|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Physics contradicts maths - how is this possible? | |||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Agobot writes:
quote: It's called a "limit." As the time goes to 1 s, the distance goes to 1 m. It is because of the mathematical process of limits that we have modern physics. This idea that physics contradicts math is silly. Physics is nothing more than applied math. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Taz responds to me:
quote:quote: Well, as my physics prof said on the first day, biology is applied chemistry. Chemistry is applied physics. And physics is applied math. As the other joke goes (and I know I've told it here before): Biologists think they're biochemists.Biochemists think they're chemists. Chemists think they're physical chemists. Physical chemists think they're physicists. Physicists think they're god. And god? Well, god thinks he's a mathematician. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: No, that's a contradiction. Instead, the math can be perfect but not applicable to the situation at hand.
quote: Since everything in science eventually comes back to math, that means everything is an assumption.
quote: On the contrary, nothing can exist without mathematics for it is the very nature of existence. But, we've had this conversation before.
quote: No, the model is only as good as the assumptions used in the model. The math will always be correct. But if you have left something out that your model requires in order to be accurate, it isn't the problem of the math but rather of the model. If you're going to make bread, you mustn't forget the salt. If you do, the bread won't taste very good. If you don't add the salt, it isn't the fault of cooking. The cooking process can only work with what it has. If you've forgotten something, then that's your problem. Mathematical models can only work with the information that you provide them. If you've neglected to account for certain variables, then that is your problem, not the problem of math. Now, science is an observational process, so we will never know if we have accounted for all the variables. And the equations involved can be so complex that we don't know how to untangle them. But just because we don't know how to do it doesn't mean it can't be done. Obviously, things happen despite our models. That's a problem of the model, not the math. Take the difference between linear and relativistic mechanics. The mathematical model is perfect...it just isn't applicable to the world in which we live. If the universe were linear, then linear mechanics would be accurate. It isn't that there's something in the math that makes the universe non-linear. The universe follows its own mathematics. Part of the point of science is to discover what it is.
quote: And thus you prove the point. The problem wasn't the math. After all, the mathematics of rigid-wing aerodynamics is accurate since airplanes fly. It's just not applicable to flexible-wing aerodynamics. The problem is not the math but the model. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD responds to me:
quote: Precisely. Wrong FOR THE SITUATION. There's nothing wrong with the math. It's that you're trying to use a screwdriver when the situation requires a hammer. Now, you can use a screwdriver as a hammer, but it won't work nearly as well. There's nothing wrong with the screwdriver. It is correct and works. There is no flaw in it in any way, shape, or form. It just isn't a hammer. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD responds to me:
quote: That may be, but the math isn't wrong. If your model only says 2 + 2 but the reality is 2 + 2 + 2, that doesn't mean the math is wrong because it came up with 4 instead of 6. It simply means that you have overlooked something. That's the point behind the aerodynamics of bees and pigeons. Using rigid-wing aerodynamics, you cannot accurately model the flight of bees and pigeons. That doesn't make the mathematics of rigid-wing aerodynamics wrong. Planes still fly. It simply means that you have made a mistake. Do not confuse the model with the math that drives it. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
sinequanon responds to me:
quote:quote: As an applied mathematician, not quite. You build your model, but that's you, not the math. You're using the math and how well your model fits what is seen will help drive you to refine your model, but the model is not the math. It's just a model. That's the entire point behind curve fitting. You have a set of data points and you work to fit a curve to it. Using your cubic splines, you create an equation that smoothly connects the data points together. But you always know that your result is a fitting of external curves to your data and can never be confused for the actual process that created the data points.
quote: The math can never be wrong. To say such would mean that somehow, 2 + 2 no longer equals 4 (and let's not be disingenuous and come up with a snarky reply such as "In mod 3, 2 + 2 = 1!" shall we?) A screwdriver is not a hammer, even though you can use it as a hammer. There is nothing wrong with the screwdriver. It's just not very good at being a hammer and to expect it to be able to function as one is a problem of the person using it, not the screwdriver. Newtonian mechanics is wrong. At all levels, all speeds. The math that describes it is not wrong. It simply does not model the universe in which we happen to live. At low speeds, it is a fair approximation (so accurate that you would need special equipment in order to detect the error), but that's all it can be. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024