tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post8208106438544275993..comments2022-12-02T17:47:09.350-08:00Comments on Let's Talk Physics: Yes, Everything is MathWill Nelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00289187877856552901noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post-84892330861030934932015-04-08T03:11:45.929-07:002015-04-08T03:11:45.929-07:00If the pseudoscience you've come across doesn&...If the pseudoscience you've come across doesn't have mathematics, consider yourself lucky. There are entire fields of what looks like highly technical physics but is actually fake.<br /><br />Ironically, the "TGD" Ulla mentioned is one of these.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post-58590763942127584482012-05-25T08:57:26.783-07:002012-05-25T08:57:26.783-07:00About uncertainty, I would further point out that,...About uncertainty, I would further point out that, although the outcomes are only defined probabilistically, the set of possible outcomes must be well-defined, and this also requires a mathematical foundation. An atom may decay to other particles, and there is some probability for doing that, but an atom will not simply vanish leaving a gaping hole in space, nor turn into Beethoven's 9th symphony. But one can't frame such constraints in "plain english", because it is not sufficiently precise to define anything. Only mathematics provides the well-defined objects one needs to define the possible outcomes, even in a probabilistic theory.Will Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00289187877856552901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post-55936044797025372402012-05-25T08:09:35.132-07:002012-05-25T08:09:35.132-07:00Glad you liked the article! I, too, am in biology ...Glad you liked the article! I, too, am in biology now, and it does seem like the reductionist approach is continuing to be the main avenue of progress there. Regarding uncertainty, I would argue that it's still basically mathematics, just the mathematics of probability. That is how it appears in Quantum Mechanics; there is no deeper, "non-mathematical" source of the uncertainties, at least not that we know of.Will Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00289187877856552901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post-81211252599394231992012-05-23T21:50:56.751-07:002012-05-23T21:50:56.751-07:00I know it's 2 years old article, but I'd l...I know it's 2 years old article, but I'd like to leave a comment.<br /><br />I enjoyed reading this article! It's very easy to follow how you explained what you are trying to say. <br />I studied physics and biology in undergraduate. I think it is pretty apparent why the importance of role of mathematics in biology is increasing these days since to the bottom layer its all about physics which is described in math!<br /><br />Also I think it is a clearness when people like math and physics, including me. Though I found it very interesting about uncertainty in quantum physics,which is against the ability of accurate prediction of mathematics. I could be wrong.<br /><br />Anyhow thank you for a great article.freindlygeekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05947522112243939458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post-81189368501543057412012-05-23T21:50:35.107-07:002012-05-23T21:50:35.107-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.freindlygeekhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05947522112243939458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post-44569509165380642382010-02-05T23:41:41.771-08:002010-02-05T23:41:41.771-08:00Thanks for your comments!
Regarding the wave/parti...Thanks for your comments!<br />Regarding the wave/particle duality, and the other examples, I would argue that they are all mathematics. It is as mathematics that they make sense; they only seem to violate logic when stated in English. <br />Of course there are some things whose mathematics we don't fully know yet, like dark matter. We have many mathematical theories for them, and I presume that eventually one will be found to be correct.Will Nelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00289187877856552901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post-23660340878334080232010-02-03T14:06:43.944-08:002010-02-03T14:06:43.944-08:00I liked this. It suits my non-physist mind. :)
Yo...I liked this. It suits my non-physist mind. :)<br /><br />You forget the wave-particle duality. What you say is only of particles.<br /><br />The way you think about the least stable matter is also very interesting. It is the quantum criticality. But the matter condensation? The dark matter? The fermione emergence? Where is the math in matter condensation or dark matter? Where is the 'nothingness?', the 'border'?<br /><br />This is also big news: And now we are getting someplace, because both electrons and quarks are fundamental, mathematical objects (at least in current theories). In other words, they can be defined completely. We can write down by means of equations exactly what they are and what rules they obey, under all circumstances, with no caveats or gaps.<br /><br />I do not know this is possible yet, only in TGD, and it is not accepted. Not at LHC can it be done. They act like a blind man.<br /><br />A great blog. Congratulations.Ullahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634036177244152897noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5384583593570605585.post-15947520174017204452008-07-28T06:07:00.000-07:002008-07-28T06:07:00.000-07:00I would explain it in a different way. Physics is...I would explain it in a different way. Physics is arguably the first field of academic study to create quantifiable categories such as mass, velocity, momentum, force, and energy, and to relate these categories to each other quantitatively. Newton's work depended heavily on astronomy - on the observations and models of Keppler and Copernicus. The quantitative nature of the models is mathematical in nature. We find the models believable and useful because they are so accurate in predicting things we care about.<BR/><BR/>Mathematics is the language of physics and engineering. We use it because it enables us to make very accurate predictions about physical situations. <BR/><BR/>One can, of course, describe physical things without mathematics. Some of the sense of things is conveyed; but much of the deeper meaning and most of the predictive qualities are lost. <BR/><BR/>I once argued that classical physics could be taught without calculus. And I think that one can get far with a command of algebra. I think physics is important enough that anyone who has taken high school algebra should also take a physics class. <BR/><BR/>Newtonian physics is important in its own right; but it is important also as an example of what science is - an interrelationship between mathematical model ( which in Hume's terms lives in the realm of ideas) and an empirical, observable world ( which in Hume's terms lives in the realm of fact.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com