5 ms·

Please, draw line between math and physics. "spacetime" - math, [x,y,z,t]. "geometry" - math "warped" - math (transformation)

saagarjha 8y ago
Physics uses math heavily–I fail to see the point you're making.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Physics uses math heavily for calculations. Above math is used to substitute physics. For example, OpenGL is used heavily to calculate pictures, which are looking close to reality, but we cannot use OpenGL to talk about reality. Please, draw the line.
  - noonespecial 8y ago
    Fascinating. I believe that what you are saying makes sense to you, but you need to understand that it sounds something like: "raccoons aren't mammals because purple is wet" to the people you are saying it to.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      See my comment below -- I find what the parent said quite clear, even though his english don't particularly help him make his case.
      - v_lisivka 8y ago
        I can just say that «correspondence rules must be used to translate from math to real physical world» and be done with that, but it's very different kind of game we are playing here. Some people are smart enough to recognize my moves early. It's game about funding, tenures, fame, elitism, influence, power, etc.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      As we know, OpenGL is good at predictions. With OpenGL we can predict physical look of an imaginary object with high precision. It's Ok to say that by applying of non-linear transformation to vertex array we can create visual effect of strong gravitational field, as in "Interstellar". It's not Ok to say that this non-linear transformation of vertex array is nature of gravity. We can use math freely for predictions and to describe laws of nature. But we cannot use math to explain nature.
      - gpderetta 8y ago
        Is that you, Markov?
        coldtea 8y ago
        Whether parent is right about his idea of physics (which I don't know and haven't seen written here), what he says in the above comment boils down to: "Don't confuse the map with the territory". His reasoning seems to be: Math is used as a tool in physics to model reality. But the mere use of math doesn't make such a model real. It could be still way off. And his example is: Similar to how we use math to model physical reality, we also use OpenGL (or 3D graphic APIs in general) to model real world objects (e.g. in movies). Well, just like OpenGL doesn't correspond to some deeper reality (it's just a tool to make models, which could be totally non realistic), same is the case with math. It's just a tool we use to build physical models, it doesn't automatically lend legitimacy to those models (i.e. it's not like "this physics theory uses math so it must be correct representation of reality').
        snowwrestler 8y ago
        This is all true but it's not actionable. By that I mean, it's philosophically correct but not practically applicable. Yes, mathematical theories are merely a model of actual reality. But a model that produces accurate predictions is useful--even if we know it is not a complete model. Even if we know it's not always accurate, we can model the inaccuracies of the model and constrain how we apply it. NASA knows Newtonian physics is less complete than general relativity, but they still use Newtonian to plot routes through the solar system because it's good enough. So, sure, mathematical physics is not reality. But unless someone has a better tool than mathematical physics for making predictions, merely pointing out that fact is a pointless. Scientists already know it... that's why they do science! Telling a scientist "your theory is not complete yet" is like telling a writer "you haven't written the perfect book yet." Yeah--they know. EDIT to clarify that, while I'm replying to coldtea, my comments are really directed at what v_lisivka is saying in this thread. v_lisivka, you're not wrong, but you're also not adding anything of substance to the conversation. "Physics is not a complete description of reality" is a critique can be dropped into any discussion of physics, which means it does not add any value to a discussion of a specific topic within physics. It's like saying "you can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow" when someone is trying to plan a lunch date.
- canhascodez 8y ago
  They believe that Relativity is wrong, for various counterfactual reasons. I did not have much luck with explanation.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    Science is quite opposite to "believing", but if you "believe" in a theory, then, if you are looking for a word to describe me, this word is "heretic". However, I see no significant differences in position about QM between me and Mario Bunge, famous scientist. :-/
    - canhascodez 8y ago
      Bunge seems to be described primarily as a philosopher, but I also see that he recently wrote a notable paper suggesting that the detection of gravitational waves implies the realism of spacetime.
      - v_lisivka 8y ago
        Yes, I'm standing at the same position. But consequences of that are much deeper. If spacetime(this word hurts me) is material, as alternative to empty space AKA void, then we can study it, and make theories about it constituents. We can measure it velocity, we can measure it fiction, we can try to cool it down, we can use it as (very light but abundant) propellant, and so on.
        canhascodez 8y ago
        That it is real does not mean it is material. Spacetime is not mass-energy. Politely, what you are describing is science fiction.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        I think, it will be put in it own category, when it properties will be discovered, but it still will be on material side, not a pure energy. Everything is fiction at hypotheses generation phase. It will be science only when it will be confirmed by an experiment and reproduced by some one else and withstand critics. String theory requires extra-dimensions, which are never seen, while my theories are doesn't, so they are less fictional.

saagarjha 8y ago

Physics uses math heavily–I fail to see the point you're making.

v_lisivka 8y ago
Physics uses math heavily for calculations. Above math is used to substitute physics. For example, OpenGL is used heavily to calculate pictures, which are looking close to reality, but we cannot use OpenGL to talk about reality. Please, draw the line.
- noonespecial 8y ago
  Fascinating. I believe that what you are saying makes sense to you, but you need to understand that it sounds something like: "raccoons aren't mammals because purple is wet" to the people you are saying it to.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    See my comment below -- I find what the parent said quite clear, even though his english don't particularly help him make his case.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      I can just say that «correspondence rules must be used to translate from math to real physical world» and be done with that, but it's very different kind of game we are playing here. Some people are smart enough to recognize my moves early. It's game about funding, tenures, fame, elitism, influence, power, etc.
  - v_lisivka 8y ago
    As we know, OpenGL is good at predictions. With OpenGL we can predict physical look of an imaginary object with high precision. It's Ok to say that by applying of non-linear transformation to vertex array we can create visual effect of strong gravitational field, as in "Interstellar". It's not Ok to say that this non-linear transformation of vertex array is nature of gravity. We can use math freely for predictions and to describe laws of nature. But we cannot use math to explain nature.
    - gpderetta 8y ago
      Is that you, Markov?
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Whether parent is right about his idea of physics (which I don't know and haven't seen written here), what he says in the above comment boils down to: "Don't confuse the map with the territory". His reasoning seems to be: Math is used as a tool in physics to model reality. But the mere use of math doesn't make such a model real. It could be still way off. And his example is: Similar to how we use math to model physical reality, we also use OpenGL (or 3D graphic APIs in general) to model real world objects (e.g. in movies). Well, just like OpenGL doesn't correspond to some deeper reality (it's just a tool to make models, which could be totally non realistic), same is the case with math. It's just a tool we use to build physical models, it doesn't automatically lend legitimacy to those models (i.e. it's not like "this physics theory uses math so it must be correct representation of reality').
        snowwrestler 8y ago
        This is all true but it's not actionable. By that I mean, it's philosophically correct but not practically applicable. Yes, mathematical theories are merely a model of actual reality. But a model that produces accurate predictions is useful--even if we know it is not a complete model. Even if we know it's not always accurate, we can model the inaccuracies of the model and constrain how we apply it. NASA knows Newtonian physics is less complete than general relativity, but they still use Newtonian to plot routes through the solar system because it's good enough. So, sure, mathematical physics is not reality. But unless someone has a better tool than mathematical physics for making predictions, merely pointing out that fact is a pointless. Scientists already know it... that's why they do science! Telling a scientist "your theory is not complete yet" is like telling a writer "you haven't written the perfect book yet." Yeah--they know. EDIT to clarify that, while I'm replying to coldtea, my comments are really directed at what v_lisivka is saying in this thread. v_lisivka, you're not wrong, but you're also not adding anything of substance to the conversation. "Physics is not a complete description of reality" is a critique can be dropped into any discussion of physics, which means it does not add any value to a discussion of a specific topic within physics. It's like saying "you can't prove the sun will come up tomorrow" when someone is trying to plan a lunch date.
canhascodez 8y ago
They believe that Relativity is wrong, for various counterfactual reasons. I did not have much luck with explanation.
- v_lisivka 8y ago
  Science is quite opposite to "believing", but if you "believe" in a theory, then, if you are looking for a word to describe me, this word is "heretic". However, I see no significant differences in position about QM between me and Mario Bunge, famous scientist. :-/
  - canhascodez 8y ago
    Bunge seems to be described primarily as a philosopher, but I also see that he recently wrote a notable paper suggesting that the detection of gravitational waves implies the realism of spacetime.
    - v_lisivka 8y ago
      Yes, I'm standing at the same position. But consequences of that are much deeper. If spacetime(this word hurts me) is material, as alternative to empty space AKA void, then we can study it, and make theories about it constituents. We can measure it velocity, we can measure it fiction, we can try to cool it down, we can use it as (very light but abundant) propellant, and so on.
      - canhascodez 8y ago
        That it is real does not mean it is material. Spacetime is not mass-energy. Politely, what you are describing is science fiction.
        v_lisivka 8y ago
        I think, it will be put in it own category, when it properties will be discovered, but it still will be on material side, not a pure energy. Everything is fiction at hypotheses generation phase. It will be science only when it will be confirmed by an experiment and reproduced by some one else and withstand critics. String theory requires extra-dimensions, which are never seen, while my theories are doesn't, so they are less fictional.