Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by HawkI, May 9, 2017.
That is why you go in for all this mathematical ballocks, I imagine.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No, I hope I am more objective than that. IMO, my perspective is very simple.
Physics is the observation and recording of the consistent actions and interactions of physical things.
The recordings of the actions indicate a fundamental consistency, which can be described in the language of mathematics.
To my knowledge, there is no other consistent symbolic "language" in existence that can describe physics more consistently and accurately than mathematics.
In fact, as far as I know, everything physical or abstract is based on a form of mathematical function. As an ex-bookkeeper, I can testify to it's unfailing consistency. In fact bookkeeping itself is always in a zero state,
regardless of quantities or values entered , if the maths are done correctly.
This does not mean that we know all the mathematical functions taking place in the universe, especially at very small or very large scales. But I am confident that everything in the universe behaves in a manner that can be described by a mathematical value or function. Our library of values and mathematical functions, the book of universal mathematics, is still being written and adjusted when a new natural phenomenon is observed.
Can you suggest another method that describes natural functions more precisely than mathematics or can predict the probability of a future event? There is none! Mathematics is our translation of observed consistent physical behavior, if given all pertinent data.
So, while the universe has no sentient knowledge of these mathematical physical functions, it must follow the mathematical implications of how physical values are expressed. It's just the way it works, IMO
Except for the inflationary epoch, there is no true chaotic function. The movement of every H2O molecule in a pan of boiling water could theoretically be described. The only obstacle is in the processing of vast amounts of data. Same as the weather. As chaotic as weather seems to be, we can still make short term predictions based on the mathematics of the physics.
IMO, Physics and Mathematics are inextricably entwined, perhaps somewhat like space and time are inextricably entwined.
They are certainly entwined. Where you and Shapiro part company with most people is in conjecturing that maths is the physical world, rather than a human logical construction that we apply, in order to understand it. But you have fixed views on this so there is no point rehashing it all again here.
It all depends on your perspective. One person sees a physical thing. But if you pull the thing apart to it's fundamental properties, another sees a collection of values and equations..
I just read that, an hour ago, a third new Black whole merger has been detected. Amazing! http://www.space.com/37049-gravitational-wave-experiment-detects-third-black-hole-merger.html I was literally just looking into if Gravitational waves could be made up of theoretical gravitons. Lots of more posts since I have last looked here. Unfortunately I couldn't find Bound energy in my Physics Dictionary.
EDIT:- I just found something called Bound State in my Physics Dictionary
This, to my mind, betrays the classic error about science. The model we make is not reality itself. The map we make is not the territory.
As other have pointed out in other threads, virtually nothing we observe follows exactly the models we make to account for them. Our models almost always rely on simplifications, conversions of messy reality into conveniently simple ideal versions. It is our simplified and idealised models that obey human mathematics. We can never know for sure whether reality itself does so entirely.
Yes, that's right. A bound state is a standard concept: for example an electron bound to the nucleus of an atom by electrostatic attraction, or the Earth bound to the sun by gravitation. Normally an object in a bound state exhibits some sort of periodic motion (rotation, orbiting , vibration etc)
In quantum mechanics, a bound state is quantised, meaning the energy the state can have is restricted to a set of discrete values. This is because anything in periodic motion returns regularly to its starting point and, due to the wave nature of matter, for these "matter waves" not to cancel out when they overlap with successive cycles of the motion, the motion must correspond to a whole number of wavelengths, resulting in a standing wave.
An unbound state, however, for example an electron on its own in free space, is not quantised - it can have any energy it likes, without restriction.
I expect you are also right that "bound energy" probably is not in the books. It is not a concept with any recognised meaning so far as I am aware, since there is no meaning to" unbound" energy.
This could be the moment to have a little discussion about energy. It is actually quite hard to define. But it is not "stuff". You don't have a jug of energy. It is a property of a system, and denotes, generally speaking, the ability of the system to do mechanical work (as that term is defined in physics, i.e. to apply a force through a distance: F x d =W) or to heat something.
It follows from this that you cannot talk of energy in the absence of some system that possesses it, be it a system involving matter or merely oscillating fields in space, like light. It makes no sense, for instance, to speak of "pure" energy, as TV series like Star Trek like to do.
From my perspective, physics is the mapping (observation of the territory), and the universal territory is mathematical in essence.
Yes we know you think that.
It's not my idea, but as a fundamental principle, it just makes sense to me.
An electron may only increase or decrease energy by interaction with a photon or with another electric charge, but interaction with another electric charge only increases or decreases relative velocity of a free electron relative to whatever charge it interacts with, which is not the same thing a photon does to an electron when it is absorbed or emitted within atomic structure.
No matter what the Standard Model may say (that all such interactions are all boson photonic mediated), the mechanism is completely different. Mechanical energy that changes the inertia of the center of a particle like an electron is not mediated by exchanges of photons.
If a photon that interacts with an electron comes from atomic structure, its energy is quantized.
A photon of a given quantized energy may appear as any (unquantized) energy you wish by means of a suitable relative frame of reference. This is true even if Newton's third law means a quantized thrust for a hypothetical photonic rocket engine is the source of any relative motion.
I think an an electron in free space cannot absorb or emit a photon. You need periodic motion for that to occur (not unreasonably). My post 47 explains my (qualitative) understanding of why quantisation arises in bound states only.
Is a "period" a physical thing or a (variable) duration pattern?
Free electron lasers exist. The energy for the beam has to come from somewhere.
Good point, Dan. This is synchrotron radiation, from electrons being accelerated by a magnetic field. When I said an electron in "free space", I did not have in mind space with a magnetic field in it.
But you are quite right: I should have said the electrons need to be accelerated- which of course they are in a bound state - but synchrotron radiation itself is an example of acceleration that does not result from a bound state.
What's the difference?
Because you asked,
IMO, the word "period" and "periodic" define mathematical functions. Though it may be caused by physical dynamical functions, it exists also in the non-physical abstract as demonstrated by the definitions.
No these words do not define mathematical functions. If you insist that they do, kindly write down for us readers the functions they define.
Note that I am not excluding physics, but IMO, it also applies to purely non-physical abstract mathematical conditions or functions.
Separate names with a comma.