ON PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS: the Schrödinger Equation

The art of physics, mathematics and the expression of Life in Nature. Until recently a paper of this magnitude could not be written, as our science today provides not a single explanation of nature. Science is the art of observation and provides for equations that express both a relative minimum ratio and some constant or constant squared to relate one variable to another, from one level of entropy and expression of energy to another, in man’s attempt to express his observations of nature and to utilize those expressions to manage atomic motion in one form of energy or another. Currently, numerous levels of entropy and energy define living and non living systems in our body of physics and mathematics. This paper will critique the current mathematics and physics and redefine the physics and mathematics, rewriting them to define natural systems, living systems and non-living systems; rejecting most current laws of physics and theories of mathematics today, embracing but a single principle to so define nature and our universe in its’ entirety. Background In redefining physics, mathematics, and the expression of living and non-living systems in nature, one principle defines our universe. In a nutshell, this one principle to define our nature is Robust Entanglement. Nothing truly collides. Understanding nature in this way allows us to realize energy in four new ways; to experience atomic interactions, chemistries, mathematics, physics in a new way; to educate our children and adults better, as we come to understand the human condition and nature better; and finally, to understand the physical connection of me to you, you to me. One hundred eighty-eight (188) distinguished faculty, academicians and theologians, and industry professionals, some of which are listed below, along with links to their research profiles, are involved in current viewing of this work. There are five articles and current and ongoing discussions entitled: *Physics & Mathematics; *Theology, *Diet, Disease, Aging & Evolution, *Education and *Cognition, in light of this one principle. Entanglement becomes this process where symmetries form in space, from some tension that exists, forming specific and unique fine structures or energy, that incorporates the distance into the flux formed, although temporary only, and lasting only as long as the symmetry holds; yet forming three more different species of fine structures within the formed field, one atop the other, with slightly different properties only because the fields formed in the secondary, tertiary and quaternary creations, have fields that are moving and growing, allowing each newly formed field to grow in density at an even much faster rate and helping to contribute to both the nonlinear observations in nature, but also the vast complexity of what we see. Entangled atoms behave differently, within each field because the rate densities or "flux" is behaving differently; i.e. either stationary, or growing in density. Growing densities will lose their entangled atoms quickly. Stationary fields, or primary fields, will hold on longer. Four unique species of fine structure formed contribute to our observation of nature. But not only are there four unique species of fine structure, each field formed in some space is unique as it includes a unique distance into its formed field, from the shear distance between flux's or rate/densities, generating the found symmetry; generating a most unique and complex array of observations within nature, as only the very same unique flux's or "rate/densities" may form symmetries, and thus create fields or energy, if only but temporary, as long as the symmetry holds. Atomic motion is derived completely from entangled events. However, if an atom is entangled in a fixed rate field, then the entanglement lasts, and we see. motion. If the atom is entangled in a more complex field, say secondary or tertiary of quaternary field, then we see a more inelastic observation occur as the atom is more or less "grabbed" in space, then as the field disappears, the motions stops. Atoms themselves are comprised of newly formed fields from elastic communications or entangled events, repeated over and over again, helping to create frequencies we see in nature. A model for the formation of matter, providing for the geometries we see in our periodic table, helps us to see the two pseudo waves generating the iterative process creating the temporary fields we see, not intra-atomic particles, behaving in some kinetic environment. That picture was incomplete. Because the fields formed include the distance in some pythagorean relationship, nature is non-linear. But it is more than this, i.e. each field formed within a field, is growing in density but at a much faster rate than the already established field. Because atomic motion is described entirely from being entangled in one of these fields, temporary fields, then we see two things in each equation in our physics, a constant or constant squared and some minimum relational value. For it is the flux formed that is so derived from a pythagorean relationship of the rate/density or field forming the field in some found symmetry, and.... the distance between the fields forming the said found symmetry; whether stationary in value, or growing, or growing at an alarming rate, or growing at an alarming rate and shifting in space. (A quaternary field formed baffles us even further still as it shifts back and forth, back and forth, in addition to having a field that is growing in density, at an alarming rate.) Conservation of energy, mass and momentum are merely properties of an elastic universe, communicating, and not colliding. Waves are simply phenomenon of this elastic universe, communicating over any distance "instantly." The four energies we see (gravity, EM & nuclear forces) are simply the very same entanglement phenomenon occurring over different distances or "classes." Energy, mass and momentum are then not conserved and each is formed and disappear as symmetries form and disappear. The math has to change as only two processes occur in this natural state, adjudication and comparison, leaving our operators * / - + ^ all but to simply describe two things, an "applying" of some flux over some distance to create a new and unique flux, and some comparison to find the distance, unique in each entanglement. The calculus changes as zero, infinity and one are not truly found in nature. And since much of the atomic motion in primary fields are discrete, then the calculus adopts an integer, and discrete format. Acceleration does not truly exist in nature, as most atomic motion is discrete or "one velocity." The phenom we observe is simply a conformation of communications, as systems develop and entangle to make larger and larger contributions to motion and thus our visual observations.

2015

Many have wondered how mathematics, which appears to be the result of both human creativity and human discovery, can possibly exhibit the degree of success and seemingly-universal applicability to quantifying the physical world as exemplified by the laws of physics. In this essay, I claim that much of the utility of mathematics arises from our choice of description of the physical world coupled with our desire to quantify it. This will be demonstrated in a practical sense by considering one of the most fundamental concepts of mathematics: additivity. This example will be used to show how many physical laws can be derived as constraint equations enforcing relevant symmetries in a sense that is far more fundamental than commonly appreciated.

Journal of Philosophical Investigations, 2024

In the Critique of Pure Reason Immanuel Kant said that cognition (objective perception) is acquired in the unity of sensibility (the receptivity of the mind to receive empirical representations of things, which yields intuitions) and the understanding (in which concepts – general representations of things – arise), and is mediated by the imagination. Here, it is shown that numbers, either pure or denominate, are cognized in the synthesis of intuition and mathematical concept, and that the phenomenal world of the cognizer is shaped accordingly. Any number can be related to any other number through a general mathematical formula conceived by the cognizer for the purpose. The judgment of the cognizer is manifest in the specifics of the mathematical relationship established between the two numbers in cognition. If the cognized number is the numerical value of a physical constant then in the (consistent) phenomenal world it will always have been of the value found in cognition, which explains why the universe seems to be fine-tuned for life. If the cognized number is the numerical value of a physical variable, then the number will be subject to change in accordance with physical laws. Symmetry is a recurrent feature of the phenomenology. A mathematical formula conceived by the cognizer may also relate, one to one, the numerical values of quantities in one set with the numerical values of quantities of different dimensionality in another set, which suggests that physical laws are human inventions and that causality is a pure concept of the understanding.

L. Funar, A. Papadopoulos (eds.), Essays on Topology, Springer Nature, Switzerland AG , 2025

This chapter argues for an asymmetry in the reciprocal impact of modern mathematics and modern physics on each other, an impact commonly seen more symmetrically. By modern mathematics I refer to mathematics that, from its emergence around 1800 to our own time, was defined, as abstract mathematics, by separating, abstracting, itself from natural objects and thus from physics, as well as from the objects of daily thinking. Modern physics, which emerged two centuries earlier, along with what we call modernity itself, and has continued to our own time as well, is a mathematical-experimental science, with mathematics defining this conjunction. As such it has not and could have not separated itself from mathematics. Indeed, as this chapter argues, twentieth-century physics, especially relativity and quantum theory, was able to use modern mathematical theories born from the separation of modern mathematics from physics. Reciprocally, throughout its history, beginning with the invention of calculus, modern physics has had a major influence on mathematics, including modern mathematics and, with relativity and quantum theory, on the twentieth-and twenty-first century of mathematics. This chapter argues for an asymmetry in this reciprocal impact, in favor of the impact in favor of the impact of modern mathematics on modern physics, while this mutual impact is commonly seen more symmetrically, and sometimes by way of a reverse asymmetry, in favor of theoretical physics in helping to resolve some outstanding problems of pure mathematics. This chapter will challenge and qualify the latter view by arguing that theoretical physics cannot do so short of becoming mathematics, by, as modern mathematics itself has done, separating itself from physics. This chapter sees all modern physics as defined primarily by the invention of new theories, comprised of mathematized conceptual conglomerates, capable of predicting and, in some cases, representing the physical reality responsible for the phenomena considered, which are part of this reality. The invention of new mathematics, at least new for physics (this mathematics can be borrowed from already existing mathematics), is, the chapter argues, what has most fundamentally defined modern physics from its emergence until our own time.

Humanity is going to need a substantial new way of thinking if it is to survive! " Albert Einstein

2013

Is what we observe real? In this paper I argue that the physical world is as real as we feel-the term 'reality' is defined unambiguously. The domain of physics includes only real situations, whereas the domain of mathematics includes nonreal situations also. So the role of mathematics (in the domain of physics) has to be clearly defined. Here I propose a new philosophical approach (to define the role of mathematics): the properties are physical, but the laws are mathematical.

This was entered in a contest by the Foundational Questions Institute (fqxi.org) to explain the mysterious connection between physics and mathematics. It did not win. It presents a general survey of how the relation evolved.

preprints, 2019

Mereology stands for the philosophical concept of parthood and is based on a sound set 10 of fundamental axioms and relations. One of these axioms relates to the 11 existence of a universe as a thing having part all other things. 12 The present article formulates this logical expression first as an algebraic inequality and eventually 13 as an algebraic equation reading in words: 14 The universe equals the sum of all things. 15 "All things" here are quantified by a "number of things". Eventually this algebraic equation is 16 normalized leading to an expression 17 The whole equals the sum of all fractions. 18 This introduces "1" or "100%" as a quantitative-numerical-value describing the "whole". The 19 resulting "basic equation" can then be subjected to a number of algebraic operations. Especially 20 squaring this equation leads to correlation terms between the things implying that the whole is 21 more than just the sum of its parts. Multiplying the basic equation (or its square) by a scalar allows 22 for the derivation of physics equations like the entropy equation, the ideal gas equation, an 23 equation for the Lorentz-Factor, conservation laws for mass and energy, the energy-mass 24 equivalence, the Boltzmann statistics, and the energy levels in a Hydrogen atom. It further allows 25 deriving a "contrast equation" which may form the basis for the definition of a length and a time 26 scale. Multiplying the basic equation with vectors, pseudovectors, pseudoscalars and eventually 27 hypercomplex numbers opens up the realm of possibilities to generate many further equations. 28

PHYSICS ESSAYS 33, 4 (2020), 2020

Mereology stands for the philosophical concept of parthood and is based on a sound set of fundamental axioms and relations. One of these axioms relates to the “existence of a universe as a thing having part all other things.” The present article formulates this logical expression first as an algebraic inequality and eventually as an algebraic equation reading in words: “The universe equals the sum of all things.” “All things” here are quantified by a “number of things.” Eventually, this algebraic equation is normalized leading to an expression: “The whole equals the sum of all fractions.” This introduces “1” or “100%” as a quantitative—numerical—value describing the “whole.” The resulting “basic equation” can then be subjected to a number of algebraic operations. Especially squaring this equation leads to correlation terms between the things implying that the whole is more than just the sum of its parts. Multiplying the basic equation (or its square) by a scalar allows for the comparison to and aligning with physics equations like the entropy equation, the ideal gas equation, an equation for the Lorentz-factor, conservation laws for mass and energy, the energy-mass equivalence, the Boltzmann statistics, and the energy levels in a Hydrogen atom. It further leads to a “contrast equation,” which may form the basis for the definition of a length and a time scale. Multiplying the basic equation with vectors, pseudovectors, pseudoscalars, and eventually hypercomplex numbers opens up the realm of possibilities to generate many further equations.