Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in MathematicsLearn Science on mps-science.com. Superultramodern Science (SS) and The Millennium Problems in Mathematics article will help answer your questions on Science.We at mps-science.com specialize in Science. Science at mps-science.com provides the most up to date news and articles. If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
In this article I address 3 of the 7 millennium problems in mathematics announced by the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI), USA. Also it has to be considered that according to Conmathematics (Conceptual Mathematics) : the superultramdoern mathematical science, the superultramodern scientific solutions to the problems are, though apparently philosophical, in fact, mathematical. The successful use of Yang-Mills theory to describe the strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property called the 'mass gap:' the quantum particles have positive masses, even though the classical waves travel at the speed of light. This is an example of what computer scientists call an NP-problem, since it is easy to check if a given choice of one hundred students proposed by a coworker is satisfactory (i.e., no pair from taken from your coworker's list also appears on the list from the Dean's office), however the task of generating such a list from scratch seems to be so hard as to be completely impractical. SS solution : According to the NSTP theory, one of the major of components of SS, all problems which, in principle, have answers are, in fact, P problems. Article: In this staple I comportment 3 of the 7 millennium problems in mathematics published by the Clay Mathematics Institute (CMI), USA. I propose solutions (not all of which are meant to be conclusive) to the problems using the ideas in Superultramodern Science (SS), which is my foremost creation. (The remaining 4 problems seem to be outside the scope of SS.) It is of utmost importance to note that the nature of the ideas and consequently of the solutions is very radical and it would take painstaking efforts to fully understand and assimilate the solutions proposed. Also it has to be considered that in unison to Conmathematics (Conceptual Mathematics) : the superultramdoern mathematical science, the superultramodern scientific solutions to the problems are, though manifestly philosophical, in fact, mathematical. Virtually all of the 3 problems are such that they demand revolutionary changes in the current (modern/ultramodern) sciences. And SS is thought to be an take change. I shall state the problems exactly as they are stated on the website of the CMI. However, the statements are the ones which are blunt and not the ones that are official and descriptive. This fit is out of the revolutionary nature of the solutions which makes it senseless to consider the conventional or orthodox symbolic patterns which essentially make the (official) statements look complicated and descriptive. 1. Yang - Mills Theory The laws of quantum physics stand to the world of elementary particles in the way that Newton's laws of restrained mechanics stand to the macroscopic world. not quite half a nickel 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 now the 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 describe the strong interactions of elementary particles depends on a subtle quantum mechanical property the 'mass gap:' the quantum particles have positive masses, even though the consummate waves travel at the 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 establishing the existence of the Yang-Mills theory and a mass gap and will require the introduction of fundamental new ideas both in physics and in mathematics. SS solution : I suppose that light, for example, is a medieval wave and photon, for example, is a quantum particle. It’s an a priori principle in modern/ultramodern science (relativity theory) that no massive entity travels at (or above) the speed of light. From the Superultramodern Scientific perspective [in particular, the 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 in the form of non-spatial states of consciousness/feelings. To sum up, wave -particle play is an orderly governed illusion where the massive quantum particles do not really travel in space but are presented at the time of wave collapse. 2. Poincare Conjecture If we stretch a rubber band about the surface of an apple, then we can shrink it down to a point by moving it slowly, without tearing it and without admission it to leave the surface. On the other hand, if we imagine that the same rubber band has somehow been stretched in the quintessential direction everywhere a doughnut, then there is no way of shrinking it to a point without drill either the rubber band or the doughnut. We say the surface of the fruit is 'simply connected,' but that the surface of the doughnut is not. Poincaré, nearly a hundred years ago, knew that a two dimensional sphere is essentially characterized by this property of simple connectivity, and asked the corresponding question for the three dimensional sphere (the set of points in four dimensional space at unit distance from the origin). This question turned out to be extraordinarily difficult, and mathematicians have been struggling with it ever since. SS solution : According to the Joshian conjecture in Superultramdoern Science (SS), that space has 3 and only 3 spatial dimensions, the concept of three dimensional sphere (and consequently Poincare conjecture itself) is absurd. 3. P vs NP Suppose that you are organizing housing facilities for a group of four hundred university students. Space is limited and only one hundred of the students will receive places in the dormitory. To complicate matters, the Dean has provided you with a list of pairs of incompatible students, and requested that no pair from this list be noticeable in your final choice. This is an example of what computer scientists call an NP-problem, since it is easy to rent if a given discrimination of one hundred students proposed by a coworker is satisfactory (i.e., no pair from taken from your coworker's list also appears on the list from the Dean's office), however the task of generating such a list from scratch seems to be so hard as to be completely impractical. Indeed, the total number of ways of particular one hundred students from the four hundred applicants is greater than the number of substance in the known universe! Thus no future culture area could ever hope to huff a supercomputer worthy of solving the problem by unreasoning force; that is, by obstruction every possible make-up of 100 students. However, this explicit difficulty may only reflect the lack of ingenuity of your programmer. In fact, one of the outstanding problems in computer science is determining whether questions exist whose go together can be quickly checked, but which require an impossibly long time to solve by any direct procedure. Problems like the one listed similarly most certainly seem to be of this kind, but so far no one has managed to prove that any of them really are so hard as they appear, i.e., that there really is no feasible way to generate an benefit with the help of a computer. Stephen Cook and Leonid Levin formulated the P (i.e., easy to find) versus NP (i.e., easy to check) problem independently in 1971. SS solution : According to the NSTP theory, one of the major of components of SS, all problems which, in principle, have answers are, in fact, P problems. This implication is based on the idea of the non - spatial superhuman computer that takes zero time to process information.
|
Advice Home Business Technology Online Advertising Motivational Internet Marketing SEO Help Online Games Science Articles Happiness More Articles:1. Big Bang or Lots of Big Fire Crackers? By Lance Winslow Summary: Yet they say that each boundary is not flat but bumpy and as each boundary touches a piece of another boundary they create events which lead to the creation of debris and matter we know as planets, suns, quasars, black holes, etc..If the universe is expanding and then it contracts back together it would not come into a super small piece of matter, since as itArticle: There are many who talk on the Big Bang Theory. when no one can be sure what went bang? Steven Hawking suggests it does … 2. Tracing Patterns in Nature Backwards By Lance Winslow Summary: Not so, actually the weather is made of forces and other patterns interacting upon it, meaning it is fully predicable once you understand all those forces and their origins.Are patterns of erosion completely predictable to the point we can estimate the origin or starting point of the pattern, the original equation or the original set of components, which starArticle: There are many predicable patterns in nature, even the wind is predicable when it appears to be a complex and infinitely… 3. Should We Allow The Genetic Modification of Insects? By Lance Winslow Summary: Genetically modified Mosquitoes to hang out next to genetically modified corn and eaten by genetically modified bats who are hardly bothered by the genetically modified people whose mitochondria DNA is modified so they do not need oxygen as much therefore the problems of pollution are not important and no one still no one ever gets malaria or West Nile Virus? EveryoArticle: Some scientists denote over creation, intelligent design and evolution. Others speak out did man create god or di… 4. The why behind `1+1=2 Summary: Although I only received one reply ' which came from Dr. Brad Carter of the University of Southern Queensland, thanks to thee ' I knew that the answer that I was provided with matched (and even overlapped ' see below) my original idea upon this complex question of why 1 and 1 makes 2.My original thoughts were roughly as stated below:'Somebody wanted to give the number '1' the name 'one.' He also wanted to give the number '2' the name 'two'. The best part of it though is if a question ha… |
||||
