Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 08:59:46 GMT
"Curious" <anthonyroseuk-curious@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1117616032.105457.326930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> Bilge wrote:
> > Curious:
> > >Bilge wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Numbers don't mean anything physical until you give them physical
> > >> meaning in a physical equation. Then, the numbers, real or imaginary,
> > >> mean something. Whether those numbers mean anything to _you_ depends
> > >> upon whether you understood the meaning of the equation in the first
> > >> place.
> > >
> > >Yes, yes, but what do they mean after you have defined the context?
> >
> > That's like asking what the number 7 means after you've defined the
> > context. It means whatever the context says it means. I can't say
> > what the number 7 means unless I see the equation in which it
> > appears. Basically, what physicists learn to become physicists is
> > how to describe physical phenomena mathematically and then test
> > those descriptions by interpreting the consequences that have to
> > follow from the mathematical descriptions. (That is why mathematics
> > is used - mathematical descriptions are not amenable to handwaving
> > philosophical jive or star trek like jargon engineering). There is
> > no guarantee that what you get will be easy to interpret.
> >
> > Unless you want to become a physicist, you simply have to get
> > used to the idea that you are not going to be as adept at fishing
> > physical effects from equations as someone who has spent his/her
> > life doing it. It's no different than relying on the knowledge
> > of a physician to tell you that you have appencitis and trusting
> > him to know where your appendix is located.
> >
> > Similarly, if someone tells me a potential is imaginary, I know
> > that it doesn't conserve particle number. You probably would not
> > know that or know why that is true, but you haven't studied as much
> > physics as I have, so you shouldn't expect to find it obvious or
> > intuitive. That doesn't mean that it isn't true.
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > >> You have several choices. (1) You can refuse to believe in the
> > >> existence of any numbers you didn't learn in kindergarten, in
> > >> which case, you won't believe in anything but integers. (2) You
> > >> can accept what you learned in elementary school and accept the
> > >> existence if fractions, but not square roots, since sqrt(2), for
> > >> exampe has no solutions that are integers or fractions. (3) You
> > >> can go to junior high and learn about real numbers and accept
> > >> the existence of square roots of positive numbers, (4) you can
> > >> go to high school and learn about the square roots of negative
> > >> numbers and believe those, too, (5) You can learn about matrices
> > >> and discover ``numbers'' for which AB doesn't equal BA, and so
> > >> on.
> > >
> > >But none of these contradicts earlier founding principles
> >
> > The point being what? What would contradict what founding principles?
> >
> > >> If you exclude imaginary numbers as meaning anything, all
> > >> you've done is limit your ability to work with numbers do to
> > >> some erroneous belief that you should stop accepting new ideas
> > >> about numbers once you get to high school.
> > >>
> > >
> > >I didn't say they don't mean anythng - quite clearly, they do.
> > >We just don't know what they mean, exactly.
> >
> > They don't mean anything (physcally) without context. But, for
> > example, \exp(-kx) describes damping (like the damping in a
> > shock absorber) and \exp(-ikx) describes oscillations (like
> > the spring in a shock absrober).
> >
>
> I'm out of my depth now (and yes, I probably am making a fool of myself
> in the long run),
Make that the short and medium and long runs.
> but in use of the expression \exp(-ikx), is i squared
> before gaining a useful result?
Say, how old are you?
12?
Dirk Vdm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: Curious
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- References:
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: Curious
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: Bilge
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: Curious
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Prev by Date: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Next by Date: Re: Will Somebody PleaseTell bz What an Inertial Frame is.
- Previous by thread: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Next by thread: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
