Genius of the Rules-Style System

Chapter 768: Chapter 417: I’ve Taught Two Fields Medal Winners!

Writing a paper with Edward Witten is an interesting process.

They often have a dispute over some issues that they debate for quite some time.

It’s a matter of differing perspectives.

Edward Witten often approaches issues from the foundation of idle theory. He is a hundred percent in favor of the ’Particle Boundary Theory’ since the most basic energy unit in it is very similar to a string.

Zhao Yi has always defined the energy unit as ’source’, meaning the most original, vague and unclear. With current science unable to verify this, it serves merely as a definition.

Edward Witten, on the other hand, believes that the string is crucial to the ’Particle Boundary Theory’. He views the energy unit as a string, or perhaps as a ’three-dimensional universe projection (avatar)’ of a string.

Of course, Zhao Yi won’t accept this.

Although viewing the ’energy unit’ as a ’projection of a string’ doesn’t affect the overall theoretical structure, the ’Particle Boundary Theory’ is his theory, and he needs a solid foundation.

If one considers the ’energy unit’ as a ’projection of a string,’ it would imply that the ’Particle Boundary Theory’ is merely an extension of string theory studying the three-dimensional space.

This dispute about the basis is the crux of their argument. freewebnøvel.coɱ

Every dispute ends with Zhao Yi’s insistence. Edward Witten always responds with a sigh of resignation, "Someday in the future, it will be proven that I am right."

Zhao Yi nonchalantly shakes his head in response, "Strings are units of multi-dimensional space; their foundations differ.". Then adding sarcastically, "Unless you’re willing to accept that a string is just an energy unit, and not a component of the multi-dimensional universe."

This latter point is the reason Edward Witten would concede.

Edward Witten would never acquiesce to the energy unit being a string. He only believes the energy unit could be part of a string, or perhaps some configuration of multiple strings, or a projection or scene of a string, etc. No matter how one interprets it, the string itself can’t be an energy unit because this conclusion would overthrow string theory.

String theory, a theory that encompasses multi-dimensional space, considers the string as the basic unit of this multi-dimensional universe.

The energy unit only constitutes the energy of the three-dimensional universe; it’s not on the same level in terms of ’dimension’. If strings were seen as energy units, superstring theory and M Theory would lose their meaning.

Besides the fundamental disputes, the two also have disagreements about ambiguous concepts, such as descriptions of how energy is composed or descriptions of order, among other issues.

Of course.

These do not affect the overall theory.

In terms of the most critical mathematical structure and logic, they have consensus. Ironically, these most difficult parts seem easier to them.

Despite the many debates, their team productivity is high. In just about five days, they completed two rigorously logical papers.

The first paper is about the description and proof of the special numbers ’2 to the power of N’ related to mass, titled "Special Numbers in Space: 2 to the Power of N".

This paper mainly demonstrates the special nature of ’2 to the Power of N’. Zhao Yi writes about the photon’s energy structure, carefully avoiding ’2 to the power of N’ number, while Edward Witten writes most mass proofs in M Theory’s multi-dimensional space involve ’2 to the power of N’.

The other component is a mathematical proof.

In the mathematical section, coincidence upon coincidence occurs with the association of ’2 to the Power of N’ with mass. All these coincidences, when stacked together, give a sense of the peculiarity of ’2 to the power of N’. In their inference, the paper concludes that "’2 to the Power of N’ is directly related to three-dimensional universe mass."

The second paper, titled "Energy Theory: A Strong Force Analysis," follows up on the last paper’s conclusion, immediately putting forth a thesis on "No ’2 to the Power of N’ energy point exists in the three-dimensional universe" and "Energy points tend to come together to form ’2 to the power of N’."

This paper is based on the ’Particle Boundary Theory’. After proving the non-existence of a ’2 to the Power of N’ energy point, it then divides out prime numbers.

In the paper, they defined primes that can produce ’2 to the Power of N’ nearby as ’Bidirectional State Primes’.

They subsequently write about positive and negative bidirectional functions, using these functions to solve and arrange in reverse order, illustrating the marvel of primes combining to create ’2 to the Power of N’.

Following this is the explanation of the energy ranking and the principle of a strong force action.

"Energy Theory: A Strong Force Analysis" does not completely interpret the strong force but, based on a mathematical framework, mathematical logic, and energy theory, it provides a new interpretation of it.

This interpretation has a robust mathematical foundation, and its logic is airtight, yet it isn’t without its problems.

For instance, at its core, "the three-dimensional universe lacks a ’2 to the Power of N’ energy point" and "energy points tend to form ’2 to the Power of N’".

These two points are prerequisites for the rest of the proof but seem a bit fantastical and evidently not easy for others to accept.

If these two proofs are accepted as premises, the rest of the proof is about comprehension.

Zhao Yi and Edward Witten had a discussion about this issue too. They both felt that the proof was already perfect. Even if others don’t believe in the ’2 to the Power of N’ issue, they couldn’t find counter-evidence, and their proof brilliantly explains the strong force.