How accessible is physics?

[Farsight]

What you do is worse that arm waving. You are actually harming the intellectual development of people (e.g. Brain Man) because you offer a pleasing fiction. The job of actually explaining physics has to go to those who understand physics...

No, I'm helping, not harming, and I'm doing the job you ought to be doing, and won't, because you can't. Because you don't understand it. And something else you don't understand, is that I do.

[colubridae]

What you do is worse that arm waving. You are actually harming the intellectual development of people (e.g. Brain Man) because you offer a pleasing fiction. The job of actually explaining physics has to go to those who understand physics...

No, I'm helping, not harming, and I'm doing the job you ought to be doing, and won't, because you can't. Because you don't understand it. And something else you don't understand, is that I do.

No I understand you don't.

Can I win. I said it last...

So this is how physics is done.

[ChildInAZoo]

No, I'm helping, not harming, and I'm doing the job you ought to be doing, and won't, because you can't. Because you don't understand it. And something else you don't understand, is that I do.

How do you know what I'm doing? I could be writing books and papers about physics. I could be teaching about physics. These would be real, serious steps toward explaining based upon actually understanding physics.

This is a message board where the only reason I would only bring up details of physics is because you brought up statements about physics that are flatly incorrect. It is not normally the place of a message board like this to bust out theories of physics often studied at the graduate level.

I tried to assist you in coming to the truth, but like the other people that you talk about who have their minds closed, you wouldn't even take the time to figure out whether or not your interpretation of one author was correct. You didn't do anything but the most superficial defence of your position and I suspect it is because you are not willing to actually imagine that you are wrong in any way. That's a problem, especially when you are unwilling to actually learn how to do physics. You have been at this for long enough to earn an undergraduate degree in physics, but you haven't done the work--you are barely further ahead than you were years ago. How long you worked on your position before that only you know, but you also know that it wasn't spent learning how to use the relevant physics.

[Farsight]

Questions like "what is energy" or "what is mass" are deep questions, but they are essentially philosophical ones. Science probes the relationship between testable parameters. We can agree how to measure energy in a lab, and the mechanisms by which it's measured are repeatable. Likewise spatial dimensions.

They aren't philosophical questions, they're fundamental physics questions, and "relationships" is the issue. Mathematical expressions like E=mc² give relationships, and they are useful. But it isn't enough. This is what happens:

Q: What is energy?
A: The capacity to do work.
Q: What is work?
A: The transfer of energy.
Q: What is mass?
A: A measure of a system's energy content.
Q: What is energy?
A: The capacity to do work.

Many people with an physics education take pride in their mathematical ability, but many also miss this "what do the terms really mean?" issue. Some even dismiss the issue as "mere semantics", forgetting that semantics means meaning. And as to whether questions are philosophical or fundamental, let me remind you that some people also forget what PhD actually stands for.

I'm actually quite open to the idea that there is some as yet unexplored relationship between mass, gravity and time - but i don't think you or I will arrive at it by pretending that existing theories substantiate fictitious arguments.

I'd say existing theories exhibit deficiencies rather than fiction. And don't forget that the stuff I talk is labelled "relativity+" and refers to Einstein and Maxwell etc. It isn't really something new. For example the electron model relates to topological quantum field theory, which can arguably be traced back as far as Kelvin, see http://www.math.buffalo.edu/~menasco/Knottheory.html .

The methodology in those schoolboy problems which you dismissed so lightly elsewhere is exactly the same methodology applied in much more complicated equations to predict outcomes. They were designed to be so, after all, school examinations are designed to prepare students for undergraduate courses. Special relativity can be taught with basic algebra and elementary calculus, but conceptually, it is out of synch with how we experience the world at classical speeds.

Maths is a vital tool for physics. Don't think I'm against mathematics, I'm not. I was dismissive of the ballistics problem because it really wasn't on topic.

That's not really an issue for schoolkids. If anything physics is pretty dry at A level. Lenses, Kirchoffs law, stress, strain, elastic and plastic deformation, basic scalar e-m, Newtons equations of motion, Newtons laws of gravity, very basic quantum physics, radiative decay, HR diagrams for astronomy electives, dimensional analysis, moments of inertia in mechanics options....

I agree. The speculative papers on things like the holographic universe and Boltzmann brains are a problem for physics rather than schools.

Mostly students learn (and struggle to learn) methods to solve simple scalar problems by selecting from a toolbox of rules. They conduct experiments with voltmeters, chucking ball bearings off tables and timing their fall, that kind of stuff.

My son told me the most exciting experiment he did in physics was timing a pendulum. There were no van der Graaff generators. But like I said I'm not a physics teacher. I don't know exactly how it is in schools.

At undergraduate level, there is still a stong emphasis on experiment, but the experiments and theories become more complicated, in fact, a big transition is between basic theory and experimental model, where real world approximations are made to account for the imperfect conditions in which experiments happen. Skills like error analysis are developed. The "certainty" of experiments is quantified. There's a good mix between theory and practice.

I don't know exactly how it is in universities either. The impression I've picked up from some is that it's "all maths", but obviously it can't be.

PhD and MSc level physics usually focus on research based issues, such as the formation of liquid crystals, or propagation of optical pulses in fibre-optic media and waveguides. There is a mix between learned theory, experiment, and dissertation work geared towards producing or assisting in the production of academic papers.

No problem.

Research fellows work under the directive of a unit head exploring specific aspects of an experiment, or a theory, or both. There is usually a very strong focus on a specific area of expertise, and elements of teaching - perhaps delivering tutorials. That's the bread and butter of practical academic science farsight.

I do know how it works. A number of my wider family members are professional scientists.

The way you post seems so adversarial to that, I really don't understand why.

It isn't. You've formed the wrong impression.

I can agree to a point that many scientists don't ponder the "deep questions" of what charge is or energy or whatever as part of their work. Most practical science gears towards creating experiments to test new ideas and come up with useful applications for those ideas by developing prototype products which go forward to find use in industry, or shed light on existing phenomena we've observed in a lab, but can't fully explain yet. Liquid crystal science is an example from 18 odd years ago which had huge focus, and the research on it has led to widespread adoption of superb LCD screens and thin films. Physics over the last 20 years has contributed immensely to the creation of new devices, many of which are probably in your home and certainly in mine. Much of those developments rely on a rock solid understanding of quantum theory, electromagnetism, chemistry, material science and so forth.

All good stuff. I've had considerable interest from people in condensed matter physics, optics, electronics etc. The grief tends to come from string theorists and people who are into things like supersymmetry and WIMP dark matter.

Now it is fair to say that we haven't had huge paradigm shifts like the transition between Newtonian mechanics and relativity, and the fundamentals of quantum theory remain unchanged, but that is a function of how successful existing theory is at modelling reality. If anything, the efforts to unify the areas in which quantum theory and relativity overlap are the province of physics' explorers. The very people who are thinking at the margins, and I imagine farsight, the same people who are very dismissive of you - if any have given you the time of day. But I don't think they are being dismissive because your concepts are so radical farsight.

You'd be surprised at some of the people I talk to. And my concepts aren't radical. They're mundane. And most of them aren't my concepts anyway, they're other people's concepts.

Maths provides a useful set of tools which can appropriated to show what theories predict, and mathematical exploration of those ideas can yield new results and ideas in it's own right. For example, the div,grad and curl identities provide very useful techniques for reformulating and solving Maxwells equations when applied to real life problems. Many more examples exist.

Like I said, mathematics is a vital tool for physics. But it tells you what curl does, not what it is. This does:



LOL! Gotta go, the two-year-old has chickenpox, and the wife is growling at me.

[Twiglet]

Q: What is energy?
A: The capacity to do work.
Q: What is work?
A: The transfer of energy.
Q: What is mass?
A: A measure of a system's energy content.
Q: What is energy?
A: The capacity to do work.

Many people with an physics education take pride in their mathematical ability, but many also miss this "what do the terms really mean?" issue. Some even dismiss the issue as "mere semantics", forgetting that semantics means meaning. And as to whether questions are philosophical or fundamental, let me remind you that some people also forget what PhD actually stands for.

The system is self referrential, which it absolutely has to be.

Think about this.

Physics is formulated in terms of mathematical equalities. This isn't maths as God, what I mean is that different quantities sit on either side of an "equals" sign. Don't you understand that's exactly what makes it useful and testable?

Of course it's bloody well self referrential, if it wasn't then you couldn't perform calculations at all. Because you couldn't sit different things on either side of an equals sign. Because you couldn't claim an equivalence. Verbal descriptions translate mathematically to claiming an equivalence.

The acid test of physics is whether it describes observed reality. If it doesn't it's discarded, or applied within the remit of its accuracy (like classical mechanics).

If you don't get this farsight, you are not even at a level where you understand what science *is* much less what the terms describe.

Einstein didn't get recognition for saying "wow energy is a bit odd Bob, I don't think old Isaac has matters to rights!". He actually produced a theory which predicted where Newtons ideas wouldn't work and his would. Do your ideas predict anything that can be tested, where the results predicted are different from existing theory farsight? If so, what?

[colubridae]

Questions like "what is energy" or "what is mass" are deep questions, but they are essentially philosophical ones. Science probes the relationship between testable parameters. We can agree how to measure energy in a lab, and the mechanisms by which it's measured are repeatable. Likewise spatial dimensions.

They aren't philosophical questions, they're fundamental physics questions, and "relationships" is the issue. Mathematical expressions like E=mc² give relationships, and they are useful. But it isn't enough. This is what happens:

Q: What is energy?
A: The capacity to do work.
Q: What is work?
A: The transfer of energy.
Q: What is mass?
A: A measure of a system's energy content.
Q: What is energy?
A: The capacity to do work.

Many people with an physics education take pride in their mathematical ability, but many also miss this "what do the terms really mean?" issue. Some even dismiss the issue as "mere semantics", forgetting that semantics means meaning. And as to whether questions are philosophical or fundamental, let me remind you that some people also forget what PhD actually stands for.

I'm actually quite open to the idea that there is some as yet unexplored relationship between mass, gravity and time - but i don't think you or I will arrive at it by pretending that existing theories substantiate fictitious arguments.

I'd say existing theories exhibit deficiencies rather than fiction. And don't forget that the stuff I talk is labelled "relativity+" and refers to Einstein and Maxwell etc. It isn't really something new. For example the electron model relates to topological quantum field theory, which can arguably be traced back as far as Kelvin, see http://www.math.buffalo.edu/~menasco/Knottheory.html .

The methodology in those schoolboy problems which you dismissed so lightly elsewhere is exactly the same methodology applied in much more complicated equations to predict outcomes. They were designed to be so, after all, school examinations are designed to prepare students for undergraduate courses. Special relativity can be taught with basic algebra and elementary calculus, but conceptually, it is out of synch with how we experience the world at classical speeds.

Maths is a vital tool for physics. Don't think I'm against mathematics, I'm not. I was dismissive of the ballistics problem because it really wasn't on topic.

That's not really an issue for schoolkids. If anything physics is pretty dry at A level. Lenses, Kirchoffs law, stress, strain, elastic and plastic deformation, basic scalar e-m, Newtons equations of motion, Newtons laws of gravity, very basic quantum physics, radiative decay, HR diagrams for astronomy electives, dimensional analysis, moments of inertia in mechanics options....

I agree. The speculative papers on things like the holographic universe and Boltzmann brains are a problem for physics rather than schools.

Mostly students learn (and struggle to learn) methods to solve simple scalar problems by selecting from a toolbox of rules. They conduct experiments with voltmeters, chucking ball bearings off tables and timing their fall, that kind of stuff.

My son told me the most exciting experiment he did in physics was timing a pendulum. There were no van der Graaff generators. But like I said I'm not a physics teacher. I don't know exactly how it is in schools.

At undergraduate level, there is still a stong emphasis on experiment, but the experiments and theories become more complicated, in fact, a big transition is between basic theory and experimental model, where real world approximations are made to account for the imperfect conditions in which experiments happen. Skills like error analysis are developed. The "certainty" of experiments is quantified. There's a good mix between theory and practice.

I don't know exactly how it is in universities either. The impression I've picked up from some is that it's "all maths", but obviously it can't be.

PhD and MSc level physics usually focus on research based issues, such as the formation of liquid crystals, or propagation of optical pulses in fibre-optic media and waveguides. There is a mix between learned theory, experiment, and dissertation work geared towards producing or assisting in the production of academic papers.

No problem.

Research fellows work under the directive of a unit head exploring specific aspects of an experiment, or a theory, or both. There is usually a very strong focus on a specific area of expertise, and elements of teaching - perhaps delivering tutorials. That's the bread and butter of practical academic science farsight.

I do know how it works. A number of my wider family members are professional scientists.

The way you post seems so adversarial to that, I really don't understand why.

It isn't. You've formed the wrong impression.

I can agree to a point that many scientists don't ponder the "deep questions" of what charge is or energy or whatever as part of their work. Most practical science gears towards creating experiments to test new ideas and come up with useful applications for those ideas by developing prototype products which go forward to find use in industry, or shed light on existing phenomena we've observed in a lab, but can't fully explain yet. Liquid crystal science is an example from 18 odd years ago which had huge focus, and the research on it has led to widespread adoption of superb LCD screens and thin films. Physics over the last 20 years has contributed immensely to the creation of new devices, many of which are probably in your home and certainly in mine. Much of those developments rely on a rock solid understanding of quantum theory, electromagnetism, chemistry, material science and so forth.

All good stuff. I've had considerable interest from people in condensed matter physics, optics, electronics etc. The grief tends to come from string theorists and people who are into things like supersymmetry and WIMP dark matter.

Now it is fair to say that we haven't had huge paradigm shifts like the transition between Newtonian mechanics and relativity, and the fundamentals of quantum theory remain unchanged, but that is a function of how successful existing theory is at modelling reality. If anything, the efforts to unify the areas in which quantum theory and relativity overlap are the province of physics' explorers. The very people who are thinking at the margins, and I imagine farsight, the same people who are very dismissive of you - if any have given you the time of day. But I don't think they are being dismissive because your concepts are so radical farsight.

You'd be surprised at some of the people I talk to. And my concepts aren't radical. They're mundane. And most of them aren't my concepts anyway, they're other people's concepts.

Maths provides a useful set of tools which can appropriated to show what theories predict, and mathematical exploration of those ideas can yield new results and ideas in it's own right. For example, the div,grad and curl identities provide very useful techniques for reformulating and solving Maxwells equations when applied to real life problems. Many more examples exist.

Like I said, mathematics is a vital tool for physics. But it tells you what curl does, not what it is. This does:



LOL! Gotta go, the two-year-old has chickenpox, and the wife is growling at me.

Why post on rationalia. What an utter waste of time.

You've got three supporting?

Some people are relentlessly telling how fucking ludicrous your ideas are.

Most aren't interested.

Your science by your own admission is worthless.

What are you getting out of this? Fun?

[Farsight]

The system is self referrential, which it absolutely has to be. Think about this. Physics is formulated in terms of mathematical equalities. This isn't maths as God, what I mean is that different quantities sit on either side of an "equals" sign. Don't you understand that's exactly what makes it useful and testable?

Of course I do. I keep saying maths is a vital tool for physics. You seem to think I don't think it is.

Of course it's bloody well self referrential, if it wasn't then you couldn't perform calculations at all. Because you couldn't sit different things on either side of an equals sign. Because you couldn't claim an equivalence. Verbal descriptions translate mathematically to claiming an equivalence.

And it isn't enough. Look at E=mc² and then ask yourself What is E? If your answer is mc² the next question is What is m? The self-referential answer is E/c² and you're going round in circles.

The acid test of physics is whether it describes observed reality. If it doesn't it's discarded, or applied within the remit of its accuracy (like classical mechanics). If you don't get this farsight, you are not even at a level where you understand what science *is* much less what the terms describe.

Come off it. String theory has been going for forty years, it predicts nothing, it explains nothing, and it hasn't been discarded.

Einstein didn't get recognition for saying "wow energy is a bit odd Bob, I don't think old Isaac has matters to rights!". He actually produced a theory which predicted where Newtons ideas wouldn't work and his would. Do your ideas predict anything that can be tested, where the results predicted are different from existing theory farsight? If so, what?

Einstein was still being dismissed in Cambridge in 1923. See page 53 of Graham Farmelo's book The Strangest Man. Yes, my ideas do predict things that can be tested. Such as the fine structure constant varying with gravity, demonstrating that gravity is a gradient in the relative strength of the electromagnetic force and the strong force. But do note that this testable isn't unique to relativity+, and let's stay on topic.

[ChildInAZoo]

I keep saying maths is a vital tool for physics. You seem to think I don't think it is.

Your deeds continue to show that your words are false.

The acid test of physics is whether it describes observed reality. If it doesn't it's discarded, or applied within the remit of its accuracy (like classical mechanics). If you don't get this farsight, you are not even at a level where you understand what science *is* much less what the terms describe.

Come off it. String theory has been going for forty years, it predicts nothing, it explains nothing, and it hasn't been discarded.

Are you trying to be just as bad as string theory? At least string theory can show how it can be used to derive exactly what we already observe. You cannot show how anything you write can be as good at prediction as string theory.

[Twiglet]

I keep saying maths is a vital tool for physics. You seem to think I don't think it is.

Your deeds continue to show that your words are false.

Particularly when the "maths" in question is addition, subtraction, multiplacation, division and woooo... squares and square roots. The "hard stuff" most kids do by the time they are 14 - which is what's being used in the special relativity thread, and yet, having solved a basic problem (by looking up a formula) to describe how fast different observers percieve moving particles to be travelling... and getting the numerical answer correct by putting the numbers in....

farsight then goes on to talk about how faster than light travel is possible, by ADDING the velocities of two particles in the frame of reference of a different observer, and saying it is "faster than c".

Farsight understands neither the maths of relativity OR the concepts.

See: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 5&start=75

[Farsight]

Those two separating particles measure each other's velocity as .99c, but they separate by four light years of space in less than two years as measured by us. That's how it is. I understand SR. You're clutching at desperate straws Twiglet.

[Twiglet]

Those two separating particles measure each other's velocity as .99c, but they separate by four light years of space in less than two years as measured by us. That's how it is. I understand SR. You're clutching at desperate straws Twiglet.

Yet neither is traveling superluminally.

Go back to tapping your calculator. At least when provided with a formula you seem able to tap the buttons in the right order. Which is the limit so far of your demonstrated competence.

[Farsight]

No, they aren't travelling superluminally, they're moving at .9c. One's moving away from us that way at 0.9c, the other is moving away from us the other way at .9c. And if we're sitting between Alpha-Centauri and Earth, we know that one will reach Alpha Centauri in a little over 2 years, and the other will reach Earth in a little over 2 years. That's a 4 light year gap, traversed in a little over 2 light years. Because they're moving apart at 1.8c as measured by us, even though each particle measures the other's velocity at .99c. It's all very simple, Twiglet, that's the reality of it. If you can't face up to it because you've got your nose so buried in the maths that you can't see the eality, that's up to you. But spare me the abuse, there's a good chap. Try to be gracious in defeat, otherwise you look like a fool.

[Twiglet]

Those two separating particles measure each other's velocity as .99c, but they separate by four light years of space in less than two years as measured by us. That's how it is. I understand SR. You're clutching at desperate straws Twiglet.

Yet you seem to think this means FLT is possible. Yes?

Make your mind up.

When I make mistakes farsight I generally admit them. Harder for you when your whole scientific world view seems predicated on them.

[lpetrich]

I frown upon "schoolboy mathematics" when it's employed to derail a thread and avoid discussion of the evidence and logic and fundamental physics.

How does it derail a thread to point out that you need mathematics to get many important results?

Rambling aside, how accessible do you find physics?

Not very. I'd say that too many theoretical physicists dwell too much on the mathematics and don't spend enough time on "what it means". The result is papers that present a torrent of difficult-to-follow mathematical expressions but get nowhere.

What do you want? Nonmathematical explanations of everything?

Realise that physics isn't maths. Mathematics is a vital tool for physics, but in itself mathematics is not a science. It doesn't follow the scientific method, and too much focus on mathematics can result in theoretical physicists losing their connection with reality and then making untestable speculations concerning things like time travel and the multiverse.

What do you consider having a '"connection with reality"? Only advocating the sorts of theories that you consider plausible?