Me, Math and the Internet (5)

PART FIVE:
CONCLUSION

What can be learned from the experiences I mentioned above? I think there are two lessons: philosophical and mathematical. The first lesson is that a philosophical concept in our heads evolves in a living dialogue in which we live, including those on the Internet. The dialogue was basically thinking together. In thinking together we get new perspectives. The synthesis of perspectives that is a progression in thinking none other than an internal dialogue. Similarly, the achievement of consensus in external dialogues, internal synthesis which typically generates an intellectual satisfaction.  

Second lesson, for a math world explorer as I am, to be ready to face the collapse of assumptions that had since long time and he thought as an absolute truth. The emergence of non-Euclidean geometries of Riemann and  non-cantorian set theory of Robinson, for example, reflect patterns of destruction that assumption. The emergence of new math or science as a result of a crisis is usually accompanied by the emergence of a new paradigm that is the philosophical foundation of science. So actually personally intellectual crisis will be reflected as a social paradigm crisis.

Well, now I do not know if my personal intellectual crisis will lead to a change or transformation of my integralist thought to be a more comprehensive philosophy again. But clearly it was a new intellectual crisis is mathematical, not philosophical. To analyze this new crisis, perhaps it is better if we examine backward to see how the crisis was solved so far.

Crisis of the early 20th century physics, for example, the emergence of symptoms due to the discovery of radioactivity and the reality of atomic stability. The crisis gave birth to a new physics which is then referred to as the extension of quantum mechanics known as quantum field theory. Quantum field theory is a relativistic version of quantum mechanics. This means that quantum field theory is a synthesis of quantum mechanics and relativistic mechanics.

Quantum field theory is ultimately in the end, having developed into a theory called the Standard Model of elementary particles. The standard model is a gauge field theory for the three fundamental interactions that electric-magnetic field interaction, weak nuclear interaction and the strong nuclear interaction. So Einstein's dream to marry the electric-magnetic interactions and gravitational interactions proved to be too early. Apparently electromagnetic interaction is more suitable when mated with the weak interaction that gave birth to the theory of electro-weak interactions field. Then the electro weak theory is mated with the theory of the strong interaction between quarks birth gauge field theory called the Standard Model.

Later physicists expand the  Einstein's dream by forwarding an elementary particle theory marrying Einstein's theory of gravity, not with Maxwell theory of electromagnetism, but with the  the Standard Model. The marriage lead to the birth of five different string theories, but equally true. Although different they have in common: change the dimensionless particle theory to the theory of one-dimensional strings that vibrate in ten-dimensional physical space where six dimensions curled in a very small rolls. Indeed, there are similarities nonetheless and five different true and equally valid theory. Of course this damage our understanding of logic that only receive only one theory should be correct.

It is similar period at the time of birth of quantum theory. At the time it was discovered two kind of mechaniics that seems to be contradictory to each other: Schrodinger's wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics which talking about particles. Luckily there was a Paul Dirac who can prove that the two theories are different representations for the same theory, namely quantum mechanics.  

This time there was a genius physicist who tried to incorporate all five different theories into one theory of M theory on a vibrating membrane in eleven dimensions of space physics. So the synthesis was done by adding the dimension of fundamental physics objects and add dimension to the room they occupied. Unfortunately that theory has not been getting the perfect shape. He was able to explain all the phenomena microcosmic there, but he predicted the existence of super-particles, as a couple of fundamental particles exist, which until now could not be observed experimentally.

M-theory is indeed a gee-wish theoryusing sophisticated mathematics, but unfortunately as he was ill-fitting theory. Because M-theory is the son of superstring theory predicts both couples for fundamental particles and fields that have never been observed. In addition, M-theory can not explain the physics of the 21st century crisis sparked by the discovery of dark energy and dark matter which makes up more than 90% of the mass-energy of the universe by cosmological observations astronomical disciplines. So on the other hand, M theory as a theory of particle physics expectations, is a theory that very narrow. He predicted things that were not observed on the one hand. On the other hand, he could only explain less than 5% cosmological reality. A feat that is not encouraging.
The fact that is a crisis of the 21st century physics.  

Actually, the crisis of the 21st century physics Biological less I personally, since I've left the study of rock physics and stir into the world of mathematics. But now in the world of mathematics I had a crisis triggered by a mathematical study Dr.Rugerro Maria Santilli. Rugerro Santilli was actually a physicist. He saw the fundamental contradictions between the theory and the theory of electro-weak gavitation.  

Therefore, he revised the two theories with mathematical iso-real number, the alti-real numbers with r = -1 in my terminology, to eliminate the contradiction. He even found two types of new mathematical again called geno-and hyper-mathematics mathematics. Geno-mathematical physics processes irreversible irreversible alias. Hyper-mathematics to biological processes in addition to irreversible also toward the goal is worth double. Unfortunately Rugerro Santilli did not receive a positive response from mainstream physics.

So here's my crisis. I am at a crossroads. Will I be turned my back to follow Rugerro Santili back to physics and then reform it or I will continue to explore the platonic world of mathematics, finding new structures regardless of whether the findings would be useful outside of mathematics? I think I've decided my choice. Most likely, I will continue in the world of mathematics to explore the world that has not been touched people: algebra multicomplex expanded to include number of new structures such as those found Santilli isoreal field or quasi-field  of omni real numbers that I found. Hopefully, I'll be strong enough to continue.