Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The mathematization of theoretical physics
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 37 (295554)
03-15-2006 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Son Goku
03-14-2006 5:51 PM


reminds me of a quote
In essence many feel that theoretical physics has given itself over to the beauty of mathematics and is now more concerned with "Topology and Groups" than explaining the natural world.
This reminded me of a quote I recently read.
Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934 writes:
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
Its just that sometimes you hear the wacky stuff people are comming up with and it makes you think if they are even anywhere near whats really happening here. Even if the math is correct, the argment from incredulity is overwhelming with a direct proportion to wackiness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Son Goku, posted 03-14-2006 5:51 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 03-15-2006 1:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 37 (295600)
03-15-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by NosyNed
03-15-2006 1:22 PM


Re: Relation to Reality
Good point.
I guess my problem is that it takes so long for the experimental support to catch up that sometimes it seems like it will never happen. Also, some of the stuff is so wacky, that an experiment does even look feasable. So, its easy to just say, that can't be possible, rather than sit back and wait for the 100's of years it might take for the experiment to be performed to verify the math.
So, today we are verifying some stuff that was really wacky back in the day. How much of that wacky stuff do you think was false? If only a fraction of it has been shown to represent reality, with the rest being crap, then maybe it isn't cost effective to get too wacky.
Sorry to be so vague, I hope you get my drift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by NosyNed, posted 03-15-2006 1:22 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Son Goku, posted 03-15-2006 3:33 PM New Cat's Eye 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