Re: SR and GR without math

From: Paul Bramscher (brams006_nospam_at_tc.umn.edu)
Date: 10/07/04 

Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2004 18:28:09 -0500

Paul Draper wrote:

> Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:<ck1i15$ju3$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu>...
>
>>I don't know who else has done this in the past here, having not kept up
>>with it much over the past 5 years. I'm not speaking of tautology in
>>the "begging the question" sense. I'm only referring to the simple act
>>of derivation. I'll concede that any good theory may have an equation
>>imbedded in it, and that this by itself does not necessarily require
>>tautology.
>>
>>Derivations are tautologies in the sense that, while they may fill the
>>real estate of your chalkboard, paper, or screen, they don't introduce
>>new empirical data. What makes them vacuous is that they are
>>necessarily true (if the math is done correctly), and therefore they
>>don't add to the initial theory. I'm not saying they subtract anything,
>>nor necessarily invalidate the initial claim (begging the question,
>>etc.). I'm just saying that fiddling numbers is fun (I craft algorithm
>>for a living), but it doesn't add knowledge to the initial claim since
>>it appeals to a set of structures which follow necessarily from the
>>original claim.
>>
>>So SR should be summed up in one neat equation (if it's a theory, as
>>opposed to a method), and let's be done with it. No other math needs to
>>be done, except in relation to raw data collected from experiment and
>>how it corroborates with the theory or some derviation of it (as
>>methodology here, not as something new to the theory).
>
>
> You are right that all the mathematical fiddling in the world do not
> add physical content other than what come from the assumptions. That
> is, the theory as a whole does not grow beyond the insight in the
> central concepts. Granted.
>
> However, that's a philosophical point, not a practical one. The value
> of a theory is not just based on the insight of its central concepts,
> but on how USEFUL it is. That is, what can you do with it? And for
> that, it is necessary to do some folding and twisting of the original
> ideas, being careful (by using rigorous math) not to break anything in
> the process, to save some intermediate steps and definitions, to check
> certain things against reality along the way. This is how the reduced,
> fundamental truth give rise to scope in complexity.

(I agree, I just call this the methodological end of science. I'd never
dispute the claim that math is one of the prime tools of science, if not
THE prime tool.)

>
> As another example, chemistry -- essentially all of it -- is entirely
> founded on the electromagnetic interaction. Which is to say that it
> contains no fundamental content beyond Maxwell's equations -- or, more
> precisely, the quantum version of Maxwell's equations, QED. That is
> certainly true. However, that doesn't diminish chemistry and its
> achievements in the least. You cannot claim that chemistry is an empty
> science because its fundamental basis is something that lies
> elsewhere.

Chemists can do quite a bit with no knowledge of QM whatsoever (I don't
think advanced theoretical physics is typically even required of either
chem or chemE students). The balancing of chemical formula,
stoichiometry, etc. are not merely vacuous equations -- they describe
discrete physical objects and properties which don't seem to be present
at a lower level -- it's more than just Maxwell. By studying quanta
alone, can we predict the existence of the table of elements? Their
isotopes, valences, charges, possible molecular combinations, etc.?
This level seems to require an additional set of assumptions and new
properties to explain.

I'm envious of chemists and consider their work to be among the most
fruitful balance of logic with empirical observation, really a shining
example of the interplay between formal logic/math/model and empirical
experiment/observation over the past century.

It would be curious, for example, for a sub-physics to emerge as a
totally new science in a century or two, putting the QM people in the
same boat as chemists are in today -- giving us good data, but relying
on more sublime assumptions. ;-)

>
> In short, the scope of a theory, in its application to systems
> spanning the range from simple to unbelievably complex, is just as
> important as the power of its fundamental tenets. The math is the TOOL
> that allows you to get from the latter to the former.
>
>
>>
>>My crass two bits: REALLY high-end physics requires substantial clout to
>>get major telescope time, supercollider time, an instrument package
>>onboard a satellite, etc. So what can physicists "do" with regard to SR
>> for the great majority of time that they don't enjoy time on high-end
>>experimental equipment?
>
>
> They can do what astronomers do: let nature do all the accelerating to
> high speeds. The flip side is that you have less control over the
> experimental conditions. Seriously, there are really excellent and
> SMALL cosmic ray experiments on the ground (though maybe in
> Antarctica) that are doing frontier physics.
>
> The way that "mainstream" HEP-types compensate is that they share by
> working in collaborations of hundreds or even thousands of physicists,
> all on the same apparatus. The penalties for doing that are 1)
> enduring internal and external politics, 2) spending a significant
> fraction of time being a manager, and 3) schedule and budget pressures
> that prevent you from stopping to think when you need to.
>
>
>>On the flipside, a chemist or biologist can do quite a bit empirically
>>in a modestly outfitted (~million dollars+) lab.
>
>
> Though note that what most biologists do is exactly what astronomers
> do: exploit a preexisting wealth of data. If biologists want to study
> life at the same level of control that the HEP-types do, then they'll
> spend hundreds of millions, too.

>
> PD

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How many dimensions are there?
    ... Miguel Rios wrote: ... about how these things in science are done. ... one of the greatest math theories that have ever ... to represent the correct physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • How scientific are SR experts?
    ... this specific math construct. ... the cause of the physics for this science. ... real objects, and what real objects can do, and only ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: OBarr: The end of SR!
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... Math is very useful. ... look at some science that is well known! ... meaning and nature of this physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: the two slits versus schrodingers cat
    ... >>2) Experimental physics has nothing to do with applied physics. ... > view from which we can define the goals of science), ... only *very* little) to do with adding dimensions ("very little" because ... that - just the math. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Career advice needed.
    ... who post here semiregularly are full professors at math or physics ... provide help to a deserving aspiring student. ... I do know of several cases of a Math graduate program accepting ... study these prereqs on your own from books (by paying a yearly fee you ...
    (sci.physics.research)