Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-25-2019 5:49 AM
21 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,194 Year: 5,231/19,786 Month: 1,353/873 Week: 249/460 Day: 1/64 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
Author Topic:   The mathematization of theoretical physics
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 75 days)
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 31 of 37 (297005)
03-21-2006 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
03-21-2006 7:21 AM


Re: Relation to Mathematics ...
Can you explain why all (cosmological at least) physicists aren't clamoring to find this out? Is there any way this would be counterproductive?

If you're talking about the Pioneer anomaly, most of us aren't interested because there is 99.95% chance that it was just a systematic.
Also the satellite being sent out to test it won't be ready for about a year or two.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2006 7:21 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2006 7:50 AM Son Goku has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 32 of 37 (297008)
03-21-2006 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Son Goku
03-21-2006 7:26 AM


Re: Relation to Mathematics ...
... most of us aren't interested because there is 99.95% chance that it was just a systematic.

And this is making your case that physicists are more interested in the way the real world behaves versus their mathematical model?

Enjoy.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Son Goku, posted 03-21-2006 7:26 AM Son Goku has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Son Goku, posted 03-21-2006 8:10 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 75 days)
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 33 of 37 (297012)
03-21-2006 8:10 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
03-21-2006 7:50 AM


Re: Relation to Mathematics ...
And this is making your case that physicists are more interested in the way the real world behaves versus their mathematical model?

What? There is a 99.95% chance it is a systematic. It was something that was blown out of all proportion by the media.
However given that, we are still testing it by sending out the first in a series of satellites two years from now.

So yes, I think that does make my case, as does my previous post.

EDIT:Systematic, not schematic.

This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-21-2006 08:45 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2006 7:50 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1754 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 34 of 37 (297017)
03-21-2006 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by RAZD
03-21-2006 7:21 AM


Re: Relation to Mathematics ...
It's just that a concept that involves something like 10 or so dimensions as opposed to the current 4 is not necessarily simplifying things eh?

That's like claiming that evolution breaks 2LOT. You have to look at the entire picture to understand what's going on. Only from that vantage point are you going to appreciate any simplification. Unfortunately, gaining that vantage requires immersion in the subject. Reading Greene doesn't cut it.

Which is why I propose a test to measure the actual effect of gravity rather than argue about it.

Have you heard of the gravity probes?

What is arrogant and naive from my perspective is sitting back in chairs and arguing about the various "possible" and "impossible" (mathematical) systems without testing to know how the effect you are modeling really behaves.

You really are confusing practical cosmologists with theoretical physicists. It's possibly my fault becasue I have experience from all these fields and discuss the whole picture. But that is not how research is carried out. Why would a string theorist trying to produce a viable theory that gives rise to the observed particle families, working in a particle phsyics department, care about some possible tiny anomaly that even if it exists may or may not have a gravtational origin?

Until you know what the observed gravitational anomaly actually is

If there is an anomaly, IF and that is far from determined, then it is an observed accelerational anomaly. Whether it is gravitational or not is even less established.

Can you explain why all (cosmological at least) physicists aren't clamoring to find this out? Is there any way this would be counterproductive?

Because it seems to be an error. Nothing else has picked it up. The gravity probes which are far more sensitive haven't picked it up. It doesn't warrant huge spend on it... yet.

It may be a real gravitational effect, in which case there will be huge celebrations and millions of papers will be written, but we will wait to see if real evidence that it exists starts to accumulate.

It is far far far too early. Just becasue you've read about it and a couple of papers have been written doesn't mean that it is real. Far more has been written and published on crop circles yet they don't appear in many of my equations... yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2006 7:21 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2006 9:38 PM cavediver has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 35 of 37 (297148)
03-21-2006 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by cavediver
03-21-2006 8:38 AM


Re: Relation to Mathematics ...
Have you heard of the gravity probes?

Yes. My understanding is that {it\they} will be in near earth space, to test the effect of earth on space:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/launch_update_gpb.html

GP-B is among the most thoroughly researched programs ever undertaken by NASA. GP-B will measure two parts of Einstein's general theory of relativity by assessing how the presence of Earth warps space and time, and how Earth's rotation drags space and time.

"The geodetic effect" describes how the presence of Earth changes space and time. Visually, it is similar to holding a bedsheet by four corners and placing a basketball in the center. The bedsheet will slightly wrap around the ball, somewhat similar to the way Earth warps space and time.

It was launched some two years ago?
http://einstein.stanford.edu/

On Mission Day 679, the Gravity Probe B spacecraft has completed just over 10,000 orbits and both the vehicle and payload continue to be in good health. All active subsystems, including solar arrays/electrical power, Experiment Control Unit (ECU), flight computer, star trackers, magnetic sensing system (MSS) and magnetic torque rods, gyro suspension system (GSS), and telescope detectors, are performing nominally. We continue to communicate with the spacecraft regularly, monitoring the Dewar and probe as they continue to warm up, and collecting status data from various instruments on-board.

We are now entering Phase II of the data analysis, which will last 4-5 months. During this phase, the team will analyze the data on a month-to-month basis, in order to identify, model, and remove systematic errors that span many days or months, including effects resulting from spacecraft anomalies. Phase II will culminate in another meeting of the SAC committee in mid to late August. At that point, the team will begin Phase III of the analysis, during which additional systematic effects will be removed and the results from all four gyros will be combined. This final phase of the data analysis is expected to be completed towards the end of this year.

Then there is Gravity Probe A (the first one):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_rocket_experiment

Gravity Probe A (GP-A) was a satellite-based experiment to test Einstein's theory of general relativity performed by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. It used a MASER to measure the rate change of a clock in lower gravity with high precision.

It was launched on June 18, 1976 on top of a Scout launcher and remained in space for 1 hour and 55 minutes, as intended. It then crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.

Then there's Gravity Probe C, or is there? Seems there are two or three proposals?

But am I missing something? Is there one going into deep space? On the trail of the pioneers? Out to where the anomalies become measurable?

The topic suposedly has to do with the relative reliance on mathematics and on evidence, and so far you are both dismissing possible evidence that challenges the mathematics.

Many a breakthrough occurs, not when someone says "eureka" but "that's curious ... "

Enjoy.


www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=14&t=1157&m=1>Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by cavediver, posted 03-21-2006 8:38 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by cavediver, posted 03-22-2006 5:19 AM RAZD has not yet responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 1754 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 36 of 37 (297214)
03-22-2006 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
03-21-2006 9:38 PM


Re: Relation to Mathematics ...
But am I missing something?

Yes :)

Is there one going into deep space? On the trail of the pioneers?

We've never sent anything into "deep space". But yes, as I understand it, there is a probe being prepared by ESA. SG seems to know more about it. Perhaps he can elucidate.

Here's a quote by Turyshev and Anderson, the guys who discovered the anomaly...

quote:
Dispassionately, the most likely cause of the anomalous acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft is on-board systematics, but the smoking gun has not yet been found. The only other possibility is the existence of new physics. This dichotomy represents a healthy win-win situation because either one of these two explanations for the Pioneer anomaly would constitute an extremely important discovery.

Most are quite content to sit back and wait. As I said before, when something definitive arrives you will not be able to avoid the rush towards publication... the discovery of lambda demonstrates that quite nicely.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 03-21-2006 9:38 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
Son Goku
Member (Idle past 75 days)
Posts: 1120
From: Ireland
Joined: 07-16-2005


Message 37 of 37 (297226)
03-22-2006 6:34 AM


The topic supposedly has to do with the relative reliance on mathematics and on evidence, and so far you are both dismissing possible evidence that challenges the mathematics.

What do you think the WMAP three year study was for. Every single Cosmologist was waiting for it.
I said we weren't interested in the Pioneer anomaly, because it is most likely a systematic, just because something is "big news" in the media doesn't mean it has that much merit.
However it is still going to be tested, because as unlikely as it is we're still interested enough to make sure we aren't missing something.

The WMAP study shows General Relativity still stands and the WMAP is the harshest set of cosmological tests I've ever seen.

I'm going to ask you where is the evidence we're dismissing?
From what source?
I also don't see where this "elegant solution" criticism comes in.


  
Prev12
3
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019