Is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics Your Favorite Principle?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kant
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Law Nature
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around the relationship between mathematics and the laws of nature, particularly questioning whether mathematical theorems accurately reflect natural phenomena. It is noted that while constants like the fine structure constant are considered accurate measurements, they are not infallible or exact. The conversation emphasizes that mathematics does not inherently concern itself with the laws of nature; that role belongs to physics. Participants express confusion over the phrasing of questions and interpretations, highlighting the complexity of discussing abstract concepts like mathematical representation versus natural laws. The dialogue also touches on the idea that laws of nature, such as gravity, are better understood through their effects rather than solely through mathematical equations. Overall, the discussion reveals a nuanced view of how mathematics relates to the understanding of nature, with acknowledgment of the limitations of both fields.
kant
Messages
388
Reaction score
0
Principles, math theorm.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
 
Aren't maths theorems just approximations of the laws of nature,even constants like the fine structure constant are not 100% accurate.

I'd say the best law of nature is evolution followed by gravity perhaps.:smile:
man.jpg
 
Last edited:
Schrodinger's Dog said:
Aren't maths theorems just approximations of the laws of nature
Maths does not concern itself with the laws of nature. That is the job of physics.

even constants like the fine structure constant are not 100% accurate.
What exactly do you mean by this? It is a measurement or a description that possesses the property of accuracy. The value of the constant, just like the value of any other measured quantity (that isn't quantized) as determined by measurement, naturally can not be had to an arbitrary accuracy (heck, is it even possible to write down an arbitrary real number in a finite time?).
 
Gokul43201 said:
Maths does not concern itself with the laws of nature. That is the job of physics.

Erm ok, do you not think that was a little bit of a nit pick? I think it's clear what he's referring too, and what I am, I was pointing out that maths is not an exact reflection of the laws of nature, on it's own. In other words?

What exactly do you mean by this? It is a measurement or a description that possesses the property of accuracy. The value of the constant, just like the value of any other measured quantity (that isn't quantized) as determined by measurement, naturally can not be had to an arbitrary accuracy (heck, is it even possible to write down an arbitrary real number in a finite time?).

Exactly what you just said, so why has he said maths theorems? And by maths theorems I presume he's talking about mathematical terms that apply to theory, or nature, thus the ?

I kind of get the feeling that we are both saying the same thing pretty much.

When I think of a law of nature I don't think of

F_g=G.\frac{m1m2}{r^2}

I tend to think of gravity and the discussion of gravity's effects as the law and the maths as the closest representation possible of these effects given condtion x.
 
Last edited:
I didn't read the question that way. I read it as "what are your favorite laws of nature, principles, and math theorems?" But I still don't understand what you mean by :
I was pointing out that maths is not an exact reflection of the laws of nature

That is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say; that it does not attempt to be one. I guess it's just not as clear to me as it is to you.
 
Last edited:
I see what you mean? Very odd way of writing the question, I've not seen someone do that before, never mind.:smile: Obviously my mistake.

Gokul43201 said:
That is exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say; that it does not attempt to be one. I guess it's just not as clear to me as it is to you.

Well considering I misinterpreted the question, I didn't think that was made clear? Anyway doesn't matter.
 
Last edited:
I've seen lots of people split up a sentence between the thread title and the first part of the OP. Can be quite confusing.
 
a^2+b^2=c^2
 
  • #10
I think we just saw the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work in the first 8 posts!:smile:

Go 2nd Law!
 

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Back
Top