Comic situation.

Comic situation.

On July 2007 I wrote an article:
Do mathematicians understand Physics? / What is for whom?/
The idea is:
Mathematics is not written for mathematicians.
Mathematics is written for physics, for Nature.
This simple fact has been forgotten in science.
…………………….etc
Now mathematics goes ahead of science
and physics follows it. Mathematicians carry the posters
“Forward to abstraction”, “Forward to the absurd”
and we all follow them. We march bravely on the dinosaur’s path.
========.
After enough long discussion I resaved comment from
one mathematician. Here this comment.
===================..
Do mathematicians understand Physics?
To answer your question directly,
Mathematicians are NOT physicists.
Therefore, you can’t expect a mathematician to understand everything a physicist knows and vice versa.
Usually the two fields are closely intertwined however, so there is a lot of shared knowledge.
It is just as much of a mistake to say that mathematicians understand everything about physics
as it is to say mathematicians understand nothing about physics.
Mathematics is an abstract representation of the real world which is applicable
in just about every profession which makes it a fundamental skill. By using it,
you can model the real world to make accurate predictions. However, math is
worthless if you can’t effectively use it in the real world.
Physics uses a lot of math to model the real world.
You can’t be a good physicist if you don’t have math ability and reasoning skills.
To respond to the original post, I’ll ask this:
Should we believe a physicist who doesn’t understand mathematics?
===============..
So, it is possible to say that mathematicians not guilty.
All guilt lies on physicists.
" Should we believe a physicist who doesn’t understand mathematics? "
Does anybody see the comic situation?

A knowledge of math is a requirement for many industries, mainly the Science world, as well as the media/design world (but then again art and science have always been inextricably linked) even the PR world requires the ability to analyse data and statistics - we cannot escape the neccessary use of maths, or we cannot function in a modern world!

I think I get your point.

But whats wrong with a piece of maths that doesn’t describe nature. It could describe a man made things instead.

I think you need to understand that although all maths is describing something physical, its not always describing it on the same level a physicsist is discribing nature. It doesn’t matter if a mathematician doesn’t understand nuclear physics if the piece of maths hes working on describes economics. Economics is still a part of the world the same as quantum physics is there just on different levels.

Physics describes the world on a certain level. Economics describes the world(be it man a made part of the world) on a completely different scale. Mathematics is just the language that is used to describe both correctly.

In a way a pure mathematician isn’t conserned so such with what the language is describing hes concerned with the grammer and spelling and eventing new words. A physics and an ecomicist are concerned more with using the language acuratly to describe different parts of the world.

But yeah I guess your point is if the mathematicians are just ignoring the world and coming up with all this maths without knowing what in the world it describes its a bit weird. But this has worked maths has been created before it was clear what it described in physics untill some physicist came up with a theory and used it. General relativity is the most striking example and group theory aswell. But its also true that physics leads to mathematical understanding I think maxwells equations led to a much better understanding of calculus for example.

I think the relationship between mathematics and physics is more fascinating than comic.

Personally, as a theoretical physicist myself, I think i need to learn alot more maths and alot more physics. But I don’t concern myself so much with the proofs of mathematical theorems more the accuracy with which a physical theory describes the world.

At the moment Im trying to derieve a theorey for blackholes in extra dimensions. Which is what I should be doing now not sitting on the internet.

===============================
Good day, " FIN 666"
========…
I think the " pure " mathematicians are 100% correct.
The " pure " mathematicians have all right to create
and use abstract models ( point, line …etc)
All guilt lies on physicists .
They cannot use abstract models ( point, line …etc).
Physicists must be practic men.
They must use mathematical apparatus in connection
with real object, particle. And they forgot about this fact.
For example.
1.
In thermodynamic particles are points.
2.
In QT particles are points.
3.
In SRT particles are points.
But according SRT the " mathematical point",
cannot be a firm " mathematical point" .
It means it is a " elastic point",
which can change its form. ( ?? !! ).
4.
When this " mathematical elastic point" fly with speed c=1
its form become flat circle.
5.
In QED electron is elastic sphere,
which can change its form. ( ?? !! ).
6.
If physicist think about particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical.
========…
Best wishes.
P.S.
"At the moment Im trying to derieve a theorey for blackholes in extra dimensions. "
/ ??? /.
/ ? /

Point particles are just an aproximation used in physics. We understand that it’s not a 100% accurate description of nature. But the standard model is extremely accurate it agrees with all experimental data. So the point particle approximation (or rather its quantum mechanical equilatent) is a very good one.

Ofcoarse physicist see that there seems to be a ‘paradox’ as you call it. I guess this is one of the motivations behind string theory. If particles are strings and not points the ‘paradox’ goes away quite nicely.

But in general science can only ever give an approximate description of nature. How accurate that description is can be tested can be measured by experiment. I see no reason for guilt on either side. Physicist can use abstract models all they like as long as they understand themas such and don’t mistake the model for actual reality. So I think the problems only arise in philosophy not in science or maths themselves. But to my mind this part of philosophy is extremly interesting; the philosophy of science and how it relates to Reality…

PS

“At the moment Im trying to derieve a theorey for blackholes in extra dimensions.” Think I’ve done it! need to do it in less than 4d aswell though. Hopefully complete my calculation tonight.

I’m doing a project on quatum gravity of black holes in extra dimensions.

=====================
Good luck.

What would you have us do? Sprint before we can crawl?

Every student of physics 101 with half a brain in their heads laughs at their ‘understanding’ of the world through ‘massless, frictionless pulleys’ and ‘massless ropes’ and ‘infinitely rigid members’ (calm down). As you get more interested in the practical side of physics, like engineering, for example, you start to get into corrective factors. Any time you see ‘coefficient’ or ‘factor’, you see a representation of our inability to completely accurately measure a scenario.

Things like coefficient of friction, head loss (calm down), and yield strength, are all estimates based on experimentation. That’s not to say we can’t get pretty accurate and that it’s not our best hopes for understanding the physical world.

For example, did you know that aircraft are only built with a factor of safety of about 1.5? I won’t go into the derivation, but basically that means that planes can handle the rigors of flying plus another half of those stresses. Not a lot of room for error. But you’d better damn well hope that the mathematicians, physicists, and engineers know what they’re talking about when you’re at 35,000 feet.

Physicist is not engineer.
==================…
I want explain situation better.
In thermodynamics , in QT, in SRT the particles are " mathematical point"
The " power " is also a " mathematical point".
Then one a " mathematical point" / power / interacts
with another a " mathematical point" / particle /
the physicist says: " The micro-world is paradoxical."
Don’t we need psychoanalyst to understand this situation?
=============…

I’m having trouble understanding.

You think that the paradoxes present in quantum mechanics, for example, are because they are falsely treating subatomic particles as points?

Also, what does psychology have to do with this?

In thermodynamics , in Quantum Theory,
in SRT the particles are not a " mathematical point"
as physicists " falsely treating subatomic particles “.
2.
Quantum mechanics is not mechanics, as everybody think.
Quantum theory ( SRT+QED) explains the behavior of Light Quanta.
3.
If somebody wants to understand reality using abstract objects,
abstract concepts he will create new abstraction only,
therefore he heeds psychoanalyst.
===========…
P.S.
Einstein (as physicist not engineer) wrote:
" I want to know how God created this world.
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element.
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.”
===========…

Philosophy of physics and religion.
=============..
We live in modern scientific world and I think
/ The science will purify the religion of the “dross”./
I think the science will prove the truth
of the religion’s base.

THE GENESIS.

What inhale the Life in formulas and equations?
What must be present in a body to make it alive?

My answer:
Soul. quantum of light/electron.
Why quantum of light/electron?
1.
Because, from all particles, only the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only Light quantum has the speed of an absolute quantity c = 1.
No other particle can travel with the speed c = 1.
2.
Because, the physicists say: Light quanta have dualistic behaviour.
I say: The dualism of light quanta connects with its ability
to be an electron. (according to the law of conservation/transformation
of energy and the Lorentz transformations)…….. etc.
3.
Because, according the “big bang”,
our Universe has existed for 13 (+) billion years.
My question:
Is it possible to create a child from a cell [zigota] in only 280 days according
to Probability theory? If yes, it will take not 280 days, but will take more
time than our Universe has existed. If no, the process must have purpose.
It means somebody/something must manage this process.
So, which answer is really true?
My opinion is, it is impossible according to Probability theory,
to create a physical body (a child) in only 280 days, from billions and billions
of different cells. It means probability theory doesn’t work in cell theory;
doesn’t work in biophysics. It means probability theory doesn’t work
in the period of a woman’s pregnancy. It means somebody/something
must manage the creation of a child. Religion says, it is the soul.
I say: The privileged particle quantum of light/electron must
manage this process. (According to my interpretation of SRT + QED).
4.
Because, some people that survived clinical death, claim that they saw light.
They saw their material body and everything happening around as from aside,
that in this moment they were not a material body.
Who were they?
Somebody wrote me:
I’m trying to understand what you are saying here. Are you saying that
there is a single electron (or photon?), the spiritual particle, somewhere
in each of our brains that is an antenna-like receiver for divine
transmissions? And we can acquire new forces and abilities
by listening to it?
I say: Yes, exactly so.
1.
The brain of a man approximately consists of sixteen or more
billions neurons. All of them form the system that manages human body.
2.
According to the Pauli exclusion principle,
only one single electron can be in the atom.
This electron reanimates the atom. This electron manages the atom.
If the atom contains more than one electron (for example - two),
this atom represents a “Siamese twin”.
Save us, Great God, of having such atoms, such children!
3.
So usually, electron action is almost completely disguised
by the other forces (mechanical, electromagnetic, nuclear, chemical ……etc).
That is why, it is no wonder, that with the work of all the sixteen billion
neutrons of the brain, a man cannot catch a single impulse of an electron/
quantum of light, his own God:
(mass of electron is equal 10^-31 kg., charge of electron is equal 10^-19 k.)
It remains unnoticed in ordinary processes.
The situation is: hw < kT ( all another powers).
4.
But sometime ( for example in a critical situation)
the energy of the electron can be, hw > kT.
The small energy of Electron is higher than the common
electric field of the brain, and we can acquire new forces
and abilities by listening to it.
Once again.
An electron’s mass is 10^-28gr . The size is 10^-13sm. A charge is 10^-19k .
With these characteristics it is hard for IT to appear.
Therefore it is clear, why we don’t know IT in our ordinary life.
ITS cognition is achieved by a very hard, thin and laborious work.
This work (meditation) demands a person to be devoted to it.
All of us have the personal God/Soul and it is a light quanta/electron.
==============..
Maybe somebody thinks that the power of the light quanta/electron
is so weak that it is possible to scorn it. This is a mistake.
In meditation, the imperceptible power of the light quanta/electron
unusually increases.
I want to give two examples.
1.
It was during the Second World war.
A young soldier was badly wounded. The doctors said he would not live
and refused to operate on him. But only the soldier’s body was wounded.
He did not lose consciousness and heard the conversation of the doctors.
He was young and wanted to live very much, but what could he do
if the body was wounded? And suddenly and unexpectedly he saw
the quantum of light which began to rotate around his body.
And the soldier became fanatic. He imagined himself as the quantum
of light that rotated round his body. Some days passed.
The doctors were surprised, seeing, that he had not died yet,
and decided to operate. And then they made a second operation,
third, ….. tenth ….
50 years have passed and the strong,
well built man told his story on Russian T.V.
2.
The doctor unsuccessfully jumped from a ski springboard,
fell and at once he understood that the backbone was broken.
It a was 100% physical inability. People with such an injury cannot move.
In this difficult time the doctor recollected the books about yoga
and eastern practices. He has imagined himself a quantum of light
and began to twist it around his body and backbone.
It was fanatical work.
After three years of this work, the doctor could move; at first on crutches,
then with a stick, and then freely. This is the story from one of the Soviet
magazines.
==============…
Maybe somebody will say that I mixed together physics, religion,
mystic, parapsychology, the theory of knowledge ………etc.
I think that all these subjects naturally enter into the theory:
THE GENESIS.
1.
T = 0K.
2.
C/D=pi , E=Mc^2, R/N=k , h = 0 , i^2=-1.
3.
h = 1, c=1. ( light quanta).
4.
h = h /2pi , c>1.
E = hw, e^2 = hca ( electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
5.
Star formation:
e- - k - He II - He I - rotating He - thermonuclear reaction:
a) hw > kT
b) hw = kT
c) kT > hw
6.
p ( proton)
7.
Evolution of interaction:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Testing:
Theory and practice.
=========..
This theory is simple, logical, clear.
Everybody can understand it.
=========..======
Best wishes.
socratus.com
wbabin.net/

About philosophy of Physics and Religion.( briefly)

THE GENESIS.
1.
T = 0K.
There is only one Absolute Reference Frame
and it is Vacuum : T=0K .
And Quantum Theory says that T=0K is not dead space.
2.
QT says the " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum: T=0K.
These " virtual particles " have following parameters.
Geometrical form = C/D=pi ,
Potential energy = E=Mc^2,
Potential mass = R/N=k ,
Inner impulse = h = 0 ,
Mathematical formula = i^2=-1 .
Their condition is rest.
3.
Then these " virtual particles " have Planck’s impulse (h=1)
(or Einstein’s impulse h=kb=1) they move with constant and
independent speed c=1.
We named these particle " Quantum of Light".
h = 1, c=1. ( light quanta).
4.
Then these " virtual particles " have another impulse,
Goudsmit /Uhlenbeck,s impulse (h=h/2pi) they became
" electrons “. ( E = hw, e^2 = hca ).
This situation described with " The Lorentz transformations.”
h = h /2pi , c>1.
E = hw, e^2 = hca ( electron).
The Lorentz transformations.
So.
If these " virtual particles " have three conditions:

  1. rest ( h=0),
  2. strait ,constant, independent moving (c=1) and they can
  3. rotate around its axis ( h=h/2pi) they are special particles.
    And no other particles can reach their speed it means they
    cannot have such ability as Light Quanta/ Electron has.
    Therefore I say " Light Quanta/ Electron is privileged particle",
    and it is possible to name Light Quanta/ Electron
    as a " Spiritual, Conscious particle – Soul " ( ! )
    There is another question.
    The " virtual particles " exist in Vacuum : T=0K.
    The Vacuum created these "virtual, spiritual, conscious particles ".
    Then on the question:
    " What gave birth to these Spiritual, Conscious particles? " we can
    understand that something more Conscious is cause of their existence .
    Something more Absolute, Great, Infinite, Eternal , Conscious
    which hides behind the Absolute temperature T=0K.
    And then it became clear, why ancient Egyptians wrote in
    sacred tractate: “The Universe is something Intellectual”. ( ! )

Here I explain the process of " Star formation".
Star formation:
e- - k - He II - He I - rotating He - thermonuclear reaction:
a) hw > kT
b) hw = kT
c) kT > hw
6.
As the result of star formation the Material particles
(protons) turn out well.
p ( Proton.)
7.
Here I explain the process of interaction between
Light Quanta/ Electron and Proton.
The process of evolution is one of main in Universe.
Evolution of interaction:
a) electromagnetic,
b) nuclear,
c) biological.
8.
The main laws in Universe.
Laws:
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy.
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / law.
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ law.
9.
Every theory must be testing logically and practically.
Testing.
a) Theory and practice.
====== =======
Best wishes.

Um, ok.

Oh, by the way:

“What inhale the Life in formulas and equations?”

Should be written:

“What breathes life into formulas and equations?”

Took me a second to understand what you were talking about. I’m not making fun, believe me I have no chance of speaking Hebrew any time soon :slight_smile: