Search FQXi

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008

Forum Home
Introduction

Order posts by:
chronological order
most recent first

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

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Michał Studencki: on 4/22/15 at 16:05pm UTC, wrote Oops, correction: 9/10s, not 1/9ths. I don't know why I cannot edit my post...

Michał Studencki: on 4/22/15 at 15:42pm UTC, wrote "Sorry, my keyboard has only the English letter l, not the Polish...

Michał Studencki: on 4/22/15 at 13:50pm UTC, wrote Yeah, that's the direct consequence of the set of rules for this contest....

Gary Simpson: on 4/21/15 at 18:15pm UTC, wrote Michal, Down voting seems to be part of the game. I have received many...

Gary Simpson: on 4/21/15 at 5:26am UTC, wrote Michal, This is a very nice essay. Your thinking is very clear. Geometry...

Branko Zivlak: on 4/21/15 at 4:54am UTC, wrote Dear Michał, I would be very appreciate if you could comment on my essay....

John Wsol: on 4/20/15 at 5:12am UTC, wrote Your passion for math shines throughout the document. No doubt if you had...

Joe Fisher: on 4/8/15 at 15:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Michal, I think Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

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 Agnew: "There are some questions that do not seem to have answers in the classical..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Steve Agnew: "Yes, there are two very different narratives. The classical narrative works..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

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

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 14, 2019

CATEGORY: Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematics of the Universe - how Mathematics and Physics can join in Harmony by Michał Piotr Studencki [refresh]

Author Michał Studencki wrote on Mar. 7, 2015 @ 21:51 GMT
Essay Abstract

Mathematics is the language of the Universe and the mother of all Sciences. But it is often heard that it also abstract and disconnected from reality. Physics, on the other hand, is all about describing phenomena in the real world. Can these two views be reconciled? In this paper I'm going to show that Mathematics and Physics have quite a lot in common. When combined they can be a powerful tool for describing and explaining reality. Behind every law of Physics there's always a certain geometry hiding.

Author Bio

Author is a computer scientist (software engineer) deeply interested in Physics, Mathematics and other domains of Science. He was always interested in how the Universe works and how to explain its mysteries to everyone. Always striving for answers to deep, foundational questions and simplify things using reductionism. (Nature is simple; complexity is expensive.) Despite the lack of a PhD, he always wants to know everything about everything.

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 19:16 GMT
Dear Michał Studencki,

Why a contemporary physics solves some problems, which have long been resolved. For example, you say about infinity:

For ancient philosophers it was more pragmatic: apotential infinity. A system can have finite set of elements and rules of combining them, at the same time being potentially infinite if the rules don't impose any limits on how can they be combined. A system can have the rules don't impose any limits on how can they be combined. I found a similar attitude at the Ruđer Bošković.

Even more modern physicists, in their lack of understanding of mathematics, are introducing misconceptions and spend enormous many, and the human efforts for nothing. Some even accuse mathematics or even seek to conceptualize new mathematics. Here I'd read all sorts of things, even of PhDs. Your article shows what should be avoided. My ratings will rarely be greater than 4, but you deserve 10. I'd be very pleased if you could find some inconsistencies or inaccuracies in my article.

congratulations and best regards,

Branko Zivlak

report post as inappropriate

Author Michał Studencki replied on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 21:31 GMT
Hi, thanks for your rating, this was unexpected! :) I'm really honored and glad you liked what I wrote. It is a result of many years of in-depth investigation, and expect to see more of it soon, since I plan to publish more about it on my website (I couldn't fit it into these 9 pages; even Einstein had 24 for his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies").

As to your question: I guess that contemporary scientists have become a bit lost at the frontiers of Science, investigating very advanced stuff, such as Quantum Electrodynamics, String Theory, Quantum Gravity etc., while there are still some nagging questions from the past left behind, still unresolved and spooking. I often say that when the foundations are not firm enough, the entire building is shaking (especially the top), and if these foundations won't be fixed, it can even fall down with rumble one day. That's why I'm so much obsessed in straightening the foundations before going upwards to more advanced stuff. And there's probably nothing more fundamental than numbers, logic and geometry.

Michel Planat wrote on Mar. 8, 2015 @ 20:32 GMT
Dear Michal,

Look at this essay (not mine), you can learn a lot in relation to your quest

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2412

Best,

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Author Michał Studencki wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 00:53 GMT
To those guys who gave me 2s (on average): I'd be glad to see some actual feedback from you, I'd like to know what things in my essay you found deserving so bad rating. I'm open to your criticism, positive as well as negative, as long as it is constructive and thought-provoking. This would help me write better essays in the future, and prevent me from thinking that your rating was only to bring me down in the ranking (which would be a low blow after all).

Michel Planat replied on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 11:06 GMT
Dear Michel,

Just to say that there are here a few people that are either mad or dishonest, or even worse: nasty. This seems to be part of the game to allow them to live in this democratic contest. On my side, I try not to belong to these sets.

From my last essay experience, I found that there is an averaging process at the end.

Good luck in the real human universe. You will get a good rate from me.

Michel

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson replied on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 18:15 GMT
Michal,

Down voting seems to be part of the game. I have received many such down votes. The key is to interact with other authors to get up votes. Dr. Klingman does this very successfully. Hopefully, my vote will help:-)

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate

Author Michał Studencki replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 13:50 GMT
Yeah, that's the direct consequence of the set of rules for this contest. Similarly to how in Mathematics everything you can obtain is a direct consequence of the axioms you assumed at the beginning. The sponsors made this a zero-sum game (a game where one can gain only from making someone else to lose), so I'm not surprised. Just sad that people fell to that.

I watched carefully my...

view entire post

Ed Unverricht wrote on Mar. 10, 2015 @ 03:21 GMT
Dear Michał Studencki,

Enjoyed your essay, your opening comment "Behind every law of Physics there's always a certain geometry hiding." gets a person thinking in the right mode.

I like the way you define numbers and fundamental units, leading to an in depth discussion on the mathematics of change. I found your rolling clock definition of time to be quite interesting.

As a comment, I would like to suggest an equivalent definition of time that I feel more closely matches the function of an atomic clock and would provide additional in sight into the ideas of your essay.

Start with "Planck's formula E = hf tells us that energy is equivalent to frequency! A wave of light which wobbles faster is more energetic than one which Mathematics of the Universe wobbles slower". Instead of a wobbling wave, think of the photon as an expanding and contracting bubble flying through the air. Low energy photons expand and contract to a very large size over a longer period of time, high energy photons expand and contract super fast. Time becomes a measure of how many times a photon of a particular energy expands and contracts between the measurement of two events.

Regardless of ones definition of time, I enjoyed your essay, it was thought provoking and well done. You deserve a good rating.

If you get a chance to have a look at my essay, I am less concerned about misuse of math in scientific papers, but more concerned with giving the math a geometry through the use of computer animations of fundamental particles.

Good luck in the contest and regards,

Ed Unverricht

report post as inappropriate

Jacek Safuta wrote on Mar. 11, 2015 @ 13:21 GMT
Cześć Michale,

Your essay is very interesting and enjoyable to read. Our views have really a lot in common.

“If we knew nothing about negative and imaginary numbers we could discover them in geometric means… […]the Universe has structure, so the knowledge about the Universe should reflect that structure …[…] This allows for matter being made solely of waves in space…[..] Behind every law of Physics there's always a certain geometry hiding.”

Compare my conclusion:

Geometrical Universe Hypothesis can be finally broken down into:

- the correspondence rule that all interactions and matter are manifestations of spacetime geometry

- the empirical domain - gravitational, electromagnetic, strong nuclear and weak nuclear measurements and cosmological observations

- the geometric structure being a set of Thurston geometries with metrics and the wave transfer

Where does the randomness come from then? My answer is the evolution. Details in my essay http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2452 and other publications on viXra.

I have taken a look at your website. It can be very useful and inspiring for many people that wander in the darkness of Copenhagen Interpretation.

Jacek

report post as inappropriate

Joe Fisher wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 20:01 GMT
Dear Mr. Studencki,

You wrote in your biographical notes: “He was always interested in how the Universe works and how to explain its mysteries to everyone.”

You have my permission to accept my explanation of how the real Universe is occurring, but do allow me a bit more time to explain my theorem to everyone else.

This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Mar. 18, 2015 @ 17:54 GMT
Hi Michal,

Sorry, my keyboard has only the English letter l, not the Polish l_bar.

In principle, I appreciate your intention to possibly better harmonize mathematics and physics, and I also feel challenged by awkward theories and paradoxes. Unfortunately already your Fig. 1 seem to indicate that you didn't reveal, tackle, and solve difficult problems that cannot be seen by professionals who are blind because of their indoctrination. I cannot see how your ideas may hurt or help anybody.

Elsewhere I objected to your opinion that numbers are pebbles. Initially, you correctly followed Euclid who explained the role of the unit "one". However in geometry, the unit was to be understand as a distance, in other words a measure, not a 3D pebble on the abacus, extended around the ideal value.

I recommended reading the essay by Phipps because it provides the chance to understand Einstein's Relativity as unfounded. This might disturb not just your a bit too lazy harmony.

Keep musing,

Eckard Blumschein

report post as inappropriate

Author Michał Studencki replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 15:42 GMT
"Sorry, my keyboard has only the English letter l, not the Polish l_bar."

Copy-pasting doesn't work either? Other people somehow managed to spell it right.

Not that I cared, you can call me Fido if you like. What's more important to me is your comment's content.

"Unfortunately already your Fig. 1 seem to indicate that you didn't reveal, tackle, and solve difficult...

view entire post

Author Michał Studencki replied on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 16:05 GMT
Oops, correction: 9/10s, not 1/9ths. I don't know why I cannot edit my post to correct it though...

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 8, 2015 @ 15:42 GMT
Dear Michal,

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

report post as inappropriate

John Philip Wsol wrote on Apr. 20, 2015 @ 05:12 GMT
Your passion for math shines throughout the document. No doubt if you had been alive in Euler’s time you would quickly have become his favorite student.

Your whole document ranks high in terms of organization, professionalism (layout & illustrations on par with textbooks), breathtaking scope (I see a half-dozen other papers going deeper into each area), and fundamentally important...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Branko L Zivlak wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 04:54 GMT
Dear Michał,

I would be very appreciate if you could comment on my essay.

Regards, Branko

report post as inappropriate

Gary D. Simpson wrote on Apr. 21, 2015 @ 05:26 GMT
Michal,

This is a very nice essay. Your thinking is very clear. Geometry is the key to understanding all of the universe in my opinion. You deserve a much better rating than you currently have.

Best Regards and Good Luck,

Gary Simpson

report post as inappropriate