Scientists, and many other people, have pondered this question. This article - (PDF) Graviton-Photon Interaction and Mass Generation: A Vector-Tensor-Scalar Geometry Approach (researchgate.net) - speaks of retarded and advanced gravitational and electromagnetic waves which respectively travel forwards and back in time, cancelling each other and entangling particles throughout the universe (the physicist Richard Feynman loved advanced waves). It also says particles are thus united into one place in space-time and the idea of their existing in two spots, or times, at once is an outlook resulting from perception of all things and events as distinct and separate. As page 12 of the article puts it, “An alternative interpretation might see these particles unified into a singular entity by the action of advanced and retarded waves, leading to a concept we might call “unipositionality”, drawing from the Latin ’unus’ meaning one.”
If we accept the articles’ propositions, all of space-time plus its contents would be a single entity – a step towards a Unified Field Theory, a Theory of Everything or Quantum Gravity - and the equation 1+1=2 (and presumably every other equation, no matter how complex) appears at first glance to be obviously impossible. Yet those same equations do describe the world and universe remarkably accurately. Is there another explanation besides the apparent one – someday there will be a human civilization that can build their mathematics into the creation, structure, and functioning of life and the cosmos. Emotion may well declare this an absurdity and we might retreat to things like quantum fluctuation or spontaneous creation from nothing. Logically – using Einstein’s nonlinear, curved time added to limitless advance of human potential through the eons – the absurdity is plausible.
They dont, not unless you specifically model with the adequate math, some specific physics problem where
its relevant. Then the ideas of the physics model in no way are immediately compatible with mathematics, you have to scrounge around for the correct combination.
In practice you use many particle wave functions, if interacting particles, the wave function cannot
be factored out as a product of single particle ones. You have then to know some physics, the Fermi or Bose
statistics. Its not that easy, unless very few particles, or use stat mech for many.
That natural phenomena are described by mathematics doesn't imply that all or any mathematical structures describe natural phenomena. Which mathematical notions describe which natural phenomena isn't by any means obvious and is a subject of research. It's necessary to learn which are appropriate and which are not.
These articles might be useful:
https://inference-review.com/article/a-view-from-the-bridge
https://inference-review.com/article/reflections-on-an-essay-by-wigner
Regarding ``why?'' questions, this discussion with Feynman should be kept in mind: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1lL-hXO27Q
Even though mathematics is a universal language, before it can do that, there must be a mastery of abstraction, logico-mathematical, to certain degree cognitive components, etc. within an observer to qualify such good qualities
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Waves