Re: Physics versus Mathematics

On Jul 23, 7:42 pm, xxein <xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 22, 10:19 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Jul 22, 7:20 pm,xxein<xxe...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 22, 6:17 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 22, 8:32 am, "Nicolaas Vroom" <nicolaas.vr...@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

xxein:
I think mathematics is an abstract set and must be differentiated from
a physical set.  After all, two H2's don't combine to make H4's.
Regardless of this example, do you really think that all mathematical
results would really produce a physical result?

Math is a descriptive tool to help quantify physical relations and
actions.  Math cannot force the relation-action.

It might provide insight if it captures the essence of the physic, but
it cannot 'make' it.

You read many of these posts.  What makes a math incorrect?  Because
it doesn't apply to the physic you want it to?  Why should any math be
a sole dictator of a physic?  We hardly know the physic to start with.

The math 'applications' are fine when restricted to the bounds of the
physic.  They are also fine when they are a pure math.  Thus the
difference.

I fully agree with what you said.
Specific with the sentence:
Mathematics is a descriptive tool to help to quantify the
physical relations.

The question to ask what type of mathematics is
necessary to describe (understand as much as possible)
all of physics ?

What kinds of tools do you need to disassemble, refurbish, and
reassemble a car engine? Can you do with a screwdriver, a hammer, and
an adjustable wrench? Probably. But who would want to?

If the problem is that you don't have the resources to acquire and get
competent at the tools, then you probably shouldn't attempt to be a
car mechanic. If you long to be a car mechanic, then acquiring the use
and facility of needed tools will be a task so obvious you won't think
twice about it.

There are far too many people in these groups who dream of being a
star mechanic but have no desire to gather the proper tools and get
good at using them. That's what makes them hobbyists.

PD

Are complex numbers required ?
Can you do without them ?

Nicolaas Vroomhttp://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/-Hidequotedtext -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein:  How did you build the car engine?  What manufactured tools did
you use to build it.  Who made those tools? etc.

The universe did not come with such tools and engines.  We made them.

Now we want to describe the universe with a math engine.  It obviously
doesn't need one to operate.  What are we trying to do here?

You just said it. We are trying to describe, and in particular to
predict. We don't create the rules that nature uses. We don't invent
laws of nature. We *discover* them. Because we are not *emulating*
nature's behavior but only *describing* its behavior, it makes sense
for us to use tools that are appropriate for effective description.

For instance, we never *create* electromagnetism. Electromagnetism
just happens on its own. All we know is that if certain circumstances
are set up, then electromagnetism will happen, and certain predictable
behaviors will ensue. The best we can do is to control things so those
certain circumstances occur, and then we let nature do its thing. As a
specific example, we did not *create* lasing. Lasing and spontaneous
emission is something that happens in nature on its own. We just are
good at creating devices that incite on command the conditions where
lasing occurs. I don't think we've ever created a phenomenon that
doesn't happen on its own in nature.

PD

We are only trying to put our self-awareness into a form that we can
understand.  The burden here is, that as we are able to think, the map
wasn't included.  We are made from only some forms of this universe
and are trying to understand our way to the whole.  No news there,
huh?

But in doing so, we use "an artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang
of sorts." which Androcles likes to quote endlessly as some sort of
denigration to me.

What it really means is that we invent from the incomplete and still
wonder how it is not complete and continuous.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein:  I can appreciate a good answer even if it opposes what I think
the physic actually IS.  Not that yours did.

I am no newbie to figuring out the objective physic, but I am
wondering what you think of gravity.  I have come to a satisfactory
(near) explanation/conclusion for how gravity actually 'works' in the
natural essence.  Of course I don't have a BH wired up nor a LHC in my
basement, but I would like it if you could give me a particle or wave
synopsis that I might consider (that is not of the run of the mill
variety).

What is your driving concept?

I ask because my concept (although similar to some past considered
kooks) was developed with what I hope is a completely external logic.
Iow, the physic from scratch.  It seems to work very well in
explaining almost all new things we discover as we go on.

Pioneer was a stumbling block for me (for example).  I had possible
answers but they all lacked a connectedness, completion and
continuity.  I could not satisfy the logic I had developed for a
'single/singular' universe.  I think I can do it now (thought of as I
write this).

So with this post at hand, what IS gravity?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

xxein: So. It seems that you all recognize that I don't take the
physic or what we describe as physics, lightly. But don't follow me.
Do some thinking for yourself.

I know that very few of us are inclined or can think on this level,
but it is worth an effort that seems beyond the effort of even less
than the few.

There is Einstein who seems unassailable. Why? Did he have a TOE?
Did he reconcile Q-theories?

What are we missing? All we have are theories that set/describe their
own conditions.

We don't need anymore rhetoric about tweaking existing theories. We
need new thinking.

Some have done that and received the usual response of "it doesn't
comply with what we presently believe". Why should it? There are
surely an infinite number of such concepts that can comply to how we
wish to think of the physic.

But there is only one physic.

The keywords here are 'wish' and 'believe'. Like the physic might be
malleable to that? We are too much into our subjective observation
without the reality of the objective physic. We have it fairly right
that our sun will eventually become a red giant and engulf our Earth,
but we still cannot agree on a c+ (or -v) for light between frames or
a changing of a frame (gravity and/or expansion for how they apply).
What's with that?

We have always made observations/concepts and made a math to accord to
it. But now it seems that we will allow a math to drive a concept.
We are wishy-washy.

In the past we allowed ourselves to believe in all sorts of things
that we find to be untrue now. What's going to be the next belief/
concept we will wish to discard?

It has to be replaced by something new, of course, but it can never be
the ultimate. It is an 'artefactual/superficially imposed yin-yang of
sorts' that we do in our feeble attempt to understand the physic.

I hope no one minds that I spellchecked some of the previous post.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Solutions manual for YOU
    ... Ed., John B. Fraleigh) ... Physics ... instructor solution manual for Advanced Engineering Mathematics 8Ed ...
    (sci.math.num-analysis)
  • Solutions manual for YOU
    ... Ed., John B. Fraleigh) ... Physics ... instructor solution manual for Advanced Engineering Mathematics 8Ed ...
    (sci.math)
  • Solutions manual for YOU
    ... Ed., John B. Fraleigh) ... Physics ... instructor solution manual for Advanced Engineering Mathematics 8Ed ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Solutions manual for YOU
    ... Ed., John B. Fraleigh) ... Physics ... instructor solution manual for Advanced Engineering Mathematics 8Ed ...
    (sci.stat.math)
  • Solutions manual for YOU
    ... Ed., John B. Fraleigh) ... Physics ... instructor solution manual for Advanced Engineering Mathematics 8Ed ...
    (rec.puzzles)