17 posts
• Page **1** of **1**

The theory of everything, the ultimate truth, the end of physics, the final theory... What would this even look like?

As it is practiced today, physics is just a clever attempt to match the data gained from experiment to the equations of math that we can then use to make predictions that we can further test. In essence it is a reverse engineering effort at curve fitting the data. Especially in quantum mechanics! Ever since Max Planck inserted Planck constant, h, into the black body power spectrum as a desperate attempt to find a curve that matched the data, quantum mechanics has become a curve fitting exercise. And it will remain so until a better explanation can be found for quantum theory.

Now, when theoretical physicists try to advance unification efforts or to connect quantum field theory (QT) and general relativity (GR), these efforts don't even begin to try and justify quantum theory from foundational math principles. So they are not even sure they are dealing with final theories of QT or GR to begin with. For all they know, they may be working with effective theories that are only validated provisionally, provided that they are not falsified by the next experiment. There is no "proof" of these laws of physics. Proof only exists in the realm of logic and math. But these theories are only curve fitting equations, clever as they may be. So any unification they may achieve can only be seen as coincidental. If we find another particle for dark matter, for example, then we don't know if the symmetries of quantum theory will remain the same. And we don't know that QT will continue to remain unified with GR in these new theories.

We except the present laws of physics based on the inductive method of proof, that if enough experiments do not contradict our equations but seem to confirm them, then we have more confidence that they are correct. And we see in our equations smaller entities and design experiments to detect them. We describe larger structures in terms of ever smaller ones, atoms, then a nucleus and electrons, then protons and neutrons, then quarks and gluons, then who knows what else. And we are always left wondering why these smallest things exist. But where does it all end?

We can always keep asking questions about the nature of reality until everything is derived from reason itself. Then the only questions could be what reason is and why it is the way it is. So the final theory must be one based on principal alone. We are looking for laws of physics derived from the principals of logic alone. But until now this has only been a philosophical dream with no clear path to its realization.

I have a derivation of quantum theory completely from logic alone, without recourse to any data from experiment. This explains quantum theory on principle alone. Some may think that this is just a mathematical trick. But I use the formulation to derive its particle content, and it seems to match the Standard Model of particle physics. Not only is QT justifiable, but so are the various particles. And the math is relatively easy, integration of complex exponential functions. The website is at: logictophysics.com. Let me know if you have and questions or comments.

As it is practiced today, physics is just a clever attempt to match the data gained from experiment to the equations of math that we can then use to make predictions that we can further test. In essence it is a reverse engineering effort at curve fitting the data. Especially in quantum mechanics! Ever since Max Planck inserted Planck constant, h, into the black body power spectrum as a desperate attempt to find a curve that matched the data, quantum mechanics has become a curve fitting exercise. And it will remain so until a better explanation can be found for quantum theory.

Now, when theoretical physicists try to advance unification efforts or to connect quantum field theory (QT) and general relativity (GR), these efforts don't even begin to try and justify quantum theory from foundational math principles. So they are not even sure they are dealing with final theories of QT or GR to begin with. For all they know, they may be working with effective theories that are only validated provisionally, provided that they are not falsified by the next experiment. There is no "proof" of these laws of physics. Proof only exists in the realm of logic and math. But these theories are only curve fitting equations, clever as they may be. So any unification they may achieve can only be seen as coincidental. If we find another particle for dark matter, for example, then we don't know if the symmetries of quantum theory will remain the same. And we don't know that QT will continue to remain unified with GR in these new theories.

We except the present laws of physics based on the inductive method of proof, that if enough experiments do not contradict our equations but seem to confirm them, then we have more confidence that they are correct. And we see in our equations smaller entities and design experiments to detect them. We describe larger structures in terms of ever smaller ones, atoms, then a nucleus and electrons, then protons and neutrons, then quarks and gluons, then who knows what else. And we are always left wondering why these smallest things exist. But where does it all end?

We can always keep asking questions about the nature of reality until everything is derived from reason itself. Then the only questions could be what reason is and why it is the way it is. So the final theory must be one based on principal alone. We are looking for laws of physics derived from the principals of logic alone. But until now this has only been a philosophical dream with no clear path to its realization.

I have a derivation of quantum theory completely from logic alone, without recourse to any data from experiment. This explains quantum theory on principle alone. Some may think that this is just a mathematical trick. But I use the formulation to derive its particle content, and it seems to match the Standard Model of particle physics. Not only is QT justifiable, but so are the various particles. And the math is relatively easy, integration of complex exponential functions. The website is at: logictophysics.com. Let me know if you have and questions or comments.

- friend
**Posts:**31**Joined:**Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

My question would be; can you put that site all in one PDF file for download and printing?

.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1833**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:My question would be; can you put that site all in one PDF file for download and printing?

.

I understand your concerns. I'm in the process of converting it to PDF, but it's difficult to configure the math equations for printing. I can't get them all within the margins. However, the website (http://logictophysics.com/QMlogic.html) has been designed to make it easy to review. When I make a reference to a previous equation, that reference can be mouseover'd to view the equation it refers to. That way you don't lose your place when you scroll back to find the reference. Just mouseover the reference to see the equation itself. Hyperlinks are opened in a new tab so the original tab is undisturbed. And I also use cookies to keep track of your place in the document so you can come back to it to resume where you left off. So please try to read the website and let me know if you have any problems with it. In the mean time I'll work on the PDF version. Thanks.

- friend
**Posts:**31**Joined:**Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

friend wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:My question would be; can you put that site all in one PDF file for download and printing?

.

I understand your concerns. I'm in the process of converting it to PDF, but it's difficult to configure the math equations for printing. I can't get them all within the margins. However, the website (http://logictophysics.com/QMlogic.html) has been designed to make it easy to review. When I make a reference to a previous equation, that reference can be mouseover'd to view the equation it refers to. That way you don't lose your place when you scroll back to find the reference. Just mouseover the reference to see the equation itself. Hyperlinks are opened in a new tab so the original tab is undisturbed. And I also use cookies to keep track of your place in the document so you can come back to it to resume where you left off. So please try to read the website and let me know if you have any problems with it. In the mean time I'll work on the PDF version. Thanks.

It is just too much for me to read on the computer but looks interesting. For this stuff, I like to print out and read whilst lying on the sofa (I'm a real old-timer ). Then I can also make notes in the margins.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1833**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:It is just too much for me to read on the computer but looks interesting. For this stuff, I like to print out and read whilst lying on the sofa (I'm a real old-timer ). Then I can also make notes in the margins.

.

OK. I have a PDF file available at: http://logictophysics.com/QMlogic.html. Just click the PDF icon at the top, left. I had difficulty converting it from html to a Word document; much of the formatting did not translate, and I had to fix a lot of it. So I would very much appreciate it if you let me know if you find any mistakes or if you have trouble understanding what I've written. I will try to fix it immediately. The math is at or below the sophomore level, but some of it can be a little tedious in places because I wanted to be as complete as possible. If you're having trouble with a section, try that section at the website. I created mouseover text to give some shortcut tips to help understand what I'm doing there. Otherwise, just ask, and I'll try to help you with any problems. Thanks.

- friend
**Posts:**31**Joined:**Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

Thanks for that. I'm reading it now. Probably will take a while.

.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1833**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

Thanks for putting that PDF file on the system. I'll go through it also. It looks interesting.

jreed

jreed

- jreed
**Posts:**74**Joined:**Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

Any questions, yet? Did you get stuck anywhere? Do I need to put more or less information in some sections?

- friend
**Posts:**31**Joined:**Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

friend wrote:Any questions, yet? Did you get stuck anywhere? Do I need to put more or less information in some sections?

Doesn't all of mathematics come from logic anyways? I believe that is what my logic course said more than 50 years ago. I think I still have that textbook around here somewhere. More information is always good. Still reviewing what you have done. Got sidetracked a bit with revising a paper.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1833**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

FrediFizzx wrote:friend wrote:Any questions, yet? Did you get stuck anywhere? Do I need to put more or less information in some sections?

Doesn't all of mathematics come from logic anyways? I believe that is what my logic course said more than 50 years ago. I think I still have that textbook around here somewhere. More information is always good. Still reviewing what you have done. Got sidetracked a bit with revising a paper.

.

Russel and Whitehead tried to prove that all arithmetic is derived from logic. But Kurt Godel proved that arithmetic is incomplete (assuming it's consistent). I only have a passing familiarity with the effort of these gentlemen. So I'm not completely persuaded yet. Still, I don't think Godel's incompleteness theorem will prove any of our present math statements wrong, only that there may be other theorems that are true, though not provable with our present math. So what does that mean for us? Are there math statements lurking close by in construction to our present math theorems that are true though not provable by us? Do we have any other choice but to describe physics using math? I think the only relevant question is why we should use this or that math in our physical theories. And perhaps I made some progress in that regard.

- friend
**Posts:**31**Joined:**Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

"...proved that arithmetic is incomplete." What does that even mean? Why does it have to be complete? And what does that even mean? Anyways, not sure what that has to do with math is derived from logic and math is used to describe physics thus you automatically have logic --> physics. I see the sense in that.

.

.

- FrediFizzx
- Independent Physics Researcher
**Posts:**1833**Joined:**Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm**Location:**N. California, USA

friend wrote:FrediFizzx wrote:friend wrote:Any questions, yet? Did you get stuck anywhere? Do I need to put more or less information in some sections?

Doesn't all of mathematics come from logic anyways? I believe that is what my logic course said more than 50 years ago. I think I still have that textbook around here somewhere. More information is always good. Still reviewing what you have done. Got sidetracked a bit with revising a paper.

.

Russel and Whitehead tried to prove that all arithmetic is derived from logic. But Kurt Godel proved that arithmetic is incomplete (assuming it's consistent). I only have a passing familiarity with the effort of these gentlemen. So I'm not completely persuaded yet. Still, I don't think Godel's incompleteness theorem will prove any of our present math statements wrong, only that there may be other theorems that are true, though not provable with our present math. So what does that mean for us? Are there math statements lurking close by in construction to our present math theorems that are true though not provable by us? Do we have any other choice but to describe physics using math? I think the only relevant question is why we should use this or that math in our physical theories. And perhaps I made some progress in that regard.

Gödel proved that you can’t prove that mathematics is consistent; and also that it can never be complete, because you can always create new mathematical statements about infinite sets which you could take axiomatically to be true or false, just as a matter of taste. Or as a matter of physics intuition! But still I think it is correct to say that *pure* mathematicians is “just” logic. Or vice versa. In pure mathematics one can go for absolute truth but on the other hand those absolute truths are mere tautologies.

- gill1109
- Mathematical Statistician
**Posts:**1752**Joined:**Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm**Location:**Leiden

gill1109 wrote:

In pure mathematics one can go for absolute truth but on the other hand those absolute truths are mere tautologies.

That is exactly right. A fine example of that is Bell's theorem. It is tautologous. It assumes (in a different guise) what it wants to prove, in order to prove it. Nice mathematics, bad physics.

***

- Joy Christian
- Research Physicist
**Posts:**2260**Joined:**Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am**Location:**Oxford, United Kingdom

Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Nice mathematics, bad physics.

And what if physics can be made a branch of mathematics? Some may have philosophical objections to that. But I think my efforts may be a start in that direction. I have yet to hear any mathematical objections to it.

- friend
**Posts:**31**Joined:**Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

I wouldn't say I'm stuck, but I"m having difficulty seeing what you are trying to get at. After several pages of Boolean algebra, you come up with the Kronecker delta. Then go on to integrating Dirac delta functions. These are well known in physics and used extensively. This expression is manipulated by adding time, imaginary numbers, and notation until you come up with something that looks like a path integral. Would you have obtained this form without knowing what a path integral should look like? I don't see Boolean algebra adding anything, since when physics is done logic is normally followed.

- jreed
**Posts:**74**Joined:**Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:10 pm

jreed wrote:I wouldn't say I'm stuck, but I"m having difficulty seeing what you are trying to get at. After several pages of Boolean algebra, you come up with the Kronecker delta. Then go on to integrating Dirac delta functions. These are well known in physics and used extensively. This expression is manipulated by adding time, imaginary numbers, and notation until you come up with something that looks like a path integral. Would you have obtained this form without knowing what a path integral should look like? I don't see Boolean algebra adding anything, since when physics is done logic is normally followed.

I'm trying to justify every step of the way. It's rather easy to get the path integral from the iterative property of the Dirac delta function. From equation [22] I use the exponential form of the Dirac delta function and replace the variance parameter with equation [26]; the path integral follows immediately. But why then the Dirac delta function? For that matter, why an integral? Why the exponential form of the Dirac delta function? Why use a complex number in the exponent? The Website is the story of how to justify the use of these forms to get to the path integral. The details may be a little tedious, but the payoff is extreme.

From the framework developed in this document, it becomes possible to define space as the entanglement of "virtual particles" connecting all the points of space. It also becomes possible to define mass and energy in terms of these virtual particles. And the various particles of the Standard Model seem to simply fall out of this construction. There are other Webpages in the TOC that address all this. And at this point I'm beginning to think that the theory of everything can be derived from all this.

To be honest I would not have been able to derive the path integral without first knowing what it looked like. There are some subtleties that would not have been obvious. And I would not have known what I was trying to prove or where to stop. So I would not say that anyone before Feynman should have been able to easily come up with all this even though the pieces of the puzzle were there.

You wonder why I had to go all the way back to propositional logic (Boolean algebra). If I had not done so, then questions would be left hanging as to why I used this form of math and not some other, especially if I don't resort to some sort of physical intuition. What should be recognized is that the Dirac delta equation [22] can be mapped from the logical equation [7]. It has the same iterative properties needed to construct the Feynman path integral. But then some means has to be developed to map the parts of the logic to the parts of the math. So the first part of the article justifies the effort to map logical conjunction to multiplication, logical disjunction to addition, implication to the Kronecker delta and then the Dirac delta in the continuum. Hopefully this give an easy perspective into all this.

- friend
**Posts:**31**Joined:**Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

It seems the modern paradigm of quantum theory is build on reverse engineering, ad-hoc, curve fitting. Max Planck introduced "h" into the equations as a desperate attempt to find a curve for the black body power spectrum. This is the definition of curve fitting. And it's ad-hoc because he followed no method to get this curve; he simply guessed at it and used it because it worked in this situation only - that's the definition of ad-hoc. Others who followed may have used cleaver means to derive results. But we will always be left with questions until physics can be derive from the principles of reason alone.

Yet, logic has to do with propositions, and physics has to do with the numerical value of measurements. So the question is how to go from logic to math. Of course a number can be defined as the cardinality of a set, the number of elements in a set. And the most basic numbers are 0 and 1, where 0 is the cardinality of the empty set, and 1 is the cardinality of a set with only one element. In order to go from logic to math, then, we need a function that we can use to map the logic of true and false to the math of 0 and 1. This is accomplished by the Dirac measure which is equal to 1 if the Dirac set has one element and 0 if it is empty.

So I use the Dirac measure to map logic values and operators to math values and operators. I go through all the details to justify this map. Or at least that is what to look for when reading this paper. In the end, it turns out that the wave function of quantum mechanics is a representation of the material implication of logic. Again, the website is at: logictophysics.com

Yet, logic has to do with propositions, and physics has to do with the numerical value of measurements. So the question is how to go from logic to math. Of course a number can be defined as the cardinality of a set, the number of elements in a set. And the most basic numbers are 0 and 1, where 0 is the cardinality of the empty set, and 1 is the cardinality of a set with only one element. In order to go from logic to math, then, we need a function that we can use to map the logic of true and false to the math of 0 and 1. This is accomplished by the Dirac measure which is equal to 1 if the Dirac set has one element and 0 if it is empty.

So I use the Dirac measure to map logic values and operators to math values and operators. I go through all the details to justify this map. Or at least that is what to look for when reading this paper. In the end, it turns out that the wave function of quantum mechanics is a representation of the material implication of logic. Again, the website is at: logictophysics.com

- friend
**Posts:**31**Joined:**Sat Mar 01, 2014 10:15 am

17 posts
• Page **1** of **1**

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Users browsing this forum: Semrush [Bot] and 6 guests