Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?
From: ueb (Ulrich.Bruchholz_at_t-online.de)
Date: 11/07/04
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity""
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: How to built a universal clock"
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?"
- Next in thread: Precisely: "Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 18:41:09 +0000
Bilge wrote:
> ueb:
> >Bilge wrote:
> >> ueb:
> >> >Bilge wrote:
> >[snip]
> >> >> So, my guess is that the official language of
> >> >> physics is ``math that tends to make mathematicians wince.''
> >> >
> >> > :):):):):)
> >> >See the dealing with complex numbers, that engineers do a lot more
> >> >exactly. ;-)
> >>
> >> Quite honestly, I would say that the engineers use ``math that
> >> would make physicists wince''.
> >
> >I could even agree. The reason is, that physicists have lost the
> >exactness, so that they do not more understand when engineers use
> >math.
> That's nonsense. While it's somewhat of a generalization, engineers
> tend to use math as ``formulas''.
I could agree again. Engineers use the formulae that work. This
method made me see particle numbers in the source-free Einstein-
Maxwell equations. A "generalization" consists in it, to take
particles as discrete solutions of these tensor equations.
Why should that be nonsense ?
With it, any claim that above equations would not lead to particles
as solutions is false. - What is here the nonsense ?
> >I have often enough experienced it just at this place, and
> >also you were involved. - Quite honestly, most engineers use to
> >forget all math. But the few, who don't, give mathematicians no
> >occasion to wince.
> Do you really think engineers use math the way mathematicians
> use math? I think not. Engineers use math to design physical
> things.
Agree fully. That keeps engineers from inventing false theories,
and helps them recognize what theory (from the huge quantity)
could match reality.
Ulrich
- Next message: Eric Gisse: "Re: "Measuring Our Absolute Velocity""
- Previous message: Androcles: "Re: How to built a universal clock"
- In reply to: Bilge: "Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?"
- Next in thread: Precisely: "Re: Should math be held to be literally the 'language of physics'?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
