Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Beer w/Straw, Dec 15, 2017.
The language of Science is Mathematics
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
All science is mathematics but not all mathematics is science,no?
Maths is a branch of science but science is not a branch of maths.
Sciences would love (even a court of law) to be able to utilize mathematics.
Everything taught in chemistry begs quantum physics; sciences beg the use of mathematics, I already think I gave a hede to experimentation.
Which has been a hallmark of the development of string theory itself. It has gone through several phases of activity and back-burner, as new theories emerge that knit old elements together (six theories being united by M=theory), or old theories dug out of dusty drawers (such as the re-discovery of Kaluza-Klein theory) re-applied anew.
That's the problem in general, each has their little nook, no one is looking for the connections. But if I recall, string theory has something to do wih quantum gravity
Couldn't do very good science without the maths, no? I said mathematics is language of science.
All cooking recipies are math. But not all math is cooking recipes, please.
I couldn't write this if I didn't have a language to write it in.
Mathematics is the pathway to everything (Tegmark). If you follow the right mathematics, it'll get you to the answers of how things work.
What about experimentation?
That's applied mathematics. It started with a "pinch" of this and a "pinch" of that.
The existence of the Higgs boson was mathematically predicted, before applied mathematics proved it.
If we had used the wrong maths in building the collider, we would not have the answer to the existence of the Higgs, or other bosons, for that matter.
Experimentation in labs is but a speck in 14.7 bilion years of natural universal experimentation (Hazen), i.e evolution and natural selection. As Bohm proposed, a hierarchy of orderings within the greater Wholeness, from the most subtle to gross expression in our reality..
Maybe I didn't ask you the question but someone else
Sure. I over interpreted your answer to Straw.
But the question was "what are mathematical strides string theory has made?" And those aren't, so you were incorrect.
May be true. We lack vision or we are misguided.
In the context of string theory, how you view your above statement. What is discovered here? What it confirms or disproves or amends into a larger comprehensive theory?
I wonder how all theses string theories came to be along with all the possible dimensions it would require.
Violin music or mathematical equations?
I am not saying that "string" or M theories are necessarily correct, but they are written in the language of mathematics, no?
Well that is the quest, no? If mathematics predicted the existence (or the formation) of bosons, then mathematics may be able to predict other fundamental properties of the universe.
Pythagoras was already enchanted with the idea of a connection between wavelenghts and mathematics.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nature follows balancing mechanism. Thats why there are all conservation principles. Following these conservation principles, nature's behavior can be predicted.
Physical expressions in nature can be analyzed and predictive equations can be made. But at the very fundamental levels no measurements can be made. That's why we also have the "uncertainty effect".
At those levels only mathematics can be used to form any kind of hypotheses. I don't claim or imply anything other than that. But we can already build atoms, and that's pretty small scales.
All we need is go down another factor of ~16 (or something like that). I may be using this incorrectly but I believe this is the domain which CDT is trying to adress. We cannot see that small and may never be able to, but if Tegmark is correct, we may be able to go there mathematically.
If you are going to post something completely irrelevant to my post, why do you feel the need to quote it?
That was your question, no?
I answered it, with proof that any strides (steps) in string theory were, are, and will be made in the language of mathematics along with a link that shows many mathematical equations.
I also qualified my answer that string theory is not necessarily correct. What more do you want?
Yes, and your answer was:
You are wondering out loud about the dimensionality of string theories, not any mathematical strides string theory has made. In other words, this is not even a response to the question asked.
You are arbitrarily mentioning one unrelated thing (violin music) and some general mathematical thing (mathematical equations). Both are not mathematical strides string theory has made, and aren't even related to string theory. In other words, this is not even a response to the question asked.
You mention that string theory uses mathematics. Great, that was already assumed in the question, so that statement was superfluous. In other words, this is not even a response to the question asked.
No, you quoted it and then wrong about other things.
False, because you haven't mentioned any mathematical strides at all.
Completely irrelevant; I wasn't talking about that at all.
I want an actual response to my question.
You misunderstand. I wondered how string theory has been fashioned and presented in the first place.
I drew a comparison between a stringed musical instrument, which obviously does not attempt to explain the fundamental string theory , altough music itself is a mathematical language.
String theory consists of mathematical equations and knowledge of scientific (not musical) cosmology (right or wrong) and proposes at its heart a dynamical vibrational field, possibly consisting of different "stringlike potentials".
You need to recognize a little humor when you see it...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
But the link I provided specifically mentioned string theory, which apparently escaped your attention.
Yes it literally was and apparently you agree.
Which I already qualified. Still you insist that I be correct. If you are so sure, why don't you correct me, for a change. Do you have all the answers? Then, by all means, lay it out for me and (i'm sure) several other interested parties.
I cited CDT as an attempt to address how spacetime itself unfolds at deeper than Planck scale. I don't know if you have ever lived on a farm. But the dinner bell is a triangular object which rings at specific tones and harmonics and with a wide and far audible sound wave (energy) and with using some imagination leads us to the possibility that a simple (stringlike) configuration may have a connection to a universal dynamical string field of open and closed strings (potentially energetic mathematical configurations), according to some well qualified cosmologists and physicists.
I claim no credit of discovery of any kind, therefore I cannot be wrong. If you want to debate string theory, do it with an expert in the field.
. Well, taking strides into an unmapped dimension of the universe, leads to discovery of that territory, no?
Then define strides. If you mean advances, below is the history of strides made in string theory which began in 1943 (as I understand it).
Does that qualify as scientific strides?
So it seems that in the last 65 years cosmologists and physicists have been "mathematically striding" the unknown landscape of the universe. If they are going in the right direction is yet to be determined, but as far as I know they are still "exploring".
Of course if you give a different meaning to "striding" and what strides have been made in other theories, or that the territory has already been irrefutably mapped and the problem is in fact solved, I'd be very interested in that also. Can you enlighten me?
Separate names with a comma.