Re: Is it our math letting us down?

In article <1139124017.201870.310490@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<MuDeltaKappa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So the latest cause of my insomnia has been this: mathematics is the
cornerstone of physics (among other things); all calculations, all
explanations, all theory's, all everything is deeply rooted in math. It
has, and will continue to be, an indispensable tool for describing,
quantifying and predicting physical phenomenon; that is until it comes
to representing things like the center of a black hole - things which
require the use of both quantum mechanics and general relativity. The
mathematical descriptions we currently use just aren't up to the task.

The math is a description of the physics. It quantifies the postulates of
a theory and allows us to make quantitative predictions from it, possibly
predictions that we wouldn't have suspected even at a qualitative level.

When we have trouble at the center of a black hole, or uniting general
relativity and quantum mechanics, it's not really trouble with the math
(assuming humans don't fail the math and are able to solve the equations),
it's trouble with the postulates. That means it's trouble with the
conceptual foundations, not with the mathematical details.

So what do you think? Is there any evidence that our number system
really represents the universe? Sure most of it *works* but is it
really explaining whats going on or is simply a conceptual platform to
help us humans visualize complex problems? If it can let us down when
it come to such trivial problems as the ones above, how / why do we
trust it when it comes to uncovering the laws of the universe?


Number systems have little to do with mathematical physics. But yes, a
theory is simply a conceptual platform. We can't say a particular theory
is the way things REALLY are, just that a particular theory makes (or
doesn't make) predictions that match observation.


--
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Incommensurability of Mathematical Logic and Scientific Logic
    ... What often happens is that people are so math orientated that they ... The rules man devises about those behaviors are his predictions of future observations based upon past observations. ... The worth of a model lies entirely in how well the defined hypothetical measurements of the model match up with actual real-world measurements. ... Physics makes no attempt to speculate about the "causes" for real-world measurements, because no sense can be made of such speculations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Beginning ?
    ... >> Physics and as such, they do not apply to real world situations ... TomGee ... models make predictions that can be tested show your reasoning is false. ... >> You only think your imaginary math applies to real world ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Beginning ?
    ... >>> Physics and as such, they do not apply to real world situations ... > obviously false since a theory must be able to make predictions to be ... My reference was to math constructs and not to theories. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Beginning ?
    ... >> Physics and as such, they do not apply to real world situations ... >> You only think your imaginary math applies to real world ... But the predictions are as often false as true, ... forgot we're talking about math constructs, or are you just trying to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Physical math Vs Ordinary math
    ... A student works on a degree ... in physics, but finds near the end that he cannot make it. ... So he looks around for another major to switch to, sees all the math ... Will he have trouble in math? ...
    (sci.math)