4 ms·
“Fundamental” physics is just the physics of what we happen to be able to observe with the technology available to us at the moment. Newton was creating the fun
by leephillips 5y ago
“Fundamental” physics is just the physics of what we happen to be able to observe with the technology available to us at the moment. Newton was creating the fundamental physics of his time. And a century from now, even if in our generation we succeed in erecting a complete theory that explains everything we have ever seen, physicists will be working on “fundamental physics”. And we still won’t have a good enough handle on turbulence.
- amelius 5y agoIsn't turbulence more a mathematical problem than a physical one?
- ISL 5y agoExperiment is still the arbiter of truth; it enables us to discern which math correctly describes nature.
- potatoman22 5y agoWhat's the distinction?
- leephillips 5y agoI don’t think it’s considered an interesting mathematical problem, although it is related to some interesting theorems about singularities in the fluid equations. It’s of interest to applied mathematicians, engineers, and, perennially, to physicists and artists. For example, Leonardo, who was all of these things.
- dasudasu 5y agoSolving turbulence is quite literally a millenium prize problem with a 1 million USD price tag to it. Solving it would make you famous and almost certainly give you a Fields medal as well. It’s just a particularly difficult problem.
- leephillips 5y agoNo, it isn’t “quite literally a millenium prize problem”. The problem definition is at https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/navierstokes.pdf https://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/navierstokes.pd.... This is related to what I mentioned in passing when I referred to theorems about singularities. You could solve this problem and collect the million bucks and still not have “solved turbulence”. Of course, there is no universal agreement about what solving turbulence means, exactly. EDIT: But most would agree that it would involve constructing solutions to the NS equations that describe turbulence. You could solve the millennium problem by proving that smooth solutions exist, but still not show how to construct any. So it would be of theoretical interest but do nothing to handle the problems of turbulence.
- iainmerrick 5y agoIt may not exactly match the problem statement of that particular prize, but “solving turbulence” is most definitely a very interesting and important area of mathematics research.
- leephillips 5y agoWhat do you mean by “solving turbulence”, and how is it of interest to pure mathematicians?
- ithinkso 5y agoEmergence of chaos in differential equations is pretty much one of the frontiers of pure mathematics
- amelius 5y ago> Solving turbulence is quite literally a millenium prize problem with a 1 million USD price tag to it. Meanwhile, the Apple CEO received $750 million. I think mathematicians are underpaid.
- Koshkin 5y agoFrom the practical standpoint, I think it remains more of an engineering problem than anything else. (This is not "fundamental physics" for sure.)
- singularity2001 5y agoYou might want to read into quantum chaos: the mathematical concept of chaos haunts physics on all levels, including 'fundamental' physics