Today the mathematical descriptions of the universe on the blackboard
and in the published papers, are abstract and devoid of any conceptual
connection to physical reality. The American physicist, Steven
Weinberg, wrote, "... it is always hard to realize that these numbers
and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the
real world." With the phrase, "...something to do with the real
world", Weinberg reveals that the mathematician has an unformed idea
as to what his abstractions represent conceptually.

Consider the words of the late Hungarian mathematician and physicist,
Eugene P. Wigner, "... the enormous usefulness of mathematics in the
natural sciences is something bordering on the mysterious ... there is
no rational explanation for it." It is in the contemplation of the
mathematics and the operation of the stable systems in the universe,
that I found the rational explanation for it. Galileo may have been
the first to formally assert that, "... the laws of nature are written
in the language of mathematics." Today we may elaborate.

Stability in the field requires economy in cyclic motion. The
invariant aspects of the stable systems within the physical universe,
toward which we necessarily direct our investigative efforts, derive
from least action functions.* Continuity and symmetry are intrinsic to
least action functions. Mathematics feeds on continuity and symmetry.
It is illuminating to note that what the mathematics represents well,
is the action stable systems must follow to maintain perpetuity in the
field. The laws that result from the mathematical abstractions,
derive from a physical system's potential for stability, and not from
its experimentally observed operational quantities. The mathematics
fits the stable universe because mathematics easily represents the
economic properties of stable systems.

As a result our classical physical laws speak to the economic orders
of form attendant to stable system action. This is not to say that
there are no underlying reasons for the order we observe in the
universe, beyond the principle of least action. Rather, it is to say
that our laws are derived solely from the principle of least action
and beyond this we know nothing.

Consider the continuing words from Eugene Wigner, "... it is just this
uncanny usefulness of mathematical concepts that raises the question
of the uniqueness of our physical theories." The uniqueness of our
physical theories is defined by the properties they retain after
reduction to their most basic state. In this form they are consistent
with, or reduced to, the orders of form attendant to an instant or
complete cycle of stable system action, be it as in the inverse square
property of an economic sphere, the circumference line segment ratio
to its radially enclosed area in the Euclidean circle, or the planet's
trajectoral time interval ratio, and its swept out area of the orbital
conic. These are all attended by a least action function.

The consequence of these observations is that we can create a
mathematical system that fits experimental measurement by utilizing
operational quantities that are economically compatible, symmetrically
consistent, or otherwise without effect, with respect to the invariant
kinematic orders of form that describe stable system action. Wigner
approaches the idea that one can mathematically define an
experimentally verified quantity with a local numerical magnitude, and
if that quantity operates within least action parameters, without
influence, or effect, it can be proportionally applied to other stable
systems, utilizing its locally derived magnitude, by virtue of the
invariant, economic, time-area, or frequency-wavelength aspects,
common to each stable system. This suggests that with a seminal,
quantitative, a priori knowledge assisted, dynamic assumption, one can
extend the seminal assumption beyond its local quantitative value, and
obtain an apparent fit with the non-local observed system.

Aside from the kinematic quantities common to stable systems, our
operational quantities are products of our assumptions which in turn
are limited by our sense perceptions. The consequence of this is that
mathematical models of stable physical systems are conceptual
creations of the observers. Therefore devising an operationally
effective mathematical scheme based on the quantitative notion of
mass**, or high energy particle collision data and principles of
symmetry, does not raise the operational quantities to the level of a
physical reality.

The fact that we can alter the energy of a proton into transient
energy states we call bosons and fermions causes us to conclude that a
physical proton object is composed of physical quark objects, whereas,
this does not reasonably follow. The quarks have a physical
justification that is dependent on the trails of transitory atomic
fragments created by high energy collisions in the laboratory. I
introduce the question here. Of what significance is an unstable
energy state? Murray Gell-Mann put the theory together from the
particle data available, but he did not believe that it truly
mirrored, real world quantities. Consider Steven Weinberg's words
again. "... it is always hard to realize that these numbers and
equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real
world."

Before the publication of The Physics Preview for the 21st Century,
the "... something to do with the real world" aspect of the
mathematics, had not been clearly articulated. As a result we assumed
a too literal
interpretation for the operational quantities within our theoretical
constructs, and the mathematicians and physicists were taught, and
accepted the physical reality of the theories they learned. What this
meant for the rest of humanity was: absent a clear understanding of
the connection between the mathematics and the stable systems in the
universe, and as long as the physicist had something that worked as a
mathematical model for a physical system's action, humanity was stuck
with the operational quantities used within that model. These function
within a representation of stable physical systems, as mathematically
constructed aspects of those systems, and are conceptually applied to
the real universe, describing it in terms of the mathematically
predictive model.

We are given these quantities as real objects, and we are told that
they are fundamental aspects of the universe. The most recent
additions are the logical result of an unquestioned, never verified,
one hundred year old seminal assumption.*** Colored quarks have no
real existence in the universe, yet, today the academic humanist must
reason from a theoretical reality, composed of colored quarks, joined
together with gluons, within a time dilating, curved space universe.
Why? Because mathematics has something to do with the real world.

* A simple example of an economic or least action function, in terms
of its form, is a Euclidean circle. The circumference is the shortest
line length to contain the greatest area.
** See Takes 3,4 and 5 for discussions on mass.
*** The assumption was that the electron manifests as a particle
inside the atom.