• images/banners/banner2.png
  • images/banners/banner3.png

Mathematical domain versus physical world

spheres

An ideal sphere in geometry is much different from actual spherical objects in space-time 

Although we will make use of mathematical concept as often as we can, do not expect that this model be a traditional physical model, based on and derived primarily from a LaGrangian mathematical structure. One main reason for this is that mathematics although helpful in clarifying the concepts, may not be a fundamental entity. It seems that the reality does not match entirely to the simplistic platonic mathematical world. Roger Penrose looks at the Platonic Mathematical circle as a perfect and separate entity. He believes our physical world is utilizing just a portion of that perfect world. [3]

In the contrary, the brain lateralization theory postulates that mathematics is a part of the analytical function and a construct of the left hemisphere. According to the theory left brain creates a simplistic and comprehensible mathematical framework to categorize objects and their relations with each other. Look at the simpler shape of a geometrical sphere comparing to a more complex physical sphere like a planet. The lateralization theory of brain hemispheres suggests mathematics as a human brain invention not a fundamental entity.
For all practical purposes, one can assume that the valid portion of mathematics is the portion that is consistent with the physical world makeup. However, there is a fine line in here. While quite often mathematical propositions guided the physicist to new discoveries, one should be cautious of capitalizing on complicated mathematical constructs that pulling us farther away from tangible physical world. Many times this kind of mathematics can be non-physical. May be this is what is happening to the leading candidate for the Theory of everything, the Super String Theory. The majority of its components, which are based on mathematical propositions, are not observed.

Occasional use of math equations in this book should not be a deterrent to readers who are not as proficient in mathematics. At the end of each mathematical proposition there is an assertion written in plain English so the reader can follow through the discussion with ease.
I would like to clarify that this model is not a reductionists attempt to explain reality from the bottom up. Reductionism is a simplifying an analytical function of the left cerebral hemisphere and although has been very helpful in building our today’s common sense, it is shy in describing a deeper understanding of reality.
This is a new speculation from a new axiom and I hope it proves itself helpful in explaining the unexplained. The following model attempts to answer a wide range of mysteries, which are facing us today. Hereinafter I call it the Universal Model.

 While we have tried not to stray from current knowledge, some of the ideas presented may not be completely agreed upon by mainstream scientists. Although the introduction of new ideas is the way for science to evolve the reader is cautioned to use his or her own judgment before adopting any of the presented concepts. 

The arguments presented are open for debate. The reader is encouraged to email his/her inputs to correct, modify or develop the contents. Please visit The Feedback Page, discuss and share your views.

 

3.
Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality. Jonathan Cape, London, 2004 
   
© 2008 UniversalTheory.org . All rights reserved.