Bijective Analysis of Physical Equations and Physical Models

Abstract

is a function between the elements of two sets, where each element of one set is paired with exactly one element of the other set, and where each element of the other set is paired with exactly one element of the first set. We can define every physical equation as the set X and the corresponding physical reality that the equation describes as the set Y. Every element in a given equation is an element in the set X, and each element in set X should have exactly one paired element in the set Y. The bijective analysis confirms that Newtonian physics satisfies the bijective function. On the other hand, not all of the equations in the Theory of Relativity satisfy the bijective function. Additionally, the Higgs mechanism does not satisfy the bijective function.

Unified Field Theory Based on Bijective Methodology

“…Bijective analysis of Special Relativity Theory confirms (Sorli, 2018a) that universal space is not 3D + T (three spatial and one temporal dimension), universal space is the 4 dimensional syntropy space where time is mathematical parameter of changes running in space (which we will call from now on 4DSS). 4DSS can be considered as the real origin and source of electromagnetism, macro gravity, micro gravity and quantum gravity as well as of radioactive decay, which indeed can be seen as different aspects of the same coin.…”

“…This wrong imagination is finally confirmed with the discovery of Higgs boson which does not prove existence of Higgs field. Higgs boson is artificial man made particle which has no existence in the universe on its own and cannot be seen as a proof for the Higgs mechanism (Sorli, 2018a).…”

“…As particles and fields have physical properties; so, the space in which they exist must have some physical properties. The "empty space" is an element in physical models which has no existence in physical reality and should be abandoned from physics (Sorli, 2018a).…”

The Unified-Field Model of Reality

“…Mathematics is a useful descriptive tool, but only insofar as the conceptual models derived from that tool are continually tested against directly observable, experimental or experiential physical evidence. As the physicist Amrit Srecko Sorli has pointed out, unless there exists a bijective, or one-to-one, correspondence between a conceptual model of reality and some directly observable physical evidence, we have no way whatsoever of actually knowing, and so of proving, whether or not the conceptual model does indeed accurately represent the hidden underlying reality (Sorli 2018;Sorli et al, 2018). Nonetheless, as Sorli points out, the current trend in modern science is to bestow on mathematical models the title of being "proven" solely on the basis of indirect physical evidence.…”

“…As physicist Amrit Srecko Sorli has pointed out, a one-to-one, or bijective, correspondence between a conceptual model and some directly observable physical behavior, as opposed to indirectly observable physical behavior, is absolutely necessary if we are to have any assurance whatsoever that the model we are using to explain observed physical behavior actually and accurately represents the underlying non-physical, non-mental reality which is producing those behaviors (Sorli 2018) (Sorli et al, 2018). Specifically, if some new behavior that the model produces as a result of a new factor or feature introduced into the model can be correlated with some directly observable physical behavior or reality, this result indicates that the new factor or feature very likely accurately represents the underlying reality which is actually producing the behavior.…”