From MP equivalence to Big Bang mechanism
About this article
This article is an English translation of a Japanese article published on January 10, 2022. With some arrangements, they are not exactly the same, but the claims are the same. Well, this article is a discussion about the question of what physical objects are. What do you think of physical object? Let's think together what the truth is. Though I'm worried if I can make you understand well in my English, I hope you can get along with my poor English.
At first, I notify that this theory is written as MM theory (=Mathematical Mapping theory), named after the original discovery.
Immediately, what do you think of physical objects?
Many will think of the earth as a celestial body that orbits the sun due to universal gravitation or the electron as a mathematical entity that satisfies the wave function in quantum mechanics. My challenge here is to try a major shift in these ideas.
I called my thesis MP equivalence, but now I will clarify the meanings of it first. This MP means that
M = Mathematics
P = Physics
In other words, it is Mathematics-Physics equivalence, but I would like to discuss later how this is related to the Big Bang mechanism. This is by no means difficult to explain and can be easily achieved, but the reason is that if I write it first, this story may become boring. I would like to ask you to read it patiently a little.
＜Background to writing this article＞
Well, I would like to move on the main subject, but first of all, I think it is the best way for understanding what my idea is to tell the background behind my writing this article, so I would like to write about that process. In fact, not all the records are available, so I'll just give you approximate years below.
The first event dates back to 2014. I have believed that pursuing Physics is equal to pursuing Mathematics since college and one day I was flipping through college math textbooks. At that time, I suddenly came up with the idea that the theorems written there had a one-to-one correspondence with each object of physics. Then, a creepy sensation ran all over my body because I felt that such a thinking way is clearly different from the conventional way about physical objects.
I wondered what this feeling was, and considered it deeply, and researched it on Wikipedia and so on, but the conclusion at that stage was such as written above: that is, each logical element of mathematics (=Mathematical Element = ME) has a one-to-one correspondence with each physical element (=PE). With this idea, I posted it on a physics bulletin board that is now gone in the form of a "question", desiring someone to know it. There were two main criticisms returned to me: they are
1. Is there any difference from mathematical physics?
2. Not all the important mathematical theorems are necessarily meaningful in physics.
Having received these criticisms, I was impatient, so I could not investigate or scrutinize them in detail, instead gave a sloppy answer and withdrew once.
(However, even if I had taken quite a time, I would not have been able to withstand these criticisms at that time.) I was very scared. This was certainly in 2015.
However, I was not disappointed with these criticisms. I believed that these criticisms were not inconsistent with what I had in my mind (what I imagined), and that my thoughts were not denied, therefore, I continued my research activities albeit little by little.
After that, there was still not much progress and I did research only occasionally. But, it was 2017. I came to the recognition that logic is a formula that develops one after another based on the axiomatic system after a little study of "logic". Soon after, a "major incident" occurred. I wrote it as a "major incident" on the assumption that no one has noticed it yet. I would feel "shame" if someone had been aware of it ... I considered 1,2 below.
１．The state of logic(=ME) is displaced by logical expansion.
２．The state of the physical object(=PE) is displaced with time passages.
Now remember the basic ME-PE one-to-one correspondence.
If ME = PE, the displacement method should be the same. By the way, the displacement type of ME should be countable. Therefore, the displacement of PE is also countable, so I guessed the time, what displaces PE, must be decomposed to the minimum unit. So, I looked it up ... and there was it!! Yes, there is a Planck time, minimum unit of time!
You can see that the following <Hypothesis> can be obtained immediately from here.
< Hypothesis >
There is a one-to-one correspondence between PE and ME.
First, the origin of PE, the Big Bang, and the origin of ME, the beginning of logical development (defined by the axiomatic system), corresponded.
With the development of ME, PE also has been developing from the Big Bang.
This MP displacement will occur every 1 Planck time.
Since ME = PE, it is not necessary to treat the PE space and the ME space separately but I wrote them separately because they are different in the form we recognize.
Well, how about? This < Hypothesis > is one of the arrival points, but how did you feel it? Here you will have a clear understanding of the Big Bang. The Big Bang is none other than the beginning of logical development.
The number of logics increases steadily over time, but I think this can explain the reason for the expanding universe. Also, since one Planck time (5.4 x 10-44 seconds) is extremely short, a huge number of logical expansions have been carried out up to now, so, in a sense, the logical expansion seems to be in equilibrium by now. Conversely, we can guess that the logical state was very dynamic immediately after the Big Bang. I suspect that this is the reason why the understanding immediately after the Big Bang does not go well.
However, I will make notification that this is not beyond speculation and has not produced any physical results. The suggestion of this article is one possibility about the truth of the universe and is not in the methodology. However, it is conscientious to show the direction of the solution, even if it is not a methodology. Therefore, I may write about the direction later if I hit upon any good ideas, but don't expect so much.
Now, I would like to talk about my subsequent process.
Having reached this daring conclusion, I planned to post it in the scientific journal Nature to publish it in a formal way. After asking a physicist for his opinion in late 2018, I tried to post to the magazine. But, as a result, my paper was rejected because the editor concluded that it did not have the firm rationale needed to publish it. Also, the physicist replied that my research might be in the field of philosophy of science, so, I also researched that field, but concluded that it does not suit my paper. After that, while I made various plans, I got stuck, so, I decided to launch this blog, though I was a little reluctant.
Further prospects
The above is the background from the discovery of MP equivalence to the present. This is the proposal for MP equivalence and the Big Bang mechanism, but many readers may not be convinced yet.
The reason is that we consider logic to be a component of theory, and think it is different from PE, which we usually think of as the " terminal element " of theory, even though they may have something in common. But what exactly is the terminal element of theory as PE or the component of theory as ME?
As a matter of fact, based on the above MM theory, every PE is nothing other than ME, furthermore each PE = ME is in a perfect one-to-one correspondence. Due to lack of physical and mathematical knowledge, I will avoid description how the logical expansion progressed after the Big Bang, but I would like to emphasize that each PE corresponds to each logical sentence generated from the axiomatic system.
However, the number of logics is enormous at present, and the detailed information of individual MEs loses its importance. Instead, it is the general nature of group ME that has become important. This does not refer to a concrete ME, but to the nature of "typed ME" and the interrelationship between types of MEs. This analysis of idealized MEs and ME groups has an aspect similar to statistical mechanics dealing with innumerable molecules. Now, let's call the analysis of this logical sentence "statistical logic". This statistical logic is a normally closed logical system, also called theory. This, I think, is the usual approach.
This PE = ME treated in statistical logic, theory, is not a concrete one but an idealized ME = PE. On the other hand, since MM deals with concrete ME = PE, you may feel that MM takes a more direct mathematical approach to PE than standard method. Conversely, normal analysis seems more indirect.
Once again, since the standard analysis deals with types of ME groups, the analysis classifies each ME by its type and describes the general theory of ME. The subject of consideration is not a concrete ME but an idealized ME. Because of this virtual ME analysis, we consider it an indirect analysis.
This statistical logic may be convenient and suitable for analysis when considering physics at present. However, since the information of individual concrete ME is important in the early universe, the approach by statistical logic becomes difficult. Therefore, I think that MM analysis will be necessary in the early universe. This is the reason why I think MM theory has significance in the Big Bang analysis.
In addition, since it is undeniable that there is an influence of concrete ME in the typed ME discussion, the scope of application of MM theory has a possibility to be wider.
Basically, that's all I want to say, but I think there may be some progress in the future. Also, I hope that this article will give you some kind of intellectual stimulation. Well then, I would like to conclude this description.
See you again!
