A Review on Natural Reality with Physical Equations

Linfan Mao

Published Jul 1, 2015• 0 citations

Abstract

A natural behavior is used to characterize by differential equation established on hu- \nman observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or on \ne field complied with \nreproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle \nP \nand the mathematical \nconsistence determine that such an understanding is only local, not the whole reality \non \nP \n, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e. \nhow to establish a \nphysical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing \n. As it is well-known, a thing \nconsists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e. \nout-observation \nand \nin-observation \nfor discussion. The former is such an observation \nthat the observer is out of the particle or the field \nP \n, which is in fact a macroscopic \nobservation and its dynamic equation characterizes the coherent behavior of all parts in \nP \n, but the later is asked into the particle or the field by arranging observers simultane- \nously on different subparticles or subfields in \nP \nand respectively establishing physical \nequations, which are contradictory and given up in classical because there are not ap- \nplicable conclusions on contradictory systems in mathematics. However, the existence \nnaturally implies the necessity of the nature. Applying a combinatorial notion, i.e. \nG \nL \n- \nsolutions on non-solvable equations, a new notion for holding on the reality of nature \nis suggested in this paper, which makes it clear that the knowing on the nature by solv- \nable equations is macro, only holding on these coherent behaviors of particles, but the \nnon-coherent naturally induces non-solvable equations, which implies that the knowing \nby \nG \nL \n-solution of equations is the effective, includes the classical characterizing as a \nspecial case by solvable equations, i.e. mathematical combinatorics.

DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.232971

Related papers

A Review On Natural Reality With Physical Equations

Linfan Mao

A natural behavior is used to characterize by differential equation established on human observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or one field complied with reproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle P and the mathematical consistence determine that such an understanding is only local, not the whole reality on P, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e. how to establish a physical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing. As it is well-known, a thing consists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e. out-observation and in-observation for discussion.

Jul 3, 20150 citations

A Review On Natural Reality With Physical Equations

Linfan Mao

A natural behavior is used to characterized by differential equation established on human observations, which is assumed to be on one particle or one field complied with reproducibility. However, the multilateral property of a particle P and the mathematical consistence determine that such a understanding is only local, not the whole reality on P, which leads to a central thesis for knowing the nature, i.e., how to establish a physical equation with a proper interpretation on a thing. As it is well-known, a thing consists of parts. Reviewing on observations, we classify them into two categories, i.e., out-observation and in-observation for discussion.

Progress in physicsJul 1, 20155 citations

Mathematics With Natural Reality — Action Flows

Linfan Mao

The universality of contradiction implies that the reality of a thing is only hold on observation with level dependent on the observer standing out or in and lead respectively to solvable equation or non-solvable equations on that thing for human beings.

Oct 5, 20150 citations

Problems of Quantum Mechanics (UET7B)

H. J. Spencer

This paper re-opens the debate on the failure of quantum mechanics to provide an understandable view of micro-reality. A critique is offered of the commonly accepted ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of a theory that is only a mathematical approach to the level of reality characterized by atoms and electrons. This critique is based on the oldest approach to thinking about nature for over 2500 years, known as Natural Philosophy. Quantum mechanics (QM) was developed over the first quarter of the 20th Century, when scientists were enthralled by a new philosophy known as Positivism, whose foundations were based on the assumption that material objects exist only when measured by humans – this central assumption conflates epistemology (knowledge) with ontology (existence). The present critique rejects this human-centered view of reality by assuming material reality has existed long before (and will persist long after) human beings (“Realism”). The defensive view that the micro-world is too different to understand using regular thinking (and only a mathematical approach is possible) is rejected totally. At least 12 earlier QM interpretations are critically analyzed, indicating the broad interest in “what does QM mean?” The standard theory of quantum mechanics is thus constructed on only how the micro-world appears to macro measurements - as such, it cannot offer any view of how the foundations of the world are acting when humans are not observing it - this has generated almost 100 years of confusion and contradiction at the very heart of physics. Significantly, we live in a world that is not being measured by scientists but is interacting with itself and with us. QM has failed to provide explanations: only recipes (meaningless equations), not insights. Physics has returned to the pre-Newtonian world of Ptolemaic phenomenology: only verifiable numbers without real understanding. The focus needs to be on an explicit linkage between the micro-world, when left to itself, and our mental models of this sphere of material reality, via the mechanism of measurement. This limits the role of measurement to confirming our mental models of reality but never confusing these with a direct image of ‘the thing in itself’. This implies a deep divide between reality and appearances, as Kant suggested. This paper includes an original analysis of several major assumptions that have been implicit in Classical Mechanics (CM) that were acceptable in the macroscopic domain of reality, demonstrated by its proven successes. Unfortunately, only a few of these assumptions were challenged by the developers of QM. We now show that these other assumptions are still generating confusions in the interpretation of QM and blocking further progress in the understanding of the microscopic domain. Several of these flawed assumptions were introduced by Newton to support the use of continuum mathematics as a model of nature. This paper proposes that it is the attempt to preserve continuum mathematics (especially calculus), which drives much of the mystery and confusion behind all attempts at understanding quantum mechanics. The introduction of discrete mathematics is proposed to help analyze the discrete interactions between the quintessential quantum objects: the electrons and their novel properties. A related paper demonstrates that it is possible to create a point-particle theory of electrons that explains all their peculiar (and ‘paradoxical’) behavior using only physical hypotheses and discrete mathematics without introducing the continuum mathematical ideas of fields or waves. Another (related) paper proves that all the known results for the hydrogen atom can also be exactly calculated from this new perspective with the discrete mathematics. * Surrey, B.C. Canada (604) 542-2299 spsi99@telus.net Version 2.015 08-05-2017 Begun 23-06-2008 {pp. 82, 70.2 Kw; 800 KB}

May 1, 20170 citations

On the Foundations of Physics

Johan Noldus

The road on the foundations of science in general consists in (a) making precise what the assumptions are one makes resulting from our measurements (b) holding a “good” balance between theoretical assumptions and genericity of predictions (c) saying as precisely as possible what you mean. Unfortunately, recent work where these three criteria are met is scarce and I often encounter situations where physicists talk about diﬀerent things in the same words or the other way around, identify distinct concepts (even without being aware of it), or introduce unnecessary hypothesis based upon a too stringent mathematical interpretation of some observation. In this work, I will be as critical as possible and give away those objections against modern theories of physics which have become clear in my mind and therefore transcend mere intuition. All these objections result from the use of unclear language or too stringent assumptions on the nature of reality. Next, we weaken the assumptions and discuss what I call process physics; it will turn out that Bell’s concerns do ﬁnd a natural solution within this framework.

Mar 1, 20163 citations

Quantum Magic and Quantum Mystery

Roger Penrose, Martin R. Gardner

In classical physics there is, in accordance with common sense, an objective world ‘out there’. That world evolves in a clear and deterministic way, being governed by precisely formulated mathematical equations. This is as true for the theories of Maxwell and Einstein as it is for the original Newtonian scheme. Physical reality is taken to exist independently of ourselves; and exactly how the classical world ‘is’ is not affected by how we might choose to look at it. Moreover, our bodies and our brains are themselves to be part of that world. They, also, are viewed as evolving according to the same precise and deterministic classical equations. All our actions are to be fixed by these equations - no matter how we might feel that our conscious wills may be influencing how we behave. Such a picture appears to lie at the background of most serious 1 philosophical arguments concerned with the nature of reality, of our conscious perceptions, and of our apparent free will. Some people might have an uncomfortable feeling that there should also be a role for quantum theory - that fundamental but disturbing scheme of things which, in the first quarter of this century, arose out of observations of subtle discrepancies between the actual behaviour of the world and the descriptions of classical physics. To many, the term ‘quantum theory’ evokes merely some vague concept of an ‘uncertainty principle’, which, at the level of particles, atoms or molecules, forbids precision in our descriptions and yields merely probabilistic behaviour. Actually, quantum descriptions are very precise, as we shall see, although radically different from the familiar classical ones. Moreover, we shall find, despite a common view to the contrary, that probabilities do not arise at the minute quantum level of particles, atoms, or molecules - those evolve deterministically - but, seemingly, via some mysterious larger-scale action connected with the emergence of a classical world that we can consciously perceive. We must try to understand this, and how quantum theory forces us to change our view of physical reality.

Oxford University Press eBooksOct 5, 198914 citations