The old number theory IS physics thing. because it is.

[danny burton]

The connections between number theory and physics are too powerful, too certain, to be ignored for much longer by the mainstream scientific community. At some point surely we will realise physics can be investigated through the analysis of number theory, and the implications of this are - well, interesting doesn't really cover it.

 

The universe is clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent. There can only be, by definition, one sum total of existence. And at that scale, the only value we can ascribe to the sum total of existence is that it = 1. If then everything within the sum total of existence is composed of parts of that sum total, it's not illogical to suggest that whatever exists within the universe is 'made' of nothing more complex than fractions of the whole, self-organising at every scale from the astromnomical to the quantum - according to the laws of number theory.

 

Our human number system is only a system of classification - representative of the natural ordering of the universe into integer parts. We have names for the different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum, so we have names for the different parts of the numerical spectrum.

 

As the theory of gravity is a human description of a natural characteristic of the universe, so number theory is a human description of a natural characteristic of the universe. We don't pretend we invented gravity, simply because we worked out some of the 'rules' by which it operates, why then do we insist that we invented numericality and mathematicality? Particularly when it is so self-evident that for humans to have evolved, the universe HAD to have both those characteristics already.

 

But what really blows my mind isn't the amazing possibilities this has for science. No. What blows my mind is that these connections are so clear, and they so clearly make scientists uncomfortable - so uncomfortable they refuse to look any closer and when pressed begin to mumble excuses about anthropocentricity they never put forward when investigating gravity, or quantum mechanics - both of which we're only able to investigate because our existence is predicated on theirs, in exactly the same way.

 

Surely, surely if ANYONE should be refusing to look away from what makes them uncomfortable, it is the scientific community? Any true scientist, when they came across a natural phenomena that weirded them out so badly as this, would surely LOOK MORE CLOSELY?!

 

Come on people. Sort yourselves out! Solve the mystery! Bloody hell, whatever else the connections are - they're nothing if not seriously strange, and seriously cool.

 

Let's call it 'teh big bang theory' - like the big bang theory, but you need some humour to get it.

 

[Klaynos]

So what you're saying is that the universe must be understandable to humans because we are a product of the universe?

 

I would challenge you to teach classical mechanics to a guinee pig.

[ajb]

The connections between number theory and physics are too powerful, too certain, to be ignored for much longer by the mainstream scientific community. At some point surely we will realise physics can be investigated through the analysis of number theory, and the implications of this are - well, interesting doesn't really cover it.

 

There are a large number of relations between number theory and physics, for example number theoretical ideas can be found in harmonic analysis. Another example is Michael Berry's idea that the zeros of the Riemann zeta function may be regarded as the eigenvalues of a quantum Hamiltonian.

 

Number theory also intersects with discrete mathematics, which of course has lots of applications in physics.

 

So, I would say there are people in mainstream science thinking about these connections.

[Ringer]

So what you're saying is that the universe must be understandable to humans because we are a product of the universe?

 

I would challenge you to teach classical mechanics to a guinee pig.

 

According to the history books one of my wife's guinea pigs, Feynman, is quite good at physics. Pinker, on the other hand, was more into psycholinguistics.

[ydoaPs]

The universe is clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent.

 

I'm not sure what it means for objects to be "mathematically consistent", so it's not "clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent". Furthermore, mathematical systems that are capable of addition and multiplication of natural numbers are themselves not "clearly and unambiguously mathematically consistent" as to show that they are consistent, one must use a system that cannot be both consistent and complete.