4 ms·

There is a '3' here, too. Which is that the explanation is more abstract than the equations, i.e. it carries less information but is still accurate in what it s

There is a '3' here, too. Which is that the explanation is more abstract than the equations, i.e. it carries less information but is still accurate in what it says. >... physics knowledge is math This would be hard to justify in the face of the fact that many alternate formulations often exist with identical predictive power of the same physical phenomena. So we can't say the phenomenon is the mathematical formulation, because it's equally some other formulation too. The best we can say is all of the most precise descriptions we've found so far have been given in terms of mathematical statements. I think the reason many physicists feel the temptation to communicate their work without equations is that the most interesting and creative part of their work is likely prior to equations in which their results are codified. And that abstract idea that led to the equations, which may now be just a simple image in the physicists mind, seems like something shareable and interesting. At least that's been my experience doing abstract math and programming work and feeling a desire to share the 'key idea' behind certain things with non-technical friends.

whatshisface 9y ago
> So we can't say the phenomenon is the mathematical formulation That's true, but our knowledge of the phenomenon is exactly equivalent to our knowledge of the math. Our knowledge of the math consists of knowing that it fits experiment (the part that makes it physics,) and also knowing how we can manipulate it symbolically (this part is math and captures the equivalent formulations.) >There is a '3' here, too. You're right, I had missed that option. Although this is very rarely possible and when so very difficult. One of the problems with English is a poor control of ambiguity: it's never clear about which parts of what has been stated were meant. Ideally we would be writing our vague physics explanations in an oligosynthetic language where we could append phenomes until a word had reached exactly the level of specificity intended - instead we have to wave our hands and hope that people don't make the wrong guesses about which interpretations were intended and which weren't.
- westoncb 9y ago
  >... but our knowledge of the phenomenon is exactly equivalent to our knowledge of the math. I agree with that. > Ideally we would be writing our vague physics explanations in an oligosynthetic language where we could append phenomes until a word had reached exactly the level of specificity implied. I imagine each of those phonemes is an additional 'qualification', adding more constraints to what is being said? I also feel like it should be mentioned that mathematical statements about physical phenomena carry a kind of ambiguity and aren't exact either. For instance, classical mechanics fails to take into account the curvature of spacetime in its predictions; so it may be accurate enough, but 'exact' isn't correct (even though everyone considered it to be for a long time). So then, is General Relativity 'exact'? It's an improvement, but calling it exact is unjustified. Then we have multiple candidate theories hoping to unify the domains of quantum and relativistic phenomena, but 1. it hasn't been done and 2. we still won't know if it's exact or just a better approximation. It may seem pedantic, but I think the distinction between 'exact' and 'ridiculously close' is important. 'Exact' tempts people into making an identification between the two things.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - whatshisface 9y ago
    Yes, it's critically important to make sure people understand that propagation of errors is as much a part of scientific knowledge as the ideal equations. (That's still math, though. ;) I'm not talking about platonic ideals, just symbols and practical considerations.)
    - westoncb 9y ago
      That's fair, I think I read your initial comment too quickly. And I should know better, I think we've spoken on here in the past :)

whatshisface 9y ago

> So we can't say the phenomenon is the mathematical formulation That's true, but our knowledge of the phenomenon is exactly equivalent to our knowledge of the math. Our knowledge of the math consists of knowing that it fits experiment (the part that makes it physics,) and also knowing how we can manipulate it symbolically (this part is math and captures the equivalent formulations.) >There is a '3' here, too. You're right, I had missed that option. Although this is very rarely possible and when so very difficult. One of the problems with English is a poor control of ambiguity: it's never clear about which parts of what has been stated were meant. Ideally we would be writing our vague physics explanations in an oligosynthetic language where we could append phenomes until a word had reached exactly the level of specificity intended - instead we have to wave our hands and hope that people don't make the wrong guesses about which interpretations were intended and which weren't.

westoncb 9y ago
>... but our knowledge of the phenomenon is exactly equivalent to our knowledge of the math. I agree with that. > Ideally we would be writing our vague physics explanations in an oligosynthetic language where we could append phenomes until a word had reached exactly the level of specificity implied. I imagine each of those phonemes is an additional 'qualification', adding more constraints to what is being said? I also feel like it should be mentioned that mathematical statements about physical phenomena carry a kind of ambiguity and aren't exact either. For instance, classical mechanics fails to take into account the curvature of spacetime in its predictions; so it may be accurate enough, but 'exact' isn't correct (even though everyone considered it to be for a long time). So then, is General Relativity 'exact'? It's an improvement, but calling it exact is unjustified. Then we have multiple candidate theories hoping to unify the domains of quantum and relativistic phenomena, but 1. it hasn't been done and 2. we still won't know if it's exact or just a better approximation. It may seem pedantic, but I think the distinction between 'exact' and 'ridiculously close' is important. 'Exact' tempts people into making an identification between the two things.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 9y ago
  Yes, it's critically important to make sure people understand that propagation of errors is as much a part of scientific knowledge as the ideal equations. (That's still math, though. ;) I'm not talking about platonic ideals, just symbols and practical considerations.)
  - westoncb 9y ago
    That's fair, I think I read your initial comment too quickly. And I should know better, I think we've spoken on here in the past :)