Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in Mathematics

Written by Dr Kedar Joshi PBSSI MRI

In this article I address 3 ofrepparttar 7 millennium problems in mathematics announced byrepparttar 105809 Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI), USA. I propose solutions (not all of which are meant to be conclusive) torepparttar 105810 problems usingrepparttar 105811 ideas in Superultramodern Science (SS), which is my foremost creation. (The remaining 4 problems seem to be outsiderepparttar 105812 scope of SS.) It is of utmost importance to note thatrepparttar 105813 nature ofrepparttar 105814 ideas and consequently ofrepparttar 105815 solutions is very radical and it would take painstaking efforts to fully understand and appreciaterepparttar 105816 solutions proposed. Also it has to be considered that according to Conmathematics (Conceptual Mathematics) :repparttar 105817 superultramdoern mathematical science,repparttar 105818 superultramodern scientific solutions torepparttar 105819 problems are, though apparently philosophical, in fact, mathematical. Virtually all ofrepparttar 105820 3 problems are such that they demand revolutionary changes inrepparttar 105821 current (modern/ultramodern) sciences. And SS is thought to be an appropriate change. I shall staterepparttar 105822 problems exactly as they are stated onrepparttar 105823 website ofrepparttar 105824 CMI. However,repparttar 105825 statements arerepparttar 105826 ones which are brief and notrepparttar 105827 ones that are official and descriptive. This choice is out ofrepparttar 105828 revolutionary nature ofrepparttar 105829 solutions which makes it senseless to considerrepparttar 105830 conventional or orthodox symbolic patterns which essentially makerepparttar 105831 (official) statements look complicated and descriptive.

1. Yang - Mills Theory The laws of quantum physics stand torepparttar 105832 world of elementary particles inrepparttar 105833 way that Newton's laws of classical mechanics stand torepparttar 105834 macroscopic world. Almost half a century ago, Yang and Mills introduced a remarkable new framework to describe elementary particles using structures that also occur in geometry. Quantum Yang-Mills theory is nowrepparttar 105835 foundation of most of elementary particle theory, and its predictions have been tested at many experimental laboratories, but its mathematical foundation is still unclear. The successful use of Yang-Mills theory to describerepparttar 105836 strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property calledrepparttar 105837 "mass gap:"repparttar 105838 quantum particles have positive masses, even thoughrepparttar 105839 classical waves travel atrepparttar 105840 speed of light. This property has been discovered by physicists from experiment and confirmed by computer simulations, but it still has not been understood from a theoretical point of view. Progress in establishingrepparttar 105841 existence ofrepparttar 105842 Yang-Mills theory and a mass gap and will requirerepparttar 105843 introduction of fundamental new ideas both in physics and in mathematics.

SS solution : I suppose that light, for example, is a classical wave and photon, for example, is a quantum particle. It’s an assumption in modern/ultramodern science (relativity theory) that no massive entity travels at (or above)repparttar 105844 speed of light. Fromrepparttar 105845 Superultramodern Scientific perspective [in particular,repparttar 105846 NSTP (Non - Spatial Thinking Process) theoretical perspective] space is a form of illusion, mass is bulk or quantity of matter, wave and particle are two conceptually distinct entities existing inrepparttar 105847 form of non-spatial states of consciousness/feelings. To sum up, wave -particle behaviour is an orderly governed illusion whererepparttar 105848 massive quantum particles do not really travel in space but are presented atrepparttar 105849 time of wave collapse.

Disproves God...

Written by Terry Dashner

Disproves God…

Terry Dashner………………Faith Fellowship Church PO Box 1586 Broken Arrow, OK 74013

Can scientific discovery disprove God? If that question seems awkward, let me state it like this: Does science prove God’s existence? If science can, then scientific discovery is higher, superior to God. Or inrepparttar words ofrepparttar 105808 19th century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, “God is dead…” and since He is dead, live like it. Everything goes.

Before I get carried away in thought, let me make this thesis statement. The purpose of scientific discovery is not to prove or disprove God, but to expand knowledge. St Thomas Aquinas,repparttar 105809 most brilliant man to live betweenrepparttar 105810 time of Aristotle and Descartes, talked about reason and faith. One does not contradictrepparttar 105811 other because both are from God. Not only is Christrepparttar 105812 beginning andrepparttar 105813 end of our faith, butrepparttar 105814 Bible declares that “every good and perfect gift” comes from God. Knowledge is good; therefore it comes from God. Human reason can lead us far in this life, and well it should. Then again, faith can take us above all earthly knowledge intorepparttar 105815 courtyards of God. When my understanding breaks down, I can always advance forward by my faith in God.

Are you hearing me? One of my favorite authors, and I have many, is Peter Kreeft. He is an intelligent philosopher who teaches philosophy at Boston College, I believe. He writes wonderful books about philosophy and faith and I buy everyone of them. (Some of them I read often.) Peter, in his book entitled, Your Questions God’s Answers, writesrepparttar 105816 following words of interest. “But do not let yourself be intimidated by atheists who claim that science disproves God. That is like claiming that studying Shakespeare’s plays disproves Shakespeare. If there were no God, there would be no science, because there would be no world for science to know.

Cont'd on page 2 ==> © 2005
Terms of Use