We have shown in this blog that there is significant observational evidence suggesting that space is composed of a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
However, there are several purely theoretical advantages to assuming this that is not related to observations.
One is that it would allow physicists to theoretically define a mechanism that is responsible for the formation of particles based on processes that occur in the macroscopic world.
In the macroscopic world, it is possible to define a resonant system or “structure” in terms of oscillations in a continuous medium even though that medium is made up of particles called atoms. This is because the size of most resonant systems in the macroscopic world is so much greater then the size of atoms that their supporting mediums can be treated as being continuous.
Additionally observations of resonant systems indicate their physical properties are determined by the oscillatory or vibratory frequency of the medium that makes up that system and that they are stable only when oscillating at its fundamental or a harmonic of its fundamental frequency.
Particle physicists have made very similar observations in that the physical properties of a particle are determined by the frequency of a component of that particle.
This suggest that because they display prosperities similar to a resonant system in continuous medium the properties of particles may be the result a resonant system made up of oscillations in a continuous medium.
(Louis de Broglie was the first to theorize that particles have a wave or oscillating component. His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer. However, this means there must be a continuous non-quantized medium for these waves to be propagated on because even the smallest possible particle must have a wave component. Therefore, there must exist a continuous non-quantized medium to propagate the wave of the smallest possible particle.)
There are several other indications that suggest that particles are made up of resonant systems in a continuous medium.
For example, physicists have discovered relativity few stable particles compared to the unstable ones.
However, this is what one would expect if particles were composed of a resonant system because as mentioned earlier, a resonant system is only stable when it is oscillating or vibrating at its fundamental or harmonic of its fundamental frequency. Therefore, if particles were composed of a resonant system should be relatively few stable particles compared to unstable ones because there are an infinite number of frequencies that a continuous a medium can be made to oscillate at but only a few that will support resonance.
Additionally the observations that unstable particles decay into a few stable ones indicates that the properties of all particles may be related to a resonant system in a continuous medium. This is because, observations made in the macroscopic world show it is possible to add or subtract almost any amount of energy from a continuous medium creating very large number of vibrating systems each with a different energy. But these systems will lose or gain energy from their environment until they begin to vibrate or osculate at the resonant frequency or a harmonic of the resonant frequency of the supporting medium.
However, this is precisely what physicists observe when they add or remove energy from particles in particle accelerators. They can add or subtract virtually any quantity of energy to a particle in particle accelerators. This results in the creation of a very large number of particles with different physical characteristics but similar to resonant systems in the macroscopic world these particles decay by losing or gaining energy from their environment until they have the energy of the resonant frequency or a harmonic of the resonant frequency of the medium supporting that resonance.
These similarities between the properties of resonant systems and particles provide a theoretical basis for defining them in terms of a resonant system in a continuous medium.
It is also possible to make a theoretical prediction of the physical characteristics this medium based on the success of Louis de Broglie theory that all particles are, in part composed of a wave. If his theory is valid, even the smallest possible particle must be made up of a wave, which means as mentioned earlier, that a continuous non-quantized medium must exist to support the wave of the smallest possible particle. However, macroscopic observations of wave energy indicate that it can only be propagated on a medium made up of mass. Therefore, the success of Louis de Broglie theory indicates that if the physical properties of particle are made up of a resonant system a continuous medium that that medium must be made up of a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
This compliments the observational evidence presented in this blog for the existence of a continuous non-quantized for of mass because it shows that its existence can be predicted on a purely theoretical bases.
This is why we feel it must exist.
Later Jeff
In the Imagineer’s article Why is mass quantized? Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown that the observed properties of all particles could be explained and predicted in terms resonant system in continuous non-quantized form of mass.
However, it is also possible to determine the outcome of particle interactions based on the existence of this resonant system.
On pages 59 and 60 of Brian Cregg book “The God Effect” he describes experiments that show how photons interact with different polarizing filters.
In the first experiment, photons in their natural randomized polarization state are passed through a 45-degree polarizer set halfway between the source of the photons and a vertical polarizer. Observations of this experimental setup show that 50 percent of the photons passing through the 45-degree polarizer pass through the vertical polarizer.
A classical interpretation of this experiment is that a component of the energy associated with the vertically and horizontally polarized photons defined by Pythagoras’ theorem should pass through the 45-degree polarizer. Therefore, every photon passing through the 45-degree polarizer will have a 50 percent probability of having a vertical or horizontal component. This means that 50 percent of the photons that passed through the 45-degree polarizer should also pass through the vertical polarizer.
The Quantum mechanical explanation of this is that every photon simultaneously exists in both in the vertical and horizontal polarization at the same time. Therefore, every photon that passes through the 45-degree polarizer will have an equal or 50 percent probability of passing through the vertical polarizer.
The second part of this experiment involves photons passing through two polarizing screens one vertical and one horizontal. In this case, 50 percent of the photons pass through the first vertical polarizer and none pass through the second polarizer.
The classical interpretation of this is that the perpendicular orientation of the vertical and horizontal polarizers completely blocks the passage of all photons through the horizontal polarizer.
However, these results contradict the quantum mechanical explanation for why 50 percent of the photons that passed through the 45-degree polarizer passed through the vertical polarizer. This is because if all photons simultaneously exist in both a vertically and horizontally polarized state, 50 percent of the ones that passed through the vertical polarizer should also pass through the second horizontal polarizer.
In another experiment, if one places a third polarizer between the vertical and horizontal polarizing screens and turns it so that it is 45-degree angle with respect to them, 50 percent of the photons will pass through the first vertical polarizer and 50 percent of those will pass through the 45-degree polarizer while 50 percent of those photons pass the third polarizer.
But if the 45-degree polarizer worked by only letting through vertically or horizontally polarized photons no light should get through the third polarizer because all of the photon entering it were vertically polarized therefore, they should not get through the third horizontally polarized screen.
Again, the Quantum mechanical explanation for this is each photon that was vertically polarized when entering the 45-degree polarizer exists in both states (vertical and horizontal polarization) when leaving it. Therefore the photons that passed through the first vertical polarizer have and 50 percent probability of being either vertically or horizontally polarized after passing through the 45-degree polarizing screen and therefore they will have a 50 percent chance of passing through the final horizontal polarizer.
However, Quantum mechanics cannot provide a consistent explanation why photons that pass through a vertical polarizer in the second experiment existed only in a vertical state while those same photons after passing through a 45-degree polarizer exists in both a vertical and horizontal state.
In the article Why is mass quantized? Oct. 4, 2007 it was shown the properties of all particles including a photon are the result of a resonant system or “structure” established in four *spatial* dimensions by a matter wave moving in three-dimensional space.
However, this also means that the matter wave responsible for generating the resonant system associated with a photon can have amplitude variations along each axis of three-dimensional space.
Therefore, it would be possible for photons that were vertically polarized after passing through a vertical polarizer to have there polarization shifted as they passed through a 45-degree polarizer. This shift could be caused by the reflection or interference of the wave properties of photons as they encounter the 45-degree polarizer.
However as was shown earlier photons that pass through a 45-degree polarizes will have both a vertically and horizontally polarized a component defined by Pythagoras’ theorem. Therefore, every photon passing through the 45-degree polarizer will have a 50 percent probability of having a vertical or horizontal component. This means that 50 percent of the photons that passed through the 45-degree filter should also pass through the vertical polarizer.
This does not mean the photons that pass through the 45-degree polarizer exits simultaneously in both a horizontal and virtual state at the same time it means that the angle of their energy vectors has a component in both the vertical and horizontal plains.
Therefore, the 50 percent of the photons leaving the 45-degree polarizer will have a horizontal polarization component while 50 percent will have a vertical polarization component so 50 percent of the photon leaving the 45-degree polarizer will pass through the third vertical polarizing filter.
(This shifting would not occur when vertically polarized photons encountered the horizontal polarized screen in the earlier experiment because, as mentioned earlier the particle properties of a photon are the result of a resonant structure established by a matter wave moving in three-dimensional space. Therefore, the refection or interference of the matter wave responsible for their particle properties would be 180 degrees out of phase and would cancel. However, the interference of matter wave of the vertically polarized photon with a 45-degree polarizer would not cancel because of the angle it makes with its wave front. This interference would cause a shifting in the orientation of the matter wave responsible for the particle properties of the photon. It would allow its wave energy to pass through the 45-degree polarizer and reestablish the resonant “structure” on the other side of the polarizer. Additionally due to the resonant properties of the matter wave, the energy of a photon emerging from the 45 degree polarizer would have to be identical to the ones entering it.)
would allow its wave energy to pass through the 45-degree polarizer and reestablish the resonant “structure” on the other side of the polarizer. Additionally due to the resonant properties of the matter wave the energy of a photon emerging from the 45 degree polarizer would have to be identical to the ones entering it. )
By defining a photon in terms of a resonant system generated by a matter wave in four *spatial* dimensions allows one to define a deterministic mechanism that can define the interactions of photons with a polarizing environment.
This also shows that there is a logical and consistent physical explanation for these interactions other than the indeterminism of quantum probabilities.
Later Jeff
Modern Quantum theory assumes that it is only possible to define the probability of a particles state when it is measured but not the state the particle was in before a measurement is made. Therefore, according to quantum mechanics all possible states of a particle must be superposed over each other.
However, the conclusion of quantum mechanics that particles exist in all possible states before a measurement is made in not supported by experimentation.
This can be shown by integrating the results of several experiments involving the transmission of photons through a polarizing filter.
In the first experiment, photons in their natural randomized polarization state are passed through a 45-degree polarizer set halfway between the source of the photons and a vertical polarizer. This experimental setup shows that 50 percent of the photons passing through the 45-degree polarizer pass through the vertical polarizer.
The Quantum mechanical explanation of this is that every photon exists in a superposed state or simultaneously in both a vertical and horizontal polarization. Therefore, every photon that passes through the 45-degree polarizer will have an equal or 50 percent probability of passing through the vertical polarizer.
The second experiment involves two polarizing screens one vertical and one horizontal. In this case, 50 percent of the photons pass through the first vertical polarizer and none pass through the second polarizer. This indicates that none of the photons that passed through the vertical polarizer was horizontally polarized because if any of them were some would have passed through that polarizer.
However, these experimental results contradict the quantum mechanical assumption that photons simultaneously exist in both a vertical and horizontal state.
In another experiment if one places a third polarizer between the vertical and horizontal polarizer and turns it so that it is 45-degree angle with respect to them, 50 percent of the photons will pass through the vertical polarizer and 50 percent of those will pass through the 45-degree polarizer while 50 percent of those photons pass the horizontal polarizer.
However, if the 45-degree polarizer worked by only letting the vertically polarized photons no photons should pass through the horizontal polarizer because all of the horizontal photons should have been blocked by the vertical polarizer.
The Quantum mechanical explanation of this is that every photon exists in a superposed or simultaneously in both a vertical and horizontal polarized state. Therefore, every photon that passes through the 45-degree polarizer will have an equal or 50 percent probability of passing through the vertical polarizer
However, as the earlier experiment showed the photons that passed through the vertical polarizer were not in a superposed state because if they were 50 percent of them would have passed through the horizontal polarizer.
Therefore, if Quantum theory is valid it should be able to explain, in context with its theoretical structure why the photons after passing though a 45-degree polarizer are superposed and after passing though a vertical polarizer are not.
Some will point to the “Copenhagen Interpretation” of quantum mechanics to resolve this conflict.
It states that the act of observing a particle causes it to lose its superposition. This could explain why the photons that passed through the vertical polarizer did not pass through the horizontal polarizer because the act of “observing” them caused them to exist only in the vertical state so they would be blocked by the horizontal polarizer.
However, the Quantum mechanical explanation of why 50 percent of the photons in the first experiment passed through the vertical polarizer after passing through the 45-degree polarizer is because they were in a superposed state.
But according the Copenhagen Interpretation these photons would not be in a superposed state because they were “observed” by the 45-degree polarizer.
We all know that wherever there are probabilities there are alternative outcomes of experiments and tests in any given environment.
However, this discussion shows that the environment were a test takes place is also responsible for some of the alternative the probabilities that occur when an experiment is preformed.
For example, the probability that a photon will pass through a horizontal polarizer was determine by the “state” of the environment were the test was preformed. In the test environment without the 45 degree polarizer between the vertical and horizontal polarizer a photon had a different or alternative probability of passing though a horizontal polarizer than when a 45 degree polarizer was placed between them. This indicates the “state” of a test environment has a role in determining the probability that photon will pass through a polarizer.
However, the probabilistic predictions of quantum mechanics are not based on the “state” of an environment so therefore they cannot be used to ascertain the probability that they will be applicable in any given environment.
Therefore, scientists should remember when tying to use Quantum Mechanical probabilities as the basis for defining a “Theory of Everything” that those probabilities cannot be used to predict probability of encountering environments in a “state” in which its probabilistic predictions are invalid.
Later Jeff
For the past 25 years, the Standard Model of particle physics has given us a complete mathematical description of the particles and forces that shape our world. Its predictions have matched experimental data, decimal place for decimal place, with amazing precision.
But for all of its successes it still cannot be considered the ultimate theory of matter, energy and our world because it fails to define what the particles it describes are made of even though it predicts they have a physical structure.
There are some physicists who say that it is not possible to understand the structure of a particle because its physical size is beyond the resolution of our instrumentation. Additionally, many feel that it is not necessary because their structure will not effect how they interact to shape our world.
However in the past their have been many examples how innovative thinkers and experimenters have found ways to go beyond the limitations of their instrumentation to gain an understanding of a new reality.
For example, Louis de Broglie theorized that electrons have a wave component. In 1927 Davisson and Germer verified his theories by devising an experiment, which showed that electrons could be diffracted by crystals.
This appears to contradict those who say that is it is not possible to understand the structure of a particle because Louis de Broglie was able to understand the structure of the electron (a particle) whose size was beyond that which could be measured by their instrumentation and Davisson and Germer devised an experiment which could verify it.
Additionally Louis de Broglie success showed the necessity of gaining a deeper understanding of “reality” because it transformed our knowledge of physical phenomena on the atomic scale by serving as the basis for the theory known as wave mechanics.
This shows through innovative thinking it may be possible to understand the structure of the particles defined by the Standard Model and in doing so may open up a new “reality” regarding the shape of our world just as Louis de Broglie understanding of the structure of the electron opened up the “reality” of the atom.
When Einstein sought a deeper understanding of our world by looking beyond the “reality” of the space and time defined by Newtonian physics it enabled humankind to unlock power contained in the nucleus.
We do not know what the outcome of looking beyond the “reality” defined by the Standard Model of Particle Physics will be but then again Einstein did not know the results of looking deeper into “reality” of Newtonian space and time would be.
Latter Jeff
An astronomical redshift is defined as an apparent shift toward longer wavelengths of spectral lines in the radiation emitted by galaxies, which many astronomers assume is entirely due to its movement away from us.
However, the recent observation regarding the existence of “Dark Matter” indicates that this assumption may not be valid.
The NewScientist article “Dark Matter mapped in 3D for first time” outlined the “irrefutable evidence that an invisible substance” (Dark Matter) exists “that betrays its presence thought the gravitational tug it exerts on ordinary matter”.
The observation that an “invisible substance” exists “that betrays its presence thought the gravitational tug it exerts on ordinary matter” indicates that continuous non-quantized or non-particle form of mass may exist.
This is because all instruments used by today’s scientists are only calibrated to detect mass in its particle or quantized form. Therefore, a continuous non-quantized form of mass would be undetectable or invisible to these instruments.
However, it is not the only observation that supports the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
For example, Louis de Broglie was the first to theorize that all particles have a wave component. His theories were confirmed by the discovery of electron diffraction by crystals in 1927 by Davisson and Germer. However, this indicates there must be a continuous non-quantized medium for the wave to be propagated on because even the smallest possible particle must have a wave component. Therefore, there must exist a continuous non-quantized medium to propagate the wave of the smallest possible particle. However, macroscopic observations of wave energy indicate that it can only be propagated on a medium made up of mass. Therefore, one must conclude that a continuous non-quantized form of mass exists.
Therefore, the success of Louis de Broglie theories that all particles including a photon have a wave component and the observed properties of Dark Matter supports the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
Many astronomers believe the entire redshift of a star is the result of its movement away from the earth because they assume the only way the wavelength associated with the particle properties of a photon can be shifted is by its interaction with another particle. This is because classical theory of charged particles interacting with an electromagnetic wave, cannot explain any shift in wavelength.
However, Louis de Broglie theories indicate otherwise because if the particle called a photon is, made up of a matter wave, the concepts of classical wave theory can be applied to the interaction of the matter wave component of a photon with the continuous non-quantized form of mass that it must be propagated on.
This also means that a portion of the red shift in the spectrum of galaxies may be due a dampening that classical theories predict would occur as an electromagnetic wave moved through Dark Matter if it were composed of a continuous non-quantized form of mass as is suggested by many observations outlined in this blog.
Later Jeff
Quantum mechanics and Einstein’s relativistic theories of have been the most successful scientific theories of modern times however; attempts to unify them and define “A Theory of Everything” have been unsuccessful.
This is because there exists an incompatibility between the microscopic universe described by quantum mechanics and the macroscopic universe described by Einstein’s theories regarding the propagation of gravitational forces.
Einstein’s theories define mass and the gravitational forces associated with mass in terms of a curvature in a continuous space-time metric while quantum theories define mass in terms of discontinuous particles. The problem with combining these two theories is that no one has been able to define a mechanism that can account for the propagation of gravitational forces in terms of the properties of mass defined by quantum theories.
Therefore, even though Quantum mechanics makes very accurate and verifiably predications of the observed quantum properties of mass and the Theory of Relativity makes accurate and verifiably predications of the observed properties of gravity, space and time many believe they both cannot be right.
However many scientists assume that gravitational forces are a subset of the quantum properties of mass because experiments have shown that quantum mechanics make all the right predictions of the microscopic universe of quantum particles and many regarding the macroscopic universe of relativistic theories. So much so that physicists largely agree that modern experiments, combined with quantum theory’s mathematics, leave no room for alternatives.
Therefore, for the past 25 years many physicists have unsuccessfully tried to develop “Theory of Everything” by assuming that the propagation of gravitational forces are a subset of the quantum properties of mass instead of assuming the quantum properties of mass and gravitational forces are subset of a continuous form of mass as is suggest by Relativity.
We have shown throughout this blog that observations of our environment strongly suggest that a continuous non-quantized form of mass exists and that it is responsible for the propagation of gravitational forces.
For example, in the article Gravity Dec. 15, 2007 we showed that the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass could explain and predict the observations regarding the propagation of gravitational energy.
However, in the article “Why is mass quantized?” Oct. 4, 2007 we also show all of the observed properties of quantum particles can be explained and predicted in terms of resonant “system” formed in a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
This indicates both the quantum properties of mass and the propagation of gravitation energy can be explain and predicted in terms of the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
Therefore, scientists may be more likely to develop “A Theory of Everything” by assuming that both the propagation of gravitational forces, and the quantum properties of mass are a subset of a continuous non-quantized form of mass than by assuming that gravitational forces are a subset of the quantum properties of mass.
Later Jeff
In the Imagineers article “The Photon: a matter wave” Oct. 1, 2007 we postulated that light is propagated by matter wave made up of continuous non-quantized form of mass moving on a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimension.
However, this would seem to contract the observations made by Michelson-Morley that indicated the velocity of light was independent of the motion of the reference frame in which it is observed. They assumed if light were transmitted by a wave on a physical medium such as a continuous non-quantized form of mass the movement of that medium would affect its velocity.
They devise a device called an interferometer that could detect a change in the velocity of light caused by the orbital movement of the earth though the medium they assumed light is propagated on. They reasoned that the movement of a reference frame through that medium would vary with respect to the time of day and season because of the direction of the earth’s movement changes as it orbits the sun. Therefore, they believed they could verify the existence of this medium by observing the effects the movement of the earth through that medium had on the velocity of light.
However, they observed that the velocity of light was independent of the orbital velocity of the earth in the inertial reference frame in which it was measured. Therefore, they concluded that light was not transmitted by a wave on a physical medium.
(Please visit Detecting The Ether Wind Experiment for a detailed description of the results and apparatus use for this experiment.)
But the observations made by Michelson-Morley that the velocity of light is independent of the motion of the inertial reference frame in which it is measured also supports the postulate that light is a matter wave on a physical medium made up of a continuous non-quantized form of mass.
This is because as was shown in the article “The Photon: a matter wave” the medium light is propagated on is made up of a continuous non-quantized form of mass. Therefore, because it is made up of mass, it would experience the same forces as all mass in an inertial reference frame.
The reason why Michelson-Morley did not detect a differential in the velocity of light with respect to the earth’s orbital motion is that the inertial reference frame where they measure its velocity is by definition a coordinate system which has no net forces acting on it. Therefore, all of the mass in that inertial reference frame moves with the same constant velocity.
This means the velocity of light would not be effected by the earth’s orbital motion because the continuous non-quantized mass component or the medium that light is propagated would have the same velocity relative to the other mass components of that inertial reference frame despite the orbital motion of the earth.
In other words, an inertial reference frame is not traveling in space but through it.
This would be analogous to how the cabin of an aircraft does not fly in the atmosphere but through it and therefore the atmospheric components internal to the cabin of the aircraft have the same velocity as the other internal components of the aircraft.
However, this will be true for all inertial reference frames throughout the entire universe. Therefore, the relative motion of any inertial reference frame in which it is measured will not affect the velocity of light.
This explains and predicts that if light was propagated by a matter wave on medium consisting of a continuous non-quantized form of mass its velocity will remain constant in all inertial reference frames including those that contain a vacuum.
Later Jeff
The Big Bang theory postulates the universe emerged and is presently expanding from a tremendously dense hot environment. It assumes the momentum generated by the initial energy of the Big Bang sustains this expansion.
It also assumes energy was converted to mass due to the cooling of the universe during an inflationary period in its history.
However according to the law of conservation of mass and energy, this conversion of energy to mass must be continuing even after the initial inflationary period is over because the universe continues to cool as it expands.
Therefore, according to the postulates of the Big Bang Theory, the total quantity of mass in universe must be constantly increasing while the total energy or momentum associated with the Big Bang is constantly decreasing due to the cooling caused by its expansion.
This means there will be a point in time where the gravitational attractive forces of the mass of the universe will exceed the momentum associated with the energy of the Big Bang. At that point in time the universe will begin to contract.
Some say that it is possible the initial energy of the big bang will be sufficient to keep the universe expanding indefinitely.
However, if the universe is a closed system spatial system and the basic assumption of the Big Bang Theory is valid, that the mass contained in the universe was the result of its cooling, it would have to eventually enter a contraction phase because if the expansion were infinite the universe would become infinitely cool. This would mean, according to the law of conservation of mass and energy that eventually all of the energy or momentum associated with the big bang that was lost due to its cooling would have to be converted to mass.
But this means that the magnitude of mass contained in the universe and the gravitational attractive force associated with that mass would approach infinity if the universe became infinitely cool.
Therefore, at some point in time the big Bang theory predicts that no matter how much energy was contained in the initial Big Bang the gravitational attractive forces associated with the mass will exceed the momentum, which is sustaining the expansion. At that point in time the universe will enter a contractive phase.
This is because it would require more energy than its mass equivalent at the time the expansion began to allow the energy of it’s momentum to exceed the attractive forces associated with the mass equivalent of that energy.
However, if the universe was a closed spatial system at the time of the big bang the equivalence of mass and energy indicates that would not be possible.
Therefore, if the universe is a closed spatial system at some point in time it will have to enter a contraction phase due to its expansion and cooling because the energy of that expansion is according the law of conservation is converted to mass.
However, according to the law of conservation of mass and energy the contraction of the universe will result in it heating up again and its mass being converted back to energy. This will result in the universe returning to its original tremendously dense and hot environment.
The heating effect a contraction of the universe has on mass is observable on a smaller scale in star formation.
Stars are formed when the contraction of the space or mass around them generate enough heat to begin nuclear reactions which results in some of the mass in a star to be converted to energy.)
In short if the Big Bang theory is correct in saying that the mass of the universe is created by its cooling due to an expansion, the presently accepted laws of physics dictate that at some time in the future it will enter a contraction phase which according to those same laws would cause it to return to the tremendous hot dense state it originally emerged form.
Later Jeff
or should observations define mathematics?
Presently science uses two distinctly different methods to quantify our understanding of the universe.
The first or traditional method used by physicist was to allow observations to define mathematics. In other words, they observed how the components of their environment interacted and based on those observations derived mathematical equations that could explain those interactions.
For example, Isaac Newton made qualitative observations of how objects in his environment interacted with the earth’s gravitational field. He then applied the understanding gained by those observations to derive abstract mathematical equations that permitted the quantitative predictions of future interactions.
However, with the advent of higher mathematics and advance computing technology physicists now have the ability to define observations only in terms of mathematics. In other words, it is possible to derive mathematical equations directly from the quantitative results of interactions that can make accurate predictions of future interactions without ever observing those interactions.
For example, String Theory is based purely on analyzing the quantitative results of interactions and then, using only that information define mathematical equations that will give accurate quantitative results of future interactions. The understanding of those interactions is derived solely from the abstract logic of the mathematical equations used to define them and not on observing how those interactions take place.
Which method a physicists uses depends on how she or he defines the science of physics.
For example, if one defines physics only in terms of its ability to make accurate predictions of future events then he or she will most likely aspire to the philosophy that mathematics should define observations.
However if one defines physics in terms of understanding of how and why matter and energy interact in our environment then she or he will more likely embrace the philosophy that observations should define the mathematical equations.
Originally, mathematics was a tool used by physicists to either verify or discredit a theoretical model because it gave them the ability to quantitatively check the conceptual basis of their theoretical models.
For example, Einstein developed a conceptual understanding of space-time first, based primarily on the observation that the speed of light was constant in all reference frames and then developed the theoretical structure of Relativity. Later he developed the mathematical equations that quantified and verified the accuracy of his conceptual model. He did not define the equations first and then develop its theoretical structure from them.
However, the proponents of the concept that “mathematics can define observations” have taken the opposite approach to the science of matter, energy, space, and time. They first observe the quantitative results of interactions between matter and its environment and then, through trial and error define a series of abstract mathematical equations, which can predict the quantitative results of those interactions without ever observing how those interactions take place. They then use those equations to define a theoretical structure. In other words, they first develop the abstract mathematical equations and then defined a theoretical structure based solely on those abstract equations.
For example, String Theorists define how and why matter and energy interact with our environment based solely on the quantitative mathematical equations. They then use those abstract equations to define the physical structure of their theory.
However, string theorists cannot use the quantitative results of their equations to verify the conceptual accuracy of their theoretical model because it is based purely on those quantitative results whereas Einstein and Isaac Newton could because the quantitative results of their equations were based on a conceptual model derived from qualitative observations.
Quantum theories have the same problem regarding verification because no matter how accurate the quantitative predictions or probability functions of a theory are there will always be room for doubt as to their validity if they cannot interpreted conceptually.
This conclusion is supported by the fact that Physics, as the name suggests, is the science devoted to the understand of the physical properties of matter and how it interacts with its environment. Therefore, any theoretical model involving matter that is based solely on an abstract quantity such as a mathematical equation will always lack a certain degree of scientific creditability because it is not based on observing how matter physically interacts with its environment.
Therefore, the answer to the question “Should mathematics define observations or should observations define mathematics” depends on how you define the science of physics. If one only wants to make quantitative predictions of the interactions of matter with our environment then mathematics should define observations but if someone wants an understanding of how and why matter and energy interact along with the ability to make quantitative predictions of how matter interact with our environment he or she should allow observations should define mathematics.
Later Jeff
We have shown in these blogs that there is significant observational evidence supporting the existence of a continuous non-quantized form of mass and four *spatial* dimensions.
One of these observations is how gravitational energy is propagated.
Modern physicists define the propagation of all forms of energy in terms of an interaction between the particle properties of mass. For example, the expansive energy of a gas is defined in terms of the velocity of the gas particles contained in the gas and the energy of a rockets engine is defined in terms of the velocity of gas particles as they exit the rocket engine.
Isaac Newton summed up the forces and energies associated with particle interaction in his third law: “All forces in the universe occur in equal but oppositely directed pairs”.
However, the propagation of gravitational energy does not appear to follow this law of particle interaction because of its attractive properties. If gravitational energy were propagated by a particle interaction, those particles would have to originate from the mass itself. Therefore, according to Newton’s third law when it interacted with another mass its energy would be directed away form that mass not towards it.
But the fact that gravitational energy cannot be explained or predicted in terms of a particle interaction is one of many observations that support the existence of continuous non-quantized form of mass as has been suggested in this blog. This is because if space were composed of a continuous non-particle medium, the attractive energy of a gravitational field could be propagated along a continuous dimensional surface without the need of particle interactions.
This is why many physicists assume the propagation of gravitational energy is a result of a physical curvature in a continuous space-time metric defined by the Theory of Relativity.
However even though a physical curvature in a space-time metric can explain and predict the observed attractive properties of a gravitational field it has some observational creditability issues.
The most significant is that time has never been observed to have any physical properties therefore there is no observational evidence that supports defining gravitational energy in terms of a physical curvature in a time or space-time metric.
Additionally in the article “What is energy?” Nov. 26, 2007 it was shown that gravitational energy appears to be related to a spatial not a time property dimension. Granted the power or force an energy source can generate is related to the rate or time required for the dissipation the energy in a system however, the total quantity of energy in a closed gravitational system has never observed to be effected by the passage of time.
However, the article “What is energy?” also showed that all forms of energy including gravitational could be defined in terms of a continuous displacement or curvature in a “surface” of a three-dimensional space manifold with respect to a fourth *spatial* dimensions.
Therefore, it would be more consistent with observations to define the gravitational energy in terms of a continuous non-quantized form of mass and a curvature in four *spatial* dimensions than defining it in terms of either a particle interaction or a continuous space-time metric.
Later Jeff