drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
While Quantum mechanics may not be elegant, it has agreed with experiment quite well.
Special relativity has served us pretty well too. And Newtonian physics works quite well at non-relativistic speeds.
Need some advice. WWYD?
- Thread starter ChasenSFO
- Start date
While Quantum mechanics may not be elegant, it has agreed with experiment quite well.
Special relativity has served us pretty well too. And Newtonian physics works quite well at non-relativistic speeds.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
Indeed, but (I think) the point that Boris was driving at was that math is absolute, or as absolute as we can get. Where we're still trying to understand the physical world around us and what it actually is, math gives us a view into something that is independent of our existence (a priori). I.E. Viewing something does not modify it in any way.
charlie1017
Well-Known Member
John, welcome back. Now, remember your comment to Chasen about moderate chop and the passenger freaking out??? I think it applies to you now. 
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
John, welcome back. Now, remember your comment to Chasen about moderate chop and the passenger freaking out??? I think it applies to you now.
Listen doctor, I think I know what I'm talking about!!!
I figured you'd chime in on this, and I know you're gonna say you know more than I think we know, but I'm still gonna contend that my philosophy of science course that I took as an undergraduate says that basically everything you got your PhD in is wrong
What DID you do your research on, BTW?
Realms09
Well-Known Member
I agree with you on this:
No matter how you go about it, science is empirical. It has a judge in experience. Mathematics, of course, is not and consists of tools we construct in our minds to describe the world around us. Those tools cannot be disproved, but they can be deemed applicable or not applicable in describing different physical situations. We also know a lot more about grammar than we do economics.
I do not agree with you on this:
I am not sure what you mean by calling physics a statistical crap shoot. Theories evolve over time as the accuracy of experiments improve and reveal new information. It doesn't mean we're guessing, getting lucky, or unlucky. It's a methodical, convergent, and on-going process.
My attempt at getting back on point:
Chasen, remember there are most likely people here experienced in whatever subject matter is giving you difficulty at the moment. You can always send a PM if a particular problem is getting you down and your peers or faculty are not around to help.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I'm doing a horrible job of trying to explain myself, I'll admit, and I'll let the good doctor correct me here, but let me see if I have the basic idea down: As I understand physics, most of our models of what is actually occuring on an atomic and subatomic level (and smaller than that) is based on the statistical probability of the actual world actually being in the form that we're predicting.
Please know I have zero education in experimental physics, but the professors I've talked with this use theories such as tunneling to explain what I'm trying to get across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
Please know I have zero education in experimental physics, but the professors I've talked with this use theories such as tunneling to explain what I'm trying to get across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling
I don't know if this helps, but a physicist once told me, "mathematicians hate us." To which I asked why and got this reply, "because we bend and break the rules of math in an attempt to explain the world around us." I don't know if this is what you are trying to get at, but I thought it was interesting.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I think it helps to explain where I'm coming from, actually
I'd contend that when you have to bend and break the rules of math, your physics models probably aren't correct. In the same way that Ptolemy could make great predictions on the movement of the stars, his models were flawed and he did whatever he had to do to make the data work.
Realms09
Well-Known Member
I don't think it's right to say there is a certain chance of the world being the form we're predicting. I understand what you have said to mean there is or was a probability that <insert physical theory here> is/was/or will be true at a certain time. Theories are either always true or always false (approximations may be "valid" or "invalid" at different times, however). Therefore, theories are refined to correct errors as they come up.
However, the form that a theory predicts could include statistical probability. In quantum mechanics, for instance, we're saying the fundamental form of the world is probabilistic rather than deterministic. That's much different than saying the world is different from what we're predicting.
Realms09
Well-Known Member
New math is often invented to explain new and better physical concepts. The existing mathematical constructs in the time of Newton did not allow for the proper treatment of Newton's physical laws. Newton (and Leibniz) had to invent the Calculus in response (imagine, dividing two infinitely small quantities - ludicrous!). I think that's the sort of thing the professor was getting at.
casey
Well-Known Member
I think it helps to explain where I'm coming from, actually
I'd contend that when you have to bend and break the rules of math, your physics models probably aren't correct.
It just means you need to invent better math.
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
The mathematicians think that they have it right.
The physicists think that they have it right.
The school I was educated at believed the mathematicians.
It isn't a knock on physicists, just a different theory of science.
Realms09
Well-Known Member
Here's the final test.
Things like the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are not failures of physics or failures in our understanding. Quite the opposite, they are actually successes that describe fundamental properties of nature.
I don't know exactly where the electron is, but the proton doesn't know either.
Realms09
Well-Known Member
jtrain609
Antisocial Monster
I suppose that's enough epistemology for now
I'll admit, I'm a philosopher first and a realist second
inigo88
Composite-lover
Jtrain,
I would contend that you have it backwards - that physics is an empirical science which can be repeatedly tested experimentally, where as mathematics is totally arbitrary. Case in point, Newton invented Calculus out of the blue to do physics problems. Differential Equations followed suit and allowed physicists to derive even crazier special-case solutions to problems. Just like Newtonian physics "blows up" when we try and apply it on the quantum level, I think there is an equal amount of cases of higher math not working to solve problems it wasn't intended to solve.
I think mathematics is subjectively similar to art, in that you cannot tell an artist that you can experimentally prove their painting is "wrong" (what is your frame of reference?). How can we philosophically know whether our number system is right or wrong? We only use it because it works and everyone else uses it, and historically every time it stopped working someone invented a new one (whole numbers -> integers -> rational -> real -> complex (imaginary), etc.).
I've noticed a trend at many schools that Mathematics majors tend to be offered as B.A.s while Physics majors tend to be offered as B.S.es, and I wonder if it is due to similar reasoning.
I think I'm way over my head with this one though, and I have many years of school left before I'll have any idea what the heck I'm talking about, so... :dunno:
Inigo
(who can also write 5 pages when one sentence would suffice. )
I would contend that you have it backwards - that physics is an empirical science which can be repeatedly tested experimentally, where as mathematics is totally arbitrary. Case in point, Newton invented Calculus out of the blue to do physics problems. Differential Equations followed suit and allowed physicists to derive even crazier special-case solutions to problems. Just like Newtonian physics "blows up" when we try and apply it on the quantum level, I think there is an equal amount of cases of higher math not working to solve problems it wasn't intended to solve.
I think mathematics is subjectively similar to art, in that you cannot tell an artist that you can experimentally prove their painting is "wrong" (what is your frame of reference?). How can we philosophically know whether our number system is right or wrong? We only use it because it works and everyone else uses it, and historically every time it stopped working someone invented a new one (whole numbers -> integers -> rational -> real -> complex (imaginary), etc.).
I've noticed a trend at many schools that Mathematics majors tend to be offered as B.A.s while Physics majors tend to be offered as B.S.es, and I wonder if it is due to similar reasoning.
I think I'm way over my head with this one though, and I have many years of school left before I'll have any idea what the heck I'm talking about, so... :dunno:
Inigo
(who can also write 5 pages when one sentence would suffice.
)
charlie1017
Well-Known Member
People focus waaay too much on how quantum mechanics is random blah blah. But in reality QM is very deterministic! Probabilities for observables (measurable stuff) do evolve in a deterministic way!!! Otherwise, physics loses its predictive power eh?
Also, I have to say :yeahthat: to what realms and casey said. Many times physics has enlightened math (like in the calculus case, calculus of variations...) and viceversa (differential geometry used by Einstein, Lie group theory used by particle physicists ) so it goes both ways. By the way, what do you mean by Einstein wrong? He was a fallible human being like everyone else. However he was damn right with relativity (at least at macroscopic length scales). GPS wouldn't have the timekeeping precision it has if general relativistic effects weren't taken into account...
And john what I said earlier was all in good fun! I will defer to your knowledge of law and philosophy!
u
Also, I have to say :yeahthat: to what realms and casey said. Many times physics has enlightened math (like in the calculus case, calculus of variations...) and viceversa (differential geometry used by Einstein, Lie group theory used by particle physicists ) so it goes both ways. By the way, what do you mean by Einstein wrong? He was a fallible human being like everyone else. However he was damn right with relativity (at least at macroscopic length scales). GPS wouldn't have the timekeeping precision it has if general relativistic effects weren't taken into account...
And john what I said earlier was all in good fun! I will defer to your knowledge of law and philosophy!
u