CATEGORY:
Trick or Truth Essay Contest (2015)
[back]
TOPIC:
"Why Does the Glove of Mathematics Fit the Hand of Physics So Well? On the Origin of the Fit" by David Frederick Haight
[refresh]
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.
Author David Frederick Haight wrote on Mar. 13, 2015 @ 20:59 GMT
Essay AbstractWhy does the glove of mathematics fit the hand of physics so well? Is there a good reason for the good fit? Does it have anything to do with the mystery number of physics or the Fibonacci series and the golden ratio? Is there a connection between this mystery number and the question, why is there something (one) rather than nothing (zero)? The acclaimed mathematician G.H. Hardy (1877-1947) once observed: "In great mathematics there is a very high degree of unexpectedness, combined with inevitability and economy." Is this also true of great physics? If so, is there a simple "pre-established harmony" between their ultimate foundations? The seventeenth-century philosopher-mathematician, Gottfried Leibniz, who coined this phrase, believed that he had found that common foundation in calculus, a methodology he independently discovered with Isaac Newton. But what is the source of the harmonic series of the natural log that is the basis of the calculus? This essay is an answer to Leibniz's quest and questions in the light of subsequent discoveries in mathematics and physics.
Author BioI have degrees in philosophy from Stanford (B.A.) and Northwestern (M.A. and Ph.D.) and was a Fulbright Scholar at Oxford University. After publishing dozens of papers in philosophy I became fascinated by the "holy grail of mathematics," the unproven Riemann Hypothesis, because of its beautiful harmony. In 2008 the "Journal of Interdisciplinary Mathematics" published my proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, and in 2010 it published my disproof of the related Birch/Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture. Both papers have been posted (e-published) online by Taylor and Francis Publishing Group in 2013 and are available at http:www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09720502.2008.10700
605.
Download Essay PDF File
Yuri Danoyan wrote on Mar. 14, 2015 @ 03:34 GMT
More finding golden ratio
http://vixra.org/abs/1306.0166
report post as inappropriate
George Gantz wrote on Mar. 15, 2015 @ 14:55 GMT
David - A brilliant and beautiful essay. Why phi? You have answered that question by noting it's unique self-reflective relationship with "one", the first distinction (one from the Void). From that distinction, all else structural and mathematical follows - as does the form of the physical universe. If something has to exist - it has to exist this way. Awesome!
Still does not answer the question of why something, rather than nothing, but you certainly have made that little number do an awful lot of work!
Thanks - George Gantz
report post as inappropriate
George Gantz replied on Mar. 16, 2015 @ 20:50 GMT
Some additional references on phi: http://swedenborgcenterconcord.org/the-golden-ratio-and-its-
special-qualities/
report post as inappropriate
Author David Frederick Haight replied on Apr. 2, 2015 @ 17:06 GMT
Dear George,
Thank you for your appreciative, insightful, and encouraging comments on my essay. If you would like more information on the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" give me your post office mailing address and I will send you free copies of my two mathematics papers. I have a lot of them as I had to buy them in bulk.
David F. Haight
Dipak Kumar Bhunia wrote on Mar. 17, 2015 @ 08:10 GMT
Dear Dr. Haight,
Thanks for a good essay.
"In mathematics and physics the middle terms are 137+ and Phi which are self-explanatory and self-justifying because they are selfderive" and also you have placed so many other common links in-between physics and mathematics. Even, there may still other such examples of self-explanatory & self-justifying parameters in nature to connect physics and mathematics. As if a hardware is linked with its software digit by digit, and all those digits are ultimately linked with (say) basic "golden" digits - 0 & 1 .
In context of whole nature, are not all those "self-explanatory and self-justifying" apparently different "golden" links collectively directing toward any grand primordial golden-logic (s) in nature? Which hints to unfold us (biologically inseparable too to such same physics & mathematics)toward a unified physics and an ultimate mathematics for same nature?
Best wishes
Dipak
report post as inappropriate
Sujatha Jagannathan wrote on Apr. 1, 2015 @ 11:40 GMT
Some conjugations are seen here, from the horizons of Cosmological expressions.
-Sincerely,
Miss. Sujatha Jagannathan
report post as inappropriate
Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 10, 2015 @ 14:47 GMT
Dear David,
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
LLOYD TAMARAPREYE OKOKO wrote on Apr. 15, 2015 @ 09:35 GMT
Dear Mr.Haight,
Thanks for your Leibniz inspired essay.Your quest for a simple "pre-established harmony" between the ultimate foundations of physics and mathematics; and your conclusive expression of it "in the number 137" the common empirically verified " gene " and binding factor between the two subjects is a significant commentary that gives credence to their nexus.
Keep on flourishing.
Lloyd Tamarapreye Okoko.
report post as inappropriate
Patrick Tonin wrote on Apr. 22, 2015 @ 19:41 GMT
Hi David,
An interesting essay although I am not sure many will take it seriously, unfortunately.
I also think that Phi is fundamental to the Universe (for the simple reason that it is the only solution to this equation: x-(1/x)=1).
You can take a look at my
essay, you will find some interesting equations including Phi.
All the best,
Patrick
report post as inappropriate
Login or
create account to post reply or comment.