Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Physics contradicts maths - how is this possible?
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 3 of 69 (442390)
12-21-2007 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agobot
12-20-2007 5:24 PM


Agobot writes:
quote:
How is this possible?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agobot, posted 12-20-2007 5:24 PM Agobot has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 12-21-2007 12:41 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 9 of 69 (442408)
12-21-2007 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taz
12-21-2007 12:41 AM


Taz responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Physics is nothing more than applied math.
Haha. I'd like to think of it the other way around, that math is nothing more than physics without the meat.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taz, posted 12-21-2007 12:41 AM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by cavediver, posted 12-21-2007 6:54 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 56 of 69 (442813)
12-22-2007 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
12-22-2007 10:04 AM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
RAZD writes:
quote:
Because the math can be perfect and still wrong.
No, that's a contradiction. Instead, the math can be perfect but not applicable to the situation at hand.
quote:
Math is based entirely on assumption
Since everything in science eventually comes back to math, that means everything is an assumption.
quote:
As such there is no real tie between any mathematical computation and any object of the world of objective reality.
On the contrary, nothing can exist without mathematics for it is the very nature of existence. But, we've had this conversation before.
quote:
Math can be used to model reality, but the model is only as good as the assumptions used in the maths
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:
Bees fly. An engineer calculated that it couldn't, but it was the assumptions that the aerodynamics of man-made plane wings to the flight with bee wings that was in error.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 12-22-2007 10:04 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 10:58 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 63 of 69 (443097)
12-23-2007 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
12-23-2007 10:58 AM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
A wrong use\application of math\model still means the math is wrong for the situation, no matter how perfect it is for other use\applications.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 10:58 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 8:50 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 66 of 69 (443459)
12-25-2007 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by RAZD
12-23-2007 8:50 PM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
RAZD responds to me:
quote:
Modeling math with hammers and screwdrivers won't change the fact that the mathematical answer is wrong.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by RAZD, posted 12-23-2007 8:50 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 7:47 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 68 of 69 (443857)
12-27-2007 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by sinequanon
12-25-2007 7:47 AM


Re: Math models reality with abstract constructions
sinequanon responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Do not confuse the model with the math that drives it.
Creating the mathematical model is part of the maths (applied mathematicians spend most of their research doing just this).
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:
So the maths can be wrong.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by sinequanon, posted 12-25-2007 7:47 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by sinequanon, posted 12-27-2007 6:14 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024