The crackpots are pushing me away...

Re: Re: Re: Math & Physics

Originally posted by GundamWing
You can't just have a black box that spits out numbers that experimentally fit
Click to expand...
Well, to be specific, you are wrong. If you could make a black box theory that can spit out the masses of all the known particles, you'd win a Nobel prize -- even if no one understood what was inside the box.

You are correct in a very vague and general way, though -- we'd like to look inside the black box and understand the physical behavior of all its little pieces -- but this isn't what usually happens.

Quantum mechanics, for example, is one of the most successful theories in the history of physics. An extension, quantum electrodynamics, might well be labeled THE most successful theory of all time. Yet none of the machinery really makes any physical "sense." QM deals with complex wavefunctions and complex operators -- and out pop real answers at the end of the calculation. It's tough to ascribe any physical reality to the wavefunction, or to the operators -- or to the postulates such as "all operators corresponding to physical observables must be hermitian."

However, the shit works, so we use it.

Perhaps you don't like it, but that's the way the world works -- physicists need not give any physical meaning to each wheel and gear and cog in their model.

- Warren
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Math & Physics

Originally posted by chroot
Well, to be specific, you are wrong. If you could make a black box theory that can spit out the masses of all the known particles, you'd win a Nobel prize -- even if no one understood what was inside the box.

You are correct in a very vague and general way, though -- we'd like to look inside the black box and understand the physical behavior of all its little pieces -- but this isn't what usually happens.

Quantum mechanics, for example, is one of the most successful theories in the history of physics. An extension, quantum electrodynamics, might well be labeled THE most successful theory of all time. Yet none of the machinery really makes any physical "sense." QM deals with complex wavefunctions and complex operators -- and out pop real answers at the end of the calculation. It's tough to ascribe any physical reality to the wavefunction, or to the operators -- or to the postulates such as "all operators corresponding to physical observables must be hermitian."

However, the shit works, so we use it.

Perhaps you don't like it, but that's the way the world works -- physicists need not give any physical meaning to each wheel and gear and cog in their model.

- Warren
Click to expand...



I think the main problem here is that you assume that things like 'wavefunctions' cannot (not 'do not') make 'sense' because you assume you know what makes 'sense' physically -- but you are right, we are ill equipped with physics alone to tackle such questions of perception and mind stuff. (oh, and it has been labeled that QE is the most succesful theory of all time ).:cool:
 
in that case, Gundam, sciforums should be a closed forum with some sort of invite-only thing going on. but it isn't, it's a public one. and that means you're gonna get people of all walks of life interested and trying to communicate ideas. but if you're gonna be a belligerent jerk about things, then what good is that? i mean, seriously?
 
Originally posted by GundamWing
...when was it exactly that physicists started to shirk away from interpreting their models? :bugeye:
Click to expand...
Basically when we realized that any model understandable from our usual Newtonian and Cartesian notions of reality is not capable of actually predicting the results of experiments.

We live in an environment that does not afford us the chance to experience relativistic and quantum-mechanical effects directly with our senses.

The world of high-energy and microscopic interactions is quite different, and our highly conditioned brains have trouble transcending that conditioning.

- Warren
 
Breakthrough

WOW. I can actually say I agree with chroot & RDT2.

However, my point was more like Gundamwing. I feel greater effort is (should be) made to convert sucessful mathematical models into physical reality views.

I understand that that just might not be possible in some cases but the problem I eluded to is that nobody even tries.

From a functional and applications vantage point chroot is abssolutely correct.

I was particularily pleased to see chroot indicate that String TOE (11) dimensions are indeed most likely algorithums and not reality.

That has been my arguement. chroot, you are the first physicist I have ever seen make that distinction. If that level of communication were to be forth coming in all areas there would be far less objection by the masses to the work of physicist.

That is much of what is being done, while good and useful, is viewed as pure nonsense because no efforts are being made to put a physical reality to the underlying process.

My point is when you hit a nail (or your fingers) with a hammer, you have a physical understanding of what the physics are. But to describe the universe as 11 dimensional has no understandable meaning and other than mathematical extrapolations it has no applications.

I can use what I learn when I smack my finger with a hammer to generate ideas for other applications or to figure out how to manipulate or put the physics to use. What do you do with 11 dimensions?.
 
Re: Breakthrough

Originally posted by MacM
That has been my arguement. chroot, you are the first physicist I have ever seen make that distinction.
Click to expand...
How many physicists do you know? :bugeye:

Truthfully, more of the fault lies on the popular press than on the physicist. The popular press has a long-standing habit of blurring the lines between 'model' and 'reality,' a mistake made by very few physicists.

- Warren
 
MacM,

That has been my arguement. chroot, you are the first physicist I have ever seen make that distinction. If that level of communication were to be forth coming in all areas there would be far less objection by the masses to the work of physicist.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate chroot. He's not as stupid as he sounds. :)

Tom
 
Hey, i`m one of those crack-pots!

Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!

I may as well add.
Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
 
Physicist

chroot,

I will have to qualify slightly, as of today I am not in contact with any physicist; however over the years I have known several physicist, engineers etc. I owned and operated the McCoin Research Institute, Inc. We had international clients and NASA.

The one physicist I came to know personally was 38 years ago.
He wrote Chapter 7 of the original UniKEF manuscript (calculus).

My math is limited. I have had Introductory Calculus and that is it and have never used it.

I am on several MSB however and most "Educated" physicist have a simular personality to yours (that is why you didn't surprise me I expected it). None I have ever debated have conceeded the algorithum aspect of physics, you sir were the first and you should be commended for it.

So while on the one hand you may be correct that part of the problem is the media, the fact is physicist rarely like to talk with non-physicist (unless they can preach and teach). It is either text book or get out of my face.

No hard feelings hear, just giving you the facts from the view from the other side. Because of my background I have had to deal with numerous "Educated" professionals and while the personality issues is not unique to physicist, it is generally more prominent.
 
Kidnapped

I just kidnapped the following post from another site because it was so timely to this discussion and it is by an engineer and makes more clear what I was trying to convey. So the problem is not just a media/lay problem. Engineers seem to hold my same view.
 
Re: Breakthrough

Originally posted by MacM
WOW. I can actually say I agree with chroot & RDT2.

I was particularily pleased to see chroot indicate that String TOE (11) dimensions are indeed most likely algorithums and not reality.

That has been my arguement. chroot, you are the first physicist I have ever seen make that distinction. If that level of communication were to be forth coming in all areas there would be far less objection by the masses to the work of physicist.
Click to expand...


come again? i don't think there has ever been a popular 'discontent' with physics as such. You're being loose here (among other places). Physics as is not subject to 'popularity' per se. It is what it is.
 
Re: Kidnapped

Originally posted by MacM
I just kidnapped the following post from another site because it was so timely to this discussion and it is by an engineer and makes more clear what I was trying to convey. So the problem is not just a media/lay problem. Engineers seem to hold my same view.
Click to expand...

... not so fast.... on a blindingly fast first pass at that attachment, I see no resemblence between his arguments and yours. He is referring to the distinction between stat mech views (where things are expectation values) vs the deterministic view of the inner workings of things. I don't think he's referring to the inability to develop conceptual models from mathematical concepts. :cool:
 
besides... engineers are more used to deterministic equations and empirical formulae. Approximation is more often the practical way of engineering things than developing deterministic equations for each atom in a fluid (for example) -- although given a large enough supercomputer, big enough budget, and good enough reason, this would be fine, but not necessarily more informative. :p
 
Re: Physicist

Originally posted by MacM
I am on several MSB however and most "Educated" physicist have a simular personality to yours (that is why you didn't surprise me I expected it). None I have ever debated have conceeded the algorithum aspect of physics, you sir were the first and you should be commended for it.

So while on the one hand you may be correct that part of the problem is the media, the fact is physicist rarely like to talk with non-physicist (unless they can preach and teach). It is either text book or get out of my face.

No hard feelings hear, just giving you the facts from the view from the other side. Because of my background I have had to deal with numerous "Educated" professionals and while the personality issues is not unique to physicist, it is generally more prominent.
Click to expand...

... you are talking about the general personality profile of all PhDs. It's what they train you for -- precision without compromise. They would rather you were precise about what you said (even if it means quoting verbatim), than neccessarily making leaps to satisfy the thirst for analogies that are often far removed from the reality of things. :bugeye:
 
Fine Point

GundamwWing,

It was my impression that he was calling for physical reality descriptions instead of pure mathematical extrapolations. I believe we are on the same page. His just happens to be directed more specifically to his field.
 
... the few exceptions might be Feynmann (or any other nobel prize winner), who earned the right to tell a story because they have a firm grasp of the underlying. :m:
 
well, the only place where 'physical' things might be of some importance would be if you were to build simulations... but we're not at a point where we can simulate the whole bloody universe quite yet (although, there are plenty of interesting ones out there relating to the big bang, etc.). Simulations are a step beyond mathematics I suppose. Monte Carlo is the way to go I say. :)
 
on another topic...

Would this be the right place to discuss quantum computing?? :eek: -- Any particularly good references in the literature?
 
Dense

GundamWind,

Just call me dense but your quib lost me?

quote:

... the few exceptions might be Feynmann (or any other nobel prize winner), who earned the right to tell a story because they have a firm grasp of the underlying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top