Mathematics

[zerotwoone]

It is my opinion, because it can't be verified, but I think that math = nature. Like I said before, just because you haven't found a physical analog to a mathematical expression, it doesn't mean that it can't exist in nature.

 

So what if I told you that I have an equation, an algorithm that can produce every point between 0 (is a perception not a real value) and 1 including 1 and every geometric object from a point to an object with complexity approaching infinity?

 

What if I told you that on a cursory glance objects appear that look like to be electrons, protons and neutrons are produced? What if I told you that something that looks like strong, weak and electromagnetic force appear as well? And the first "massive" particle looked like Hydrogen? And the Next "massive" particle looked like Helium?

 

And if a mathematician took a cursory glance, that would see trigonometry, calculus, topology, series, powers etc... fall out?

 

And all of this is based on what my perception of what gravity is?

 

What if I had only had pregraduate level in physics and chemistry but with a layman's interest in theoretical physics, but I was a pure mathematician and I described this equation to a trained physicist friend? What would my friend tell me?

 

Note: If my equation is correct, there will never be a more powerful equation, nor will there ever be a more complex structure, therefore, this equation if accurately descripted. would be the "master equation" with all other equations and geometries being a subset.

 

Is an equation like this thought possible? Has there been talk about an equation like this? What would the ramifications of this equation be?

 

I just would like to know what your opinions are.

 

Thank you.

Edited November 21, 2011 by zerotwoone

[Dekan]

It is my opinion, because it can't be verified, but I think that math = nature. Like I said before, just because you haven't found a physical analog to a mathematical expression, it doesn't mean that it can't exist in nature.

 

So what if I told you that I have an equation, an algorithm that can produce every point between 0 (is a perception not a real value) and 1 including 1 and every geometric object from a point to an object with complexity approaching infinity?

 

What if I told you that on a cursory glance objects appear that look like to be electrons, protons and neutrons are produced? What if I told you that something that looks like strong, weak and electromagnetic force appear as well? And the first "massive" particle looked like Hydrogen? And the Next "massive" particle looked like Helium?

 

And if a mathematician took a cursory glance, that would see trigonometry, calculus, topology, series, powers etc... fall out?

 

And all of this is based on what my perception of what gravity is?

 

What if I had only had pregraduate level in physics and chemistry but with a layman's interest in theoretical physics, but I was a pure mathematician and I described this equation to a trained physicist friend? What would my friend tell me?

 

Note: If my equation is correct, there will never be a more powerful equation, nor will there ever be a more complex structure, therefore, this equation if accurately descripted. would be the "master equation" with all other equations and geometries being a subset.

 

Is an equation like this thought possible? Has there been talk about an equation like this? What would the ramifications of this equation be?

 

I just would like to know what your opinions are.

 

Thank you.

 

My opinion is that you haven't got such an equation, but you can write a literate and entertaining post.

[ajb]

It is my opinion, because it can't be verified, but I think that math = nature. Like I said before, just because you haven't found a physical analog to a mathematical expression, it doesn't mean that it can't exist in nature.

 

You might be interested in Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. It basically states that all mathematical structures can also be realised physically.

[michel123456]

You might be interested in Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. It basically states that all mathematical structures can also be realised physically.

Interesting.

Andreas Albrecht of Imperial College in London called it a "provocative" solution to one of the central problems facing physics. Although he "wouldn't dare" go so far as to say he believes it, he noted that "it's actually quite difficult to construct a theory where everything we see is all there is".[5]

Very profound.

[md65536]

Note: If my equation is correct, there will never be a more powerful equation, nor will there ever be a more complex structure, therefore, this equation if accurately descripted. would be the "master equation" with all other equations and geometries being a subset.

 

Is an equation like this thought possible? Has there been talk about an equation like this? What would the ramifications of this equation be?

Don't Gödel's incompleteness theorems imply that this is impossible? Wouldn't such an equation have to transcend the set of all mathematical equations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

 

 

I can't imagine anything like what you're talking about, where it must be simple enough that "cursory glances" show meaningful things, yet complex enough to describe everything. So I'm curious about your motivation for writing it. Is it just an idea you're imagining, or is it based on a real equation (or even the hint of one)? If the latter then I'm interested in what your perception of gravity is, and why it would make you think that everything mathematical can be deduced from it. My opinion is one of doubt, but also puzzlement.

[michel123456]

Also one has to care about what an equation is.

from Wiki equation

 

An equation is a mathematical statement that asserts the equality of two expressions.

(...)

Equations often express relationships between given quantities, the knowns, and quantities yet to be determined, the unknowns. By convention, unknowns are denoted by letters at the end of the alphabet, x, y, z, w, …, while knowns are denoted by letters at the beginning, a, b, c, d, … . The process of expressing the unknowns in terms of the knowns is called solving the equation. In an equation with a single unknown, a value of that unknown for which the equation is true is called a solution or root of the equation. In a set simultaneous equations, or system of equations, multiple equations are given with multiple unknowns. A solution to the system is an assignment of values to all the unknowns so that all of the equations are true.

 

From the above, since the universe has multiple unknowns, I suppose that the corresponding mathematical expression will bet a set of equations, not a single one. And IIRC it is about what science is establishing bit by bit.

Edited November 25, 2011 by michel123456

[zerotwoone]

I appreciate your inquiries, these are the sincere responses that I've been hoping for. I am really busy right now (I work full time and I just started a business), but I will try to answer your questions in the near future. I think I understand Godel's first incompleteness theorem about infinities, but I still don't understand his second theorem. And the question about whether it fits the definition of being an equation is spot on, I never really thought about it, and with a quick glance, I don't think it is an equation, I don't know what you would call it. It's definitely mathematics and it's definitely mechanical, but other than that, I don't know. I will think about it and post an answer.