# Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.

Discussion in 'Math' started by socratus, Feb 21, 2013.

1. ### socratus Thread Starter Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
=.
a)
Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.

Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics".
 . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo
da Vincis Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelos statue of David
It is Gods equation, our jewel ,  It is a mathematical icon.
. . . . etc.
b)
Euler's Equation as a physical reality.

"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, . . . . .
 Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence
 Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?
It would be nice to understand﻿ Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.
 Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum physics ?
==.
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this. question I need to bind
Euler's equation with an object  particle.
Can it be math- point particle or string- particle or triangle-particle?
No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that
the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle  particles
movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi).
a)
Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - photon.
From Earth  gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).
b)
Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c>1.
We call such particle -  electron and its energy is: E=h*f.

In this way I can understand the reality of nature.
==.
Best wishes.
=.
P.S.
' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics 
and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth
century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with
cyclical phenomena such as waves that can be represented by
complex numbers. For a complex number allows you to represent
two processes such as phase and wavelenght simultaneously 
and a complex exponential allows you to map a straight line
onto a circle in a complex plane.'

/ Book: The great equations. Chapter four.
The gold standard for mathematical beauty.
Eulers equation. Page 104. /

#
Euler's e-iPi+1=0 is an amazing equation, not in-and-of itself,
but because it sharply points to our utter ignorance of the
simplest mathematical and scientific fundamentals.
The equation means that in flat Euclidean space, e and Pi happen
to have their particular values to satisfy any equation that relates
their mathematical constructs. In curved space, e and Pi vary.
/ Rasulkhozha S. Sharafiddinov . /
===============

Apr 16, 2011
250
82
You seem to be talking in riddles again...

I genuinely do not understand. Am I the only one? Am I a bit thick?

3. ### tshuck Well-Known Member

Oct 18, 2012
3,531
675
Nope, I'm there with you! Stared reading.. then skimming.. then skipping.. got no sense out of it

4. ### Clay Member

Feb 12, 2010
21
8
Socratus,

your e-iPi+1=0 should be e^ipi = -1

There is a real and an imaginary value.

What is the question?

Best regards,

/Clay

5. ### socratus Thread Starter Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
According to QT in vacuum exist virtual - imaginary particles.
Questions:
a) what geometric form can these particles have ?
b) can the virtual- real - imaginary value e^ipi = -1
belong to a real quantum circle-particle ?
( not to math- point particle,
not to string- particle,
not to triangle-particle )
===..

Feb 12, 2010
21
8
7. ### socratus Thread Starter Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
Euler's Equation Crackpottery

One of my twitter followers sent me an interesting piece of crackpottery.
I debated whether to do anything with it. The thing about crackpottery
is that it really needs to have some content.
Total incoherence isn't amusing. This bit is, frankly, right on the line.
==.
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
a) Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is "the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is "the most famous formula in all mathematics".
 . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo
da Vincis Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelos statue of David
It is Gods equation, our jewel ,  It is a mathematical icon.
. . . . etc.
b) Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
"it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, . . . . .
 Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence
 Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?
It would be nice to understand﻿ Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.
 Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum physics ?
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.

==.
Euler's equation says that . It's an amazingly profound equation.
The way that it draws together fundamental concepts is beautiful
and surprising.
But it's not nearly as mysterious as our loonie-toon makes it out to be.
The natural logarithm-base is deeply embedded in the structure of
numbers, and we've known that, and we've known how it works
for a long time.
What Euler did was show the relationship between e and the
fundamental rotation group of the complex numbers.
There are a couple of ways of restating the definition of that
make the meaning of that relationship clearer.
For example:

That's an alternative definition of what e is. If we use that, and we
plug into it, we get:

If you work out that limit, it's -1. Also, if you take values of N,
and plot , , , and , ... on the complex plane, as N gets larger,
the resulting curve gets closer and closer to a semicircle.
An equivalent way of seeing it is that exponents of are rotations
in the complex number plane. The reason that is because if you take
the complex number (1 + 0i), and rotate it by radians, you get -1: .
That's what Euler's equation means.
It's amazing and beautiful, but it's not all that difficult to understand.
It's not mysterious in the sense that our crackpot friend thinks it is.
But what really sets me off is the idea that it must have some
meaning in physics. That's silly.
It doesn't matter what the physical laws of the universe are:
the values of and e will not change.
It's like trying to say that there must be something special about
our universe that makes 1 + 1 = 2 - or, conversely, that the fact that
1+1=2 means something special about the universe we live in
. These things are facts of numbers, which are independent
of physical reality. Create a universe with different values for all
of the fundamental constants - e and π will be exactly the same.
Create a universe with less matter - e and π will still be the same.
Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds
of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that
we see - and e and π won't change.
What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation
tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers
and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot
really exist in the world we live in.
Beyond that, what he's saying is utter rubbish.
For example:
These two theories say me that the reason of circle  particles
movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi).
Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves ( as a wheel)
in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - photon.
From Earth  gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).

This is utterly meaningless.
It's a jumble of words that pretends to be meaningful and mathematical,
when in fact it's just a string of syllables strung together nonsensical ways.
There's a lot that we know about how photons behave.
There's also a lot that we don't know about photons.
In the classic phrase, it's not even wrong: what it says doesn't have
enough meaning to be wrong. What is the "inner impulse"
of a photon according to this crackpot?
We can't know: the term isn't defined.
We are pretty certain that a photon is not a wheel rolling along.
Is that what the crank is saying? We can't be sure.
And that's the problem with this kind of crankery.
As I always say: the very worst math is no math.
This is a perfect example.
He starts with a beautiful mathematical fact.
But he writes a couple of mathematical symbols,
to pretend that he's using math.
http://scientopia.org/blogs/goodmath/2013/02/18/eulers-equation-crackpottery/

==.

8. ### tshuck Well-Known Member

Oct 18, 2012
3,531
675
Why would you link to someone outright calling you a crackpot?

Well, at least we know we aren't alone

DerStrom8 likes this.
9. ### DerStrom8 Well-Known Member

Feb 20, 2011
2,428
1,329
I gotta say, these are some of the most useless posts on the forum. Are you trying to ask a question? Are you simply trying to make a statement? If it's the latter, to what end? What's the purpose? What's your point?

You may be trying to sound smart and philosophical, but in truth you're failing. Miserably. <snip>

Last edited by a moderator: Mar 6, 2013
10. ### socratus Thread Starter Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
Dear MarkCC.
Thank you for paying attention on my crackpottery article.
Very like.
==.
You say:
Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds
of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that
we see - and e and π won't change.
=..
Now Eulers equation plays a role in quantum theory.
In quantum theory there isnt constant firm quant particle.
The Pi says that a point-particle or string-particle cannot be
a quant particle. The Pi says that that quant particle
can be a circle and it cannot be a perfect circle.
If e and π belong to quant particle then these numbers
can mutually change.
Doesnt it mean that Pi ( a circle ) can be changed into sphere?
Doesnt Eulers equation cosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain
this transformation / fluctuation of quant particle ?
You say:
What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation
tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers
and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot
really exist in the world we live in.
=.

But this a fundamental relationship between numbers and
shapes on a two-dimensional plane can really exist
in two-dimensional vacuum.

All the best.
socratus.

==..

11. ### socratus Thread Starter Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
Why Math Works ?
Because math tied with physics.
For example:
I say that there is circle-particle that can change /
transformed into sphere-particle and vice versa
and Eulers equation cosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain
this transformation / fluctuation of quantum particle.
I try to understand more details.
I have circle- particle with two infinite numbers: (pi) and (e).
I say that this circle-particle that can change into sphere-particle
and vice versa. Then I need third number for these changes.
The third number, in my opinion, is infinite a=1/137
( the fine structure constant = the limited volume coefficient)
This coefficient (a=1/137) is the border between two
conditions of quantum particle. This coefficient (a=1/137) is
responsible for these changes. This coefficient (a=1/137) united
geometry with the physics ( e^2=ah*c)
=..
If physicists use string-particle (particle that has length but
hasnt thickness -volume) to understand reality
(and have some basic problems to solve this task) then why dont
use circle-particle for this aim.
It is a pity that I am not physicist or mathematician.
If I were mathematician or physicist I wouldnt lost the chance
to test this hypothesis.
=..
Best wishes.
==

12. ### tshuck Well-Known Member

Oct 18, 2012
3,531
675
Math is not tied with physics. Math is independent of physics, but we model physics with math. One does not imply the other. We describe the physical world with math.

ghlow23 likes this.
13. ### SplitInfinity Member

Mar 3, 2013
369
9
Socratus...when you start using specific Geometric constructs of lessor Dimensionality than our Universal or Multiversals Dimensional construct...you are pidgeon holing a Quantum Particle/Wave Form into a specific structure that is not consistant with the reality.
Such Quanta existing as both particle and wave and perhaps more...are ill defined by any particular 3-D Geometry and even if our small ability to either observe or detect shows this as so...it is only because we can only observe or detect or even calculate from an understanding and knowlege base that itself is constrained by our lack of intellect and understanding as well as lack of technology.
NOTHING...is ever what it seems to be when you look at it from limited perspective.
Split Infinity

Apr 16, 2011
250
82
Could it be that the universe is limited to the three dimensions that we are familiar with? Maybe four if you count time and/or space-time?

Might it be that 9 or more dimensions are currently required to try to describe the universe mathematically, but there are less dimensions in reality. A bit like square-root of -1 appears to be a nonsense, yet we use imaginary numbers as a handy mathematical tool. Maybe the extra dimensions are also imaginary, and are just a handy mathematical tool.

I also wonder if 'Brane theory' might be popular right now because it makes the mathematics work, rather than necessarily because Branes are a reality.

Not making any claims of any kind here, it is just that post #13 made me think.

I have always been a little uncomfortable with the cutting edge theories. They seem to be stated a little too strongly for my liking, when we (humans) are dealing with subjects that we admit to having very limited understanding of.

15. ### socratus Thread Starter Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
Math and Physics.

Klein &Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY  The Adventure of Physics.
=.
Mathematics is an indispensable and powerful tool where it has been
demonstrated that it applies to a real world experience. However,
it is inappropriate and, as Dingle points out, potentially dangerous,
to give credence to deductions arising purely from the language
of mathematics. The problem is that mathematicians now dominate
physics and it is fashionable for them to follow Einsteins example,
with fame going to those with the most fantastic notions that defy
experience and common sense. So we have the Big Bang, dark matter,
black holes, cosmic strings, wormholes in space, time travel,
and so on and on.
It has driven practically minded students from the subject.
There is an old Disney cartoon where the scientist is portrayed with
eyes closed, rocking backwards in his chair and sucking on a pipe,
which at intervals emits a smoke-cloud of mathematical symbols.
Much of modern physics is a smoke-screen of Disneyesque fantasy.
Inappropriate mathematical models are routinely used to describe
the universe. Yet the physicists hand us the ash from their pipes
as if it were gold dust. If only they would use the ashtrays provided.
It seems that every practitioner of physics has had to wonder
at some point why mathematics and physics have come to be
so closely entwined. Opinions vary on the answer.
Bertrand Russell acknowledged
Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about
the physical world, but because we know so little.
Mathematics may be indispensable to physics,
but it obviously does not constitute physics.
=.
Klein & Lachièze-Rey,
THE QUEST FOR UNITY  The Adventure of Physics
===

16. ### Wendy Moderator

Mar 24, 2008
20,772
2,540
Perhaps, but you seem to forget Math is a language, just like English or French. It is a man-made invention we use to describe things in a very precise way, nothing more. It did not exist before we became intelligent, it will be gone (from this planet at least) when we are gone. Other intelligences may use something entirely different.

The fact it works so well have more to do with the quality of the invention.

DerStrom8 likes this.
17. ### socratus Thread Starter Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
Completely right.

=

18. ### socratus Thread Starter Member

Mar 26, 2012
267
3
By the way:
According to Charles law and the consequence of the
third law of thermodynamics as the thermodynamic temperature
of a system approaches absolute zero the volume of particles
approaches zero too. It means the particles must have flat forms.
They must have geometrical form of a circle: pi= c /d =3,14 . .
( All another geometrical forms : triangle, rectangle . . . etc
have angles and to create angles needs a force, without force
all geometrical forms must turn into circle.)

=.