More On the Coming Revolution of Fundamental Physics

Transcript

good evening welcome to the honest investigators talk shop show I'm your host Doug Bundy president of the Larson Research Center where we are unveiling the universe of motion today is January 1st 2016 and I hope everyone had a joyous and safe holiday season on this initial webcast we want to discuss more on the coming revolution of the fundamental physics this was the title of a series of lectures that I gave back in 2008 in Clearfield Utah that was based on lectures from dr. David gross a presentation he gave the year before and which is now available on our YouTube channel here on our LRC physics channel you can it's brand new you can go there there are several things we'll refer to a couple more as we go along but hopefully you'll be able to go there and like the channel or subscribe to it and like it on our Facebook page or our group of the same name lrl RC physics and we're also on Google+ of course well I had intended to present a much longer series of lectures than I ended up doing in 2008 but personal circumstances prevented it I had indicated at the end of lecture two you can see the two playlists for the two lectures on the LRC physics channel that the next lecture would be on the unification of mathematics now about nine years later I would like to present that next lecture however this time technology makes it possible to do it online using Google+ Hangouts on air which is much much easier to do than a live presentation before a live audience the new online lectures are live at the time are given and we can have an audience we can accommodate up to five or nine I guess including the hosts it's ten altogether participants on the show that constitute a live audience but also then of course an unlimited number of non participants can watch life so happily Google automatically records the website for later viewing on our Google+ page and on our YouTube channel which is of course a terrific logistical bonus for us well of course a lot has happened in the intervening nine years since that last lecture as far as developments in the LRC's rst based physical theory but even back then we understood the importance of unifying the rst with mathematics Larson always deflected criticism of his work that complained of a lack of mathematical formulation of it and contending that it didn't require a new mathematical formulation but that the mathematics of legacy physics was sufficient for the new system if only it was corrected it correctly interpreted it's the inventive concepts that are wrong not the mathematics he maintained however we at the LRC disagree with this conclusion and have sought to find the proper mathematical formulation for our rst base theory from the very beginning it's been quite a ride actually and it will take a book to explain it all but in a word not even the legacy system of physical theory is unified with legacy mathematics therefore if we are to unify the rst base theory with mathematics we must recognize then that the challenge hasn't even been met by the scientists of the legacy system implying that much new ground has be broken and clearly this is not going to be easily accomplished Peter Voigt gave a talk at the University of Central Florida entitled the challenge of unifying particle physics which I referred to at the end of lecture two on the coming revolution of fundamental physics he really does a good job of explaining what the standard model of particle physics is and then in the last slide he makes the point which is the most interesting of all the challenge of unifying particle physics he insists is really the challenge of unifying the mathematics of the standard model specifically he makes three important observations number one the mathematics of the standard model is poorly understood in many ways the representation number two the representation theory of gauge groups is not understood and number three the unification of physics may require the unification of mathematics but in the midst of these three he puts another bullet that states quote one indication of the problem with string theory is it is not formulated in terms of a fundamental symmetry principle what is the group close quote well in other words the trouble with the standard model is that it works very well but we don't know why and the trouble with the string theory is that it doesn't work very well and this may be because it doesn't work the way the standard model works the answer to the question what is the group is of course that there isn't a group that corresponds to the vibrations of the string even though there are two ends of the string one positive and the other negative which is the basic form of a group according to Voigt thus it seems that theoretical physics is caught on the horns of a mathematical dilemma on contemplating this observation it's only natural to ask what the new mathematics the reciprocal system of mathematics or the R same as we're calling it has to say if anything about this predicament if you go to our website you can see we've been writing about this reciprocal system of mathematics that we're trying to put together for some time you can find it there on our website LRC physics.com so just go there and click on the you can do a search there's a search button there and also you can go to the new math blog and find the entries for the reciprocal system of mathematics recorded there well there are a great many aspects to it and the problem that is most the most difficult challenge for us and answering it is the decision of where to begin after contemplating it for some time though I think the best thing to do is to just start over at the very beginning with the so-called fixed coordinate system of three dimensions after all the fixed 3d coordinate system is our basic framework of numbers and magnitudes indeed it's the framework upon which we have built our modern technology like women in a worldwide sewing circle constructing various quilts by means of quilting frames mathematicians and physicists worldwide have worked together to sew the intricate patterns of modern physical concepts into frames of the 3d fixed reference system interestingly enough though is the fact that for the scientists with their functions and variables as well as for the ladies with their needles and threads the most important and central principle of their work is the principle of symmetry so here is Peter Voigt a passionate member of the inner circle of theorists standing up at the edge of the frame so to speak to complain about the lack of clear symmetry principles in the latest work of the group I don't get it we can almost hear him saying this new pattern we can imagine him walking around the frame pointing out how the intricate needlework gorgeous and elaborate as it is in places is just not driven by a symmetrical approach overall as a whole but we can imagine someone like David gross protesting the overall symmetry doesn't matter because you can't see the darn thing as a whole anyway the only thing that really matters is the local symmetry which everyone must admit is breathtaking well of course Peter and all those who agree with him are not convinced at all by this argument yet what can they do to go back now and start over is unthinkable but at the same time to find a principle which would serve to unify all the independent patterns into one symmetrical pattern seems impossible at this at least at this advanced stage of the work nevertheless it's not the case for a mature but honest investigators like Larson as he so eloquently pointed out the amateur investigator has no vested interest in the current fabric of mainstream theory and he is free to start from the beginning certainly Larson is not the only one to recognize this in fact so many amateurs have tried their hand at coming up with their own alternative that their ranks have become Legion but they are usually summarily and derisive ly dismissed by the professional craftsman as naive with hopeless a lack of proficiency in the essential skills to work on the elaborate quilt and Larson of course is no exception to this classification of so-called cranks nevertheless and notwithstanding the lack of interest of the professionals and amateur suggestions Larson's approach should not be lightly dismissed which I would invite my guest guests to discuss at this point if we had any but no one has been able to connect with us so we'll just have to go on in a lecture typeform I wanted a format to be more to be less formal and so that we can get into an actual discussion of these things but it's been a little bit difficult I guess to get people to join in at least at this point hopefully in the future we'll we'll be able to get more people involved but Larsen's approach should not be lightly dismissed if for no other reason than because his suggestion is completely and totally different than all the others in effect he suggests that the sought for global symmetry which can accommodate the desired local symmetry can indeed be found but only if we modify the fixed 3d reference frame first since historically modifying this frame itself in appropriate ways has always led to the greatest advances in physical theory this alone ought to get the attention of the pros unfortunately however Larsen never clearly understood how his modification of the frame worked mathematically indeed he always insisted that his new non fixed frame of reference was consonant with existing mathematics but as we have discovered since here at the LRC this is far from the case the truth is his new non fixed 3d frame of reference constitutes a revolutionary new approach to mathematics of the reference frame the mathematics of the reference frame which completely transcends the transformations of the past the fundamental reason that this is so is in Larson's recognition of the reciprocity of space and time where any defined space and time as nothing more or less than the reciprocal aspects of motion of changing magnitudes in the equation of motion applies equally well to rational numbers in general what we call scalar quantities or zero dimensional numbers are best understood as reciprocal aspects of positive and negative magnitudes in other words the observed properties of physical magnitudes quantity duality and dimension are also the properties of abstract numbers when these are understood as the ancients understood them as two reciprocal aspects of magnitude the whole world changes with this exceedingly simple change in our most fundamental abstract concept so obvious yet so revolutionary we can actually construct a new totally different non fixed 3d frame of reference that Larsen called a natural frame of reference upon which to build beautifully symmetric patterns of physical theory that contain all the local fixed frame variations than in China so and to do so we can do so without sacrificing the overall symmetry of the quilt so to speak well that's a mouthful the key to understanding how all of this works is found in understanding what we call the operational interpretation of the rational number where the defining operation is the reciprocal relation of rational numbers just described given the o.i number operational interpreted number we can form both negative and positive numbers and 0 of more than one dimension without the use of imaginary numbers one of the most important things that this then does for us is to give us a better handle on the abstraction of the infinity and infinity which promises to help us to eventually extricate ourselves from the horns of the continuous / discrete dilemma which has so exasperated modern man's difficulties in constructing consistent physical theory good overview of the history of this drama is given in the playlist of videos named quote important outside presentations quote which is found on our YouTube channel so you can go there and watch these videos there's not a whole lot of them there's currently there three of them and the first one is this lecture by David gross entitled the coming revolution in theoretical physics the second is the lecture by Lee Smolin entitled physics in trouble why the public should care and the third is by Joe polchinski entitled gravity and quantum mechanics the quest for unification well these prominent scientists giving these lectures are all theoretical physicists two of them are prize-winning theorists and the picture of what we now call the legacy system of theoretical physics or the LST which emerges from these lectures is not very pretty I think it clearly shows that the quest for the unification of quantum mechanical theory and the space-time gravitational theory of the Einstein has uncovered more than the lack of understanding they're very fast the very small and the very massive but as David gross stresses and this is a quote of his that I took from an NPR interview a few years back where he says a lot of us are waiting for such a new idea that will give us an alternative to our traditional notion of space and time perhaps or perhaps some other new idea something is missing though something that is most likely not just another technical development another improvement here or there but something that truly breaks with the past and all the indications are that it has to do with the nature of space and time well here at the LRC we believe that we know exactly what that new idea is which grouse identifies as an alternate to our traditional notion of space and time that truly breaks with the past the new understanding the nature of space and time is that they are two reciprocal aspects of the same thing motion distance is not a space or a time magnitude but a space and the time magnitude or a motion which you can prove because you can't measure it without motion you can't measure space without moving something or without observing something that is moving it might be a yardstick that you have to move in the end in between two different points or it may be a laser that has to move a laser light that beam that has to move between two points or a sound way that has to move between two points or some other way but you have to use both space and time in order to measure either one and it's just not possible then to say that there is space or that there is time outside this relationship of space and time the only known relationship of which is motion so this idea then that the various positions in in what we call space that are distant from one another are just the history of the motion it took to move them there this simple but revolutionary new idea is the foundation of a whole new system of physical theory called the reciprocal system of physical theory or the RS T which is the work of Dewey beat Larson the late Dewey be Larson the full name of the Larson Research Center where the LRC is the Dewey B Larson Memorial Research Center it was established as an institute of studies in theoretical physics based on mr. Larson's reciprocal system of physical theory the theoretical investigations of the LRC investigate the consequences of the assumption that the universe not a container of matter framed by 3d space evolving over time as is necessary in the theory of quantum mechanics nor that it consists of a 4d space-time continuum interacting with matter as posited in the theory of general relativity the new assumption is that everything including matter energy and even space-time itself consists of nothing but discrete units of a newly identified motion called scalar motion with its two reciprocal aspects of space and time related in the familiar equation of motion v equals DS over DT in other words velocity is equal to the change in space over change in time discrete units of this theoretical motion and combination of these units combinations various combinations of these units combined to form photons of varying frequencies which then propagate outward from matter as radiation and form combinations of subatomic and atomic entities of matter and antimatter with different spin charge and magnetic properties which gravitate as entities of matter but are convertible into energy according to the established principles of symmetry and laws of conservation however unlike in the case of the familiar motion of everyday objects or what we call vectorial motion in this case the discrete units of scalar motion do not require a change in the location of an object to define motion as distance over time but rather it is assumed that the space aspect of this motion increases naturally in exer Eligius as its time aspect does it assumes that a continuous march of space exists measurable by a space clock which in conjunction with the continuous march of time measurable by a time clock the fines a universal motion or space and time progression the continuous ticking if you will of these two clocks constitutes the initial condition of the theoretical universe of motion well that was in the time when Larson invented it but of course since then it was discovered that we can observe the expansion of space and time this progression is universal we see that space is literally increasing as time increases and we'll get into that in our future lectures we covered a little bit of it in the past lectures if you want to go back and watch those as I said that are on our YouTube channel well what this means then is that the new system is a system of scalar magnitudes not a system of vector magnitudes as we are used to in physics in the legacy system of physics and in our modern physics vectors are directed magnitudes while scalars are not directed magnitudes that is scalar magnitudes do not have a single direction that can be defined in terms of three dimensions in a fixed reference system consequently in a three-dimensional physical system scalar magnitudes of motion are magnitudes of motion in all three dimensions simultaneously or magnitudes of volume only as viewed in a three-d fixed coordinate system since the entire field of theoretical physics is only dealt with vector magnitudes of motion from Newton's day to this a change in the system of physical theory from a vector based system of motion to a scalar based system of motion constitutes a significant new direction in the traditional program of theoretical research originally established by Sir Isaac Newton to make this important distinction in the work of the LRC we refer to the vector-based system as the legacy system of physical theory or the LST legacy system of physical theory now in mathematics there are exactly four norm division algebra the real numbers the complex numbers the quaternions and octonions corresponding to the four elements of geometry the point align the area in the volume as the dimension n of the numbers in these four dimensional systems is increased from zero to three unfortunately however the algebra is of these systems lose their distributive commutative and associative properties one by one as n increases as the dimensions increase until for N equals three dimensions none of these important algebraic properties remain we suspect that the reason for this is the use of the ad hoc convention of imaginary numbers in the definitions of these four number systems imaginary number Basin area number base numbers like vector magnitudes have direction but scalar numbers like scalar magnitudes do not have direction they have a duality however that we call direction with quotes instead of simply or they have that quote direction and rather than the direction that we're normally used to and the is simply defined in terms of less than and greater than a unit ratio so this is very important where we have 1 over 1 we can have 1 over 2 which is less than 1 and we can have 2 over 1 which is 1 unit both above and below the unit and we've arbitrarily you know there one's the inverse of the other and we can call talked about them in terms of fractions but in reality there are 2 different directions of the man inherent in nature well anyway we'll get more into that in our upcoming lectures but we don't want to deal with the details of it tonight but the consequence of all this is that the physics of scalar motion cannot use the multi-dimensional mathematics of vectors and spinners but must use the multi-dimensional mathematics of scalars which is a new concept in mathematics and since the entire field of algebra and geometry has only dealt with imaginary number based systems from Hamilton's day to this a change in the number system of modern mathematics from multi-dimensional imaginary number based systems to multi dimensional scalar number based system constitutes a significant new direction relative to the traditional program of mathematics originally established by Hamilton Heaviside Gibbs and others to make this important distinction in the work of the LRC we refer to the multi-dimensional imaginary number based system as the legacy system of mathematics or the LSM so we've got the LST for the legacy system of physical theory and we have the LSM to refer to the legacy system of mathematics but the point is is they both use vectors they're all based on vectors their algebra is based on imaginary numbers to obtain vectors in various dimensions but now one of the strongest arguments that Larsson proffered was actually a philosophical argument he made a case against what he called inventive science in favor of inductive science which is based on the facts of observation unfortunately throughout history new observations have upset the inventive science of men and of course the most instructive case of this is still extant and it's that of the Greeks whose invention of epicycles to explain the motion of the planets is the most clear example of all this however while Larson's case against an mint if science is one that ought to be taught in universities it seems to still be the mode of the day unfortunately with major figures in science such as Einstein openly admitting their recourse to it unabashedly today an inventive science is building upon inventive science and the results are the current controversies articulated by Lee Smolin and Peter void in their protests against string theory which caused such a stir a few years ago when their books that trouble with physics and not even wrong first came out nevertheless the inventions though well-meaning continue unabated let's watch a clip from Joe polchinski his video that I posted on our YouTube channel which I mentioned earlier to see what we're talking about so each of these three extremes very fast very massive and very small is the arena for one of the great theories of physics special relativity general relativity quantum mechanics these were the three revolutions in physics from the last century and each of these theories is now tested very very well and these three theories provide for us still the basic framework for our understanding of space and time and matter and even in quantum mechanics reality of course these are all about a hundred years old you'll notice a long time but the good news for those of us who are still working in the field and want to do something interesting is that these revolutions aren't complete we know that because if you think about it discovering these three new theories really opens up three new questions we've understood the very fast they're already massive and very small but for example what if an object is both very fast and very small what if we have to deal at the same time with both the strangeness of special relativity and the Strange's of to mechanics and that's a very good question that's a very deep question and the first person to address it was Paul Dirac so that was a very fruitful question but that wasn't really the that wasn't the end of the story this problem of unifying special relativity and quantum mechanics went on after Dirac it actually required that we develop a sort of a whole new mathematical language quantum field theory and this unification was also the key to formulating the standard model which is the name given to our our basic theory of matter the standard model was formulated around 40 years ago and just as Dirac predicted a new particle the standard model predicted well when you start counting five new particles and one by one they've been discovered the gluon then the W and Z bosons then the top quark and just this past year the Higgs boson now putting together the standard model was a bit more involved than what Dirac had to do Dirac really just had to do what I described on one slide to understand the standard model it required additional experimental data it required additional theoretical ideas but really the fact that this theory had to incorporate both special relativity and the quantum principle was a very strong constraint on what it could be it really is what it's the reason why one could find this theory with such precision and predict five particles predict their detailed properties and get it right so this is a fantastic well this is a fantastic example both of humans ability to figure things out and also their ability to go in in the end do the experiments because these two are heroic experiments to discover these particles and it's worth mentioning that physicists at UCSB played major roles both in the theory side and in many of these discoveries so so the the the problem of the very fast and very small together has been a very fruitful one but there's two more pairs to consider what if an object is both very fast and very massive and that turns out to be an easy one because when Einstein first wrote down general relativity special relativity was built-in so he answered that all at once the the interesting pair the one that we're still the one that this talk is about the one that we're still so puzzled by today is what happens if an object is both very small and very massive or all three small massive and fast and this is the problem of quantum gravity quantum for small gravity for massive now you might ask isn't this a contradiction can something be both very small and very massive and so I'll mention some places where this can happen first of all it can happen in particle collisions at extremely high energies so particle physicists like to bang particles together and I'll be saying more about this later on but but if you collide them hard enough you will get into this regime where again you have both the very small and the very massive a second place where this comes up so the universe we know is expanding if we follow it back in time it was becoming smaller and denser and in fact observational e-1 can follow this back remarkably far to a time when the universe was vastly smaller and vastly more dense than it is today very close very close to this regime of quantum gravity where both quantum mechanics and general relativity the small and the massive are acting at the same time and as more precise observations come up we get closer and closer to that regime so understand understanding the unification of the very theories of the small and the massive is also a key to understanding how the Big Bang began and finally there are those black holes that I mentioned and if you follow the black hole to its final fate it ends up as far as any theory we have now crunched down to a point and so you have there something which is truly a massive and small and so here are three places where you have to worry about both of those theories at once now all of these all of these experiments or regimes are very far for all of these things I've described are really very far from direct experiment maybe it's getting closer with the early universe but there's still really very far from direct experiment and so to to do what we want to do we have to rely heavily on theoretical reasoning the way Dirac did now I described what directed and when it sounded like and what it basically was but something he sat around fiddling with equations and you might imagine that that's what a theoretical theoretical physicist at all does all day sit around in fiddling with equations and it's sort of true but Dirac was an especially pure physicist in many ways he was very mathematical and there are other kinds of reasoning that are very useful and I want to talk about a particular kind of reasoning which which is extremely valuable known as a thought experiment which had been employed by many people and to illustrate what this is and how it works I want to tell you about my favorite thought experiment which is the one that James Clerk Maxwell used to figure out the laws of electromagnetism so here are more equations but it's ok because they're on a t-shirt and these are the equations when maxwell was done when we started he had something less than this so i've covered up you'll see one perm and the bit about the like oh this is the equations as they came to him and these equations were discovered by and large in experiments in fact they they kevin may these um these terms on the right each have a name this says that electric so these are the equations that describe the behavior of electric and magnetic fields well this term says that electric charges make electric fields in a certain way and this term says that electric currents make magnetic fields and this term says that it's another way to make electric fields which is if you have a magnetic field and it's oscillating or changing in time and again either all found experimentally they agree with the data but there's something wrong with these equations as they stand they actually don't make sense if you push them far enough and so maxwell expose this with a simple thought experiment here's the thought experiment it's a simple circuit so you've got a battery and why are in a switch and then you have a break in the wire and then a couple of plates capacitor plates we have a break in the wire with hubble metal plates at the break and the experiment is first of all just to close the switch and when you close the switch the battery starts pushing on the charges and the current starts to flow and at the gap here they can't cross over and this so they pile up for a little while at those plates okay so experiment its first picked to close the switch and then to measure the magnetic field act that X there and the problem is if you do that and you try to use the equations that were there before Maxwell you don't get a sensible answer you can solve them in two different ways and get two different answers for the magnetic field so there is something wrong with those equations this this thought experiment suppose it and with a little bit of with a little bit of trial and error and actually actually more than that with a certain amount of sort of modeling and guesswork Maxwell figured out that he could fix them by adding in one more piece and now these equations are all perfectly consistent and he got as directed and unexpected bonus because he set out to explain the laws of electricity and magnetism and there's this law that says a magnetic field can produce an electric field and there's this this new law of his which says that electric field can produce magnetic field and so now you get one producing the other you get not a chain reaction but you get an endless wave in fact of electro kinetic fields and if you when you when you solve these equations you find that that wave moves at the speed of light and suddenly he had real I he realized that he understood nature of light which he hadn't set to do out to do at all it just popped out of his understanding of electricity and magnetism not only light but this also predicts the entire electromagnetic spectrum which was at that time unsuspected from radio waves on up to x-rays and gamma rays so when I when I heard about this and I learned about this I I thought this was pretty much the greatest thing ever to to understand the nature of light by this kind of reasoning and and I said that's what I want to do and I still feel that way now you might ask why was just a thought experiment why wasn't this a real experiment well it's a good reason because in order to actually measure that term you would have to actually open and close the switch very fast you would have to open and close the switch in about a billion of a second a nanosecond and you can imagine that was rather hard to do and so this term this is this was not discovered experi was discovered by the kind of reasoning I described 25 years later Heinrich Hertz figured out how to open and close a switch on a nanosecond time scale and confirmed Maxwell's equations okay so that's the nanosecond time scale now the pro of quantum gravity to probe it directly one has to get to the nano nano nano nano nanosecond time scale now how do we know that well as follows I told you there are these three theories these three revolutions and each of these revolutions comes with its own constant of nature so when I say when I say relative relativity sets in when things move very fast you can ask how fast well close to the speed of light so see here is our notation for the speed of light that's one of the basic constants for quantum mechanics it operates when things are small how small Planck's constant tells you how small and finally gravity very massive how massive Newton's constant the gravitational constant tells you how massive so each of those three theories comes with a concept of nature and now it turns out if you want to construct a time if you want to construct something if you want something which is measured in seconds there's a unique way to combine these three constants here it is kind of funny-looking with it but that's what it's there's a unique way to combine these three constants to get something that you would measure in seconds and when you do that the number of seconds the scale of this their theory is again a nano to the fifth second so so so this is the kind of reasoning that tells us that just as just as well that we needed nanoseconds to test Maxwell's equations we need five nanos to get to to get to quantum gravity that's to jános too many the LHC the LHC can get - roughly a nano nano nanosecond so our most powerful particle accelerator which has been operating in Geneva for the last few years pros physics at roughly a nano nano nanosecond so much better than Hertz but still well short of what we need for quantum gravity and so once again we're going to have to rely on thought experiments and there's a reason why this might be a profitable way to proceed and to explain it so that means let me go back to Maxwell and think about why he was able to succeed why was he able to complete these equations without any without experimental data but just by theoretical reasoning well it was partly because it was really because the experimentalist had already did most of the work they'd found three of the terms he just had to figure out the fourth one now actually it's a little bit harder than I made it look here because the way I've written these equations is the way we write them today 100 150 years ago there was much less sense of how to think about these things the equations were in much longer and Messier forms and it was really much less obvious what their content was so it wasn't quite as simple as just as just writing that but but really the way he you see thought experiments are very useful if you have most of the picture and you're just trying to fit it in the last few puzzle pieces they help you they help you figure it this is one of the times they're useful in other ways as well as I'll talk about but one of the ways they're useful is if you already know a lot and you're trying to fit the things that you know together and in some ways that's where we are in quantum gravity we have quantum mechanics it's a very well tested theory we have Skinner relativity another very well tested theory and so using thought experiments I told you about these extreme regimes where quantum mechanics and gravity both operate at the same time by thinking about by not by thinking about what happens in these regimes we can as with Maxwell figure out where the two theories don't fit together well he goes on to show how their thought experiments as he calls them on black holes have brought the conflict of quantum mechanics and general relativity to a head but in terms only the most dedicated specialists can understand it is results from these thought experiments that David gross now tells us the space and time as they are now understood are doomed well it's interesting to see what happened how they think and as he said they're trying to figure things out but they don't realize that they're inventing things and they think they're on solid ground but they don't understand this issue very clearly that they're working from things like because they think they've proved them just like in the days of epicycles it was proven by the results that their thinking was correct but of course it was totally the concept was totally without merit but they didn't know that until the knowledge that made it clear came forth but the fest so the fact is that now without a knowledge of a few important observations these modern scientists just keep getting wound tighter and tighter around the theoretical axle they don't know that space is the reciprocal of time that the properties of one are the properties of the other and that they have no meaning apart from their nature as to different aspects of the same thing the modern theorists have no idea that the concept of force as an autonomous independent entity does not exist that it's simply a quantity of acceleration that has been defined by Newton they have no idea that scalar motion is an observation not an invention and that it deserves to be studied and investigated apart from the vector motion of inventive science they don't have any idea of any of the things and so there they're thinking is not inductive in that sense based on the latest observations but it's based on their concepts invented concepts like space-time that's an invented concept and then they go on to see it being warped by gravity intense massive gravitational objects and so then the black hole so-called invented science then an invention of an invention is develops and then you have the singularity at the bottom and and so they use their mathematics to study these things you can watch the entire video and see what I'm talking about but eventually you know how they drew that picture of the black hole funnel coming to a point at the end well eventually it gets clipped off near the top and space disappears and that's why David Gross is saying that space is emergent and therefore and if space is emergent time must be emergent and therefore they're both are doomed well those both the concepts are doomed I think the concept that is actually doing or the invented concepts but the thing is Larsen's talk on the dangers of inventing science is available on our LRC physics YouTube channel and well worth watching but the point I want to stress tonight is that sir Rowan Hamilton the father of vector algebra and quaternions in the mid-1800s recognized the same thing in mathematics said he quote for it is not faired with the principles of algebra as with the principles of geometry no candid and intelligent person can doubt the truth of the chief properties of parallel lines as set forth by Euclid in his elements 2,000 years ago though he may well desire to see them treated in a clearer and better method the doctrine involves no obscurity nor confusion of and Lee's in the mind no reasonable ground for doubt although ingenuity may usefully be exercised in improving the plan of the argument but it requires no peculiar skepticism to doubt or even to disbelieve the doctrine of negatives and imaginaries when set forth as it has commonly been with principles like these that a greater magnitude may be subtracted from a less and that the remainder is less than nothing that two negative numbers or numbers denoting magnitudes each less than nothing may be multiplied the one by the other and that the product will be a positive number or a number denoting a magnitude greater than nothing and that although the square of a number or the product obtained by multiplying that number by itself is therefore always positive whether the number be positive or negative yet that number yet that numbers called imaginary can be found or conceived or determined and operated on by all the rules of positive and negative numbers as if they were subject to those rules although they have negative squares and must therefore be supposed to be themselves neither positive nor negative nor yet null numbers so that the magnitudes which they are supposed to denote can either be greater than nothing nor less than nothing nor even equal to nothing it must be hard to found a science on such grounds disease though the forms of logic may build up from them a symmetrical system of expressions and the practical art may be learned of rightly applying useful rules which seem to depend upon them yeah that's the problem now close quote in other words Hamilton was complaining that algebra was an inventive science not an inductive one I wish Larson could have read this maybe he did I don't know and haven't understood that what he observed about inventive science and it's effects in the physical sciences Hamilton had likewise seen in the mathematics of algebra in the next lecture that's we've scheduled now for next week at the same time on the honest investigators talk shop program I will be presenting the beginning of a new inductive approach to mathematics which is in reality a new approach to the unification of the algebra of mathematics to go along with our new approach to theoretical physics and it is thus a return to inductive science in both cases well so that's it and till next week this same time 7:00 p.m. on Saturday evening we will say goodbye till then thanks