9 ms·
I'm not very knowledgeable of physics, but my intuition is that a fractional type should just be a type that falls between the characteristics of two integer ty
by cybernautique 5y ago
I'm not very knowledgeable of physics, but my intuition is that a fractional type should just be a type that falls between the characteristics of two integer types. So if A is the electromagnetic force and B is the strong nuclear force, A.5 should be some interaction that exhibits characteristics of both, is fully described by neither, yet exhibits no properties which can't be typified by some combination of the integer endpoints.
Of course that raises the question of "shouldn't A.5 then just be considered its own type?" at which point I suppose we'd have to refer to how these "types" are constructed, which seems more like a mathematical/computational (ontological?) question than a purely physics question. Then, I suppose, the question further resolves to: which assumption makes our equations easier to work with?
Please correct me if I'm entirely off-base.
- google234123 5y agoSorry, my view is that if you are not very knowledgeable in a subject then you probably shouldn't be coming up with new theories.
- ozzmotik 5y agothe act of coming up with hypotheses and then testing them is kinda how knowledge is generated, though. and often it can be effectively done by people who aren't thoroughly knowledgeable in a subject, especially as a means to becoming such
- google234123 5y agoNo, physics is more than just intuition and prose. We use formal language and notation in order maintain correctness.
- CuriouslyC 5y agoThe problem here is the conflation of "mathematical model" and "theory" in physics, which doesn't hold in general language. Physicists have gotten stuck on the idea that the math doesn't just predict reality, it "is" reality. In truth, a mathematical model can be perfectly correct and also nonsensical, just look at any neural network. A theory should really be an philosophical/ontological thing, and a model should be a mathematical thing.
- cybernautique 5y agoI appreciate your input. I don't think that's unreasonable. However, this "theory" I proposed wasn't essentially about physics; it was ontological in nature, encroaching more on the field of CS's type theory as it applies to conceptions of physics.
- google234123 5y agoExcept it doesn’t as there is no actual physics in what you wrote… Without it there is no more correctness than any other random string of words Don’t worry though, you aren’t alone. There is a thriving community of people coming up with their own “theories” or proving how pi is exact equal to 3.125
- cybernautique 5y agoListen guy, you're the one that called it a theory to begin with. I didn't make any claims, and you're right that there's no physics in what I wrote: I was interested in the ontology of fractional types, however and wherever they might be applied. Do _you_ have an actual point to make, or are you being mean for the sake of it? I would sincerely like to engage with you, if you're quite done accusing me of trying to trisect the angle.
- goldenkey 5y agoSorry gatekeeper, move along. You're wanted at the next terminal.
- google234123 5y agoSorry, but physics is more than just words and “intuition.” There is a common belief amount crackpots that scientists and mathematicians beucase thye just want to obscure things.
- goldenkey 5y agoSorry but semantics is just semantics. Intuition almost always predates the theories that sprout from it.
- google234123 5y agoIntuition has also proceed every wrong theory. You are the same as the people who think (and have proof!) that pi=4
- goldenkey 5y agoNice ad hominem, I'm actually a mathematician/physicist. Pi has many different constructions and Archimedes' method of creating an n-gon provided the intuition for Newton's later infinite series identities. Keep on gatekeeping but remember, all our robes are borrowed, even mine and yours.
- google234123 5y agoI’m 98% sure you are a crank. Without gatekeepers (peer review, editors…) what would science/math be? Definitely not legitimate or correct.
- goldenkey 5y agoWhat would HN be without our holy gatekeeper (crank) /u/google234123? Blessed be the negator of all those who dare step on the ivory tower of what is canon! Make sure you repeat "crank" 10 more times. I heard it's like a Hail Mary in these parts.
- grkvlt 5y agobut isn't that exactly the process by which one obtains knowledge about a subject? i.e. i don't know much about X, i propose theory Y that may explain part of it, i test theory Y to see if it holds, if it does, i now know more about X, namely that Y explains it.
- Dylan16807 5y ago> some interaction that exhibits characteristics of both, is fully described by neither, yet exhibits no properties which can't be typified by some combination of the integer endpoints Let's say I pick electromagnetic and gravity. If I start using this 'electrogravity' 'half/mixed force' to describe the trajectory of charged objects I'm throwing, it seems like the correct response is not "shouldn't that be its own type?" but "you're just combining two forces for no reason". If you can look at a web of interactions and separate it into two completely independent mechanisms, then there's no fractional force. And the scenario of throwing a charged ball fully fits "interaction that exhibits characteristics of both, is fully described by neither, yet exhibits no properties which can't be typified by some combination of the integer endpoints"
- cybernautique 5y agoGood point, thank you! That's a very intuitive counterexample.