Math & Physics Fortuna, Thanks for your post. I perhaps am not an elegant speaker. My point is, I understand mathematics are necessary and useful, but it does appear that physics is going more and more to mathematical concepts and offers no pyhiscal view of what that means. My position is prompted more by String Theory, TOE's that suggest an (11) dimensional universe. I don't contest that the mathematics for such a view may not lead to an algorithum that properly links all forces. I believe that may happen but what I don't see is any effort to translate that in a physical reality. (11) dimensions may well be that reality but I have the strongest suspicion that that isn't even close to the truth.
Hi Warren, "My my, this certainly turned into an interesting thread...." My god, your thread has been hijacked by crackpots Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... Haddeg! Crisp
Re: Math & Physics It doesn't make any difference. The physicist's model is just a machine: you plug in experimental parameters, and out pops the prediction of what the experiment will do. It matters not one whit what crazy machination you put inside your model, so long as the answer that pops out is the right one. String theories and so on do not necessarily assert that there are 11 real dimensions in the real world -- they just use 11 dimensions as part of their mathematical machine. If you want to get fundamentalist about it, then consider that there are no such things as "vectors" and "matrices" in the real world either -- and even the most basic and intuitive models use those non-existent mathematical entities. Are you really prepared to tell everyone that Newton was wrong because vectors don't exist? In the end, as I've said, the only thing that matters is that the real number that pops out at the end of the calculation agrees with experiment. - Warren
63 posts 693 views do you feel the love my brother! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Warren should have the authority to move anything from this forum to the psuedoscience forum. There are few here with his knowledge and proficiency regarding math and physics.
Well, that's not true... lethe and James and Crisp and RDT2 and thed and a few others are more advanced than I am. I personally would love to sit down for a game of poker with these fellows, as I'd learn a boatload. - Warren
In defence of maths I doubt it - we each have our areas of relative (no pun intended) expertise and of relative ignorance. Following on from a previous posting, I tell students that maths is a language with a very concise shorthand script. There is very little that can be expressed mathematically that couldn't be translated into plain English - but it might take a volume to express a seemingly simple equation. E=m*c**2 or even F = m*a carry a whole lot of baggage that isn't apparent if you don't know the code (compare it with 1984 or even 2001 in literature - if you don't know the books, they're just numbers). We don't have enough years to live to go round speaking about physics or engineering in plain English, so we have to learn maths. However, one should always try (even unsuccessfully) to get a physical picture of what the equations embody. 'Engineers (tend to) deal with this locality of the universe' 'Physicists (tend to) deal with this universe' 'Mathematicians (tend to) deal with all possible universes' Cheers, Ron.
zack, did becky accept my apology?. from one man to another..(i am curious)..is she cute? does she wear kaftans and other 60's type shit? lovebeads? do you guys have a lava lamp in your pad? i am assuming that you guys "shack up"! (see! i can be hip too!) there is a pic thread in feedback if she wants to post hers!! thanks your friend spook ps i was devastated when you first said my posts were cool and later turned around and said they sucked. honestly! you boys are so fickle! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You get over yourself too, learn to take a compliment ya bastard. I know there are others here who are very very skilled with the stuff, I'm just saying you're up there amongst the most skilled that I've noticed here. I notice you more because I enjoy watching you fillet the crackpots, it really cracks me up sometimes. Oh, that and for some reason I stumble onto your posts a lot. I'm sure your assessment of James (and he was one of the people I was thinking of when I mentioned 'there are few here', besides, he alread has the juice) Crisp and RDT2 is accurate, but that doesn't mean you aren't in the group. You have an extremely solid foundation of knowledge. I'm not that great at the stuff myself, but as I have an engineering degree, I can generally (but not always) tell if someone has their shit together. I dub thy shit as together (like that means much). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You're allright man. Oh, and to further my original point based on your input, okay.. Crisp and RDT2 should also have the juice! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
First its every man for himself, now everyone is concerned about being too humble. Life is grand. Keep up the mathematizing folks. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
oh and i'm sorry...... no wait... IM sorry.... no.... I AM SORRY.... no i'm sorry you sick bastard! :bugeye:
apparently neither wesmorris NOR warren seem to know what the phrase "get over yourself" even means. this is very typical of people's behavior in these parts: good science, big egos, bad communication.
Re: Re: Math & Physics I disagree (here we go again! round 2 against warren's posts, nothing personal) -- I think it matters a great deal what interpretation one gives to the proposed model, because it has physical bloody consequences. You can't just have a black box that spits out numbers that experimentally fit -- we could build a bloody neural network to do that quite well, but if I recall, wasn't the original point of physics to 'explain' the world, not just re-phrase it in mathematics that has no corresponding reality? Einstein would probably have hurled at that last remark. What good is a 100 dimensional model of things, when only 3 dimensions exist physically? You haven't 'explained' jack -- you just copied nature in a ridiculously inefficient manner. Everything should have some physical consequence; be it abstract math or not.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
... and don't shoot me down because I said "only 3 dimensions exist physically" ... it was meant to be an example not how many actual dimensions I believe there really are. The word 'dimension' needs perhaps some clarification as well (it has been used far too often for far too many exotic implications in colloquial terminology), perhaps 'basis' is more 'exact' terminology? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
....and no we don't have "big egos" -- we just aren't always concerned with the same 'questions' as non-scientists, i.e., we see perhaps a more correct 'phrasing' of the true question, and we prefer being precise about our language. I don't believe any of that exhibits any ego. Warren's frustration is that too many people write in with theories that are far too general and make too many leaps and don't always make any real sense when you are being honest about what you are saying. Real scientists are brutally honest and careful about what they say -- their use of terminology is not loose and lavish. This is how you know a pseudoscientist from a real one. Although, the contra argument is that a real scientist would be broad minded enough to think a little more laterally, and not gouge people for being 'less than' exact in what they mean. James R has a good quote beneath his posts that explains it quite well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ... back to important things :m:
