mentioned in English and at this point of my time in this world I don’t desire to learn another new language. It would also, of course, provide you with the opportunity to communicate your belief to all that might read these comments, which I would think you would desire. I may be wrong about that also, though. Feel free to do as you desire.

Sincerely,

Paul N. Butler

Bookmark and Share



Richard Lewis wrote on Feb. 16, 2015 @ 10:45 GMT
Dear Paul,

I enjoyed reading your essay and found the conclusions section very much in line with my own thinking on the need for a greater emphasis on understanding. This must come from renewed effort to explain reality in easily understood terms.

By this I mean to find a bridge between observations and the mathematical model which, as you state in your conclusions, is a visualization or what I have referred to as a physical description of properties and processes.

Your essay provides a good example of how to describe physical effects and provides a clear statement which can be challenged. In the section on energy photons, I didn't understand why it was necessary to introduce a fourth space dimension. I have been able to explain the properties you describe using three dimensions of space and one of time (spacetime) by proposing that the waves are wave variations in spacetime curvature propagating at speed c through spacetime.

This is explained in my essay 'Solving the mystery' which I hope you will have a chance to read and give comments.

Regards

Richard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Feb. 23, 2015 @ 23:43 GMT
Dear Richard,

I looked at your paper and found that we do come to somewhat similar conclusions. The main difference seems to be that you use a fourth time dimension and I use a fourth spatial dimension in our descriptions.

I decided that it would be best to start from a more basic point and work from there to include those parts of current theories that make sense and to exclude...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 31, 2015 @ 15:09 GMT
Dear Mr. Butler,

I thought that your engrossing essay was exceptionally well written and I do hope that it fares well in the competition.

I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of NOTHING.

All I ask is that you give my essay WHY THE REAL UNIVERSE IS NOT MATHEMATICAL a fair reading and that you allow me to answer any objections you may leave in my comment box about it.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 4, 2015 @ 15:26 GMT
Dear Joe,

I thought that I already had received a comment on my paper from you and had commented on your paper in response on my paper’s page, but if I did, it disappeared somehow, so I will post it again here on my page and also on yours as you requested. I added a few additional observations for further thought. I hope you will get something productive out of it.

I am sorry...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 5, 2015 @ 00:25 GMT
Dear Paul,

The first thing you must do is to stop confusing abstract surface with real surface. Taking imaginary pieces of wood and laying their imaginary surfaces on top of each other will not help you to better understand reality. Using an imaginary magnifying glass to try to spot imaginary atoms will help even less.

No matter in which direction a real eye peers, it will only ever see a plethora of real surface. A dreamer will only ever see dream surface. An alert observer of a mirage will only see an apparent surface. A shooter of LSD ingredients will only see a psychedelic surface.

One real Universe can only exhibit one real physical attribute, once. Surface traveling at the same constant speed is a singular attribute. All real observation confirms this. Please note that as you approach surface, the partial surface items of the objects in the foreground seem to grow larger. But the total observed surface speed must be of the same constant nature. You obviously believe that a rocket ship is capable of accelerating from being stationary up to a speed that is greater than the relative speed of its surroundings. But as you can confirm if you have ever seen a television airing of a rocket blasting off from Cape Canaveral. The surface of the rocket shrinks perceptively as it rises into the sky, but its minimized surface can only generate the default constant speed that all surfaces can only attain.

Joe Fisher

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 12, 2015 @ 18:48 GMT
Dear Joe,

You are right that my example of the piece of wood was based on what I believe would be the result if you actually took a real piece of wood and covered it as I described in my comment to you based on my past experience with real things and was not based on an actual experiment done at that time on real pieces of wood. I, therefore, did a real experiment with real things to see...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 19, 2015 @ 04:54 GMT
Paul,

Gaining new insights through your 5 suggestions have been proven in the past:

1. Einstein's thought experiments are an example of the first. Some think his brain structure was the secret to his skill.

2 and 3 are mentioned in my essay regarding quantum biology studies, DNA mapping, and simulation of the BB with the LHC.

4 A biologist and a physicist teamed up to discover how a European robin navigated N and S during the seasons. That led to chemical receptors in its brain thru entangled particles utilizing Earth's magnetic field.

5. All example utilized math models as well as some of your other points.

I'd like for you to check out my essay: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Paul N Butler replied on Apr. 26, 2015 @ 04:18 GMT
Dear James,

As you requested in your comment to me on my page, I read your paper and went over it enough to allow me to make a comment on it as you requested. I will post this comment both on your page and mine, so those who read it can easily get the whole picture of how it fits into your comment on my page. To accomplish that completely, I am also including your comments to me on the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 23:09 GMT
Paul,

Time grows short, so I am revisiting essays I’ve read to assure I’ve rated them. I find that I rated yours on 4/19, rating it as one I could immediately relate to. I hope you get a chance to look at mine: http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2345.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


James Lee Hoover wrote on Apr. 26, 2015 @ 05:24 GMT
Paul,

Your review of my essay was quite an undertaking. Thanks for taking the time. I will give it further review.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.