Logic question on relativity- no math

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

TL;DR Summary

Logic question on relativity, no math.

Checking my understanding.

Can it be said that it is the overlap of the reach and effect of each of the 4 forces, from each respective point of origin possible within the universe, that gives us universal general relativity? Like the most intricate gear set ever?

Could it then also be said that anything not relative in that regard to the universe potentially qualifies as a singularity warranting special relativity considerations for the duration it remains as such?

Thanks so much for your time.

Cheers.

 

[phinds]

Can it be said that it is the overlap of the reach and effect of each of the 4 forces, from each respective point of origin possible within the universe, that gives us universal general relativity? Like the most intricate gear set ever?

That doesn't even make any sense, so no.

 

[berkeman]

(Mentor Note -- Thread prefix changed from "A" to "I")

 

[haushofer]

Concerning the topic title: What kind of logic is this?

 

[berkeman]

Summary:: Logic question on relativity, no math.

Checking my understanding.

Can it be said that it is the overlap of the reach and effect of each of the 4 forces, from each respective point of origin possible within the universe, that gives us universal general relativity? Like the most intricate gear set ever?

Could it then also be said that anything not relative in that regard to the universe potentially qualifies as a singularity warranting special relativity considerations for the duration it remains as such?

Thanks so much for your time.

Cheers.

Welcome to PhysicsForums.

Can you show us some links to the reading that you've been doing that has led to these questions? That would help us to help you to improve your understanding of Relativity. Thanks.

 

[DaveE]

You can say whatever you like, but that doesn't mean other people will understand you. That is why physicists rely almost exclusively on mathematical models. Honestly, when I read your title "...relativity...no math." I was pretty sure how this was going to go.

Popular science writing is entertaining and worthwhile, but there are many areas in science where you just will never really understand it if you don't do the "course work". Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Thermodynamics, ... I'd cover all of physics if I keep going.

We are all in your position. There is more to know in science than anyone can master. None of us have the technical skill to understand everything.

 

[berkeman]

Honestly, when I read your title "...relativity...no math." I was pretty sure how this was going to go.

Good point.

@ThisTimeTomorrow -- Here is a recent Insights article that helps to explain DaveE's point.

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/i-know-the-math-says-so-but-is-it-really-true/

 

[Vanadium 50]

Can it be said

Lots of things can be said.

Add me to the list of people who don't understand what you are saying.

 

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

Your answers are anticipated. I am not a troll, and I do appreciate you being respectful. I will address a couple of your answers to let everyone who does not wish to participate off the hook.

Some of you provided links to various information, thank you for that. There was one article in particular selected just for me, I could tell. In the article, the author emphatically states that if you cannot do the math, you have no business discussing or thinking about physics. I will address that first being the obvious elephant in the room.

Numbers and ones ability to work with them is rendered irrelevant absent logical construct. What do the numbers represent? The numbers being calculated are no different than words. They represent something in a manner that allows it to be compared to, with. and against other things in the most efficient manner. It's why numbers have words and not the other way around. The emphasis the author puts on the significance of the math in his statements, in my opinion, are indicative of his inability to understand the importance of logic in his chosen field, and if he were to change that way of thinking, he could take good concepts even further.

Secondly someone asked what kind of logic. Please accept the previous statement as an example.

My education? Must have read my intro... High school.

 

[Dale]

Summary:: Logic question on relativity, no math.

By the way, logic is part of math.

That said, I also didn’t understand what you were asking.

 

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

Welcome to PhysicsForums.

Can you show us some links to the reading that you've been doing that has led to these questions? That would help us to help you to improve your understanding of Relativity. Thanks.

I appreciate the offer and wish I could. Unfortunately, it's not working that way. I'll let you read my reply and decide. If you'd rather I sought help elsewhere, I understand.

 

[phinds]

In the article, the author emphatically states that if you cannot do the math, you have no business discussing or thinking about physics.

I SERIOUSLY doubt that that's what was said. More likely what was said was something along the lines of this: you can discuss and think about physics all you want but if you don't know the math, you cannot reasonably offer an intelligent opinion on it because you don't actually know what you are talking about.

That may not be the point of view you are looking for but it is what it is.

For example, this:

Can it be said that it is the overlap of the reach and effect of each of the 4 forces, from each respective point of origin possible within the universe, that gives us universal general relativity? Like the most intricate gear set ever?

is just word salad. If you have studied any of the math of relativity, you would never have written it.

 

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

I SERIOUSLY doubt that that's what was said. More likely what was said was something along the lines of this: you can discuss and think about physics all you want but if you don't know the math, you cannot reasonably offer an intelligent opinion on it because you don't actually know what you are talking about.

You were of course welcome to check the links in the earlier responses prior to responding, which would have addressed your doubts. As for the rest, I acknowledge it would take significant effort to achieve beneficial communication on both our parts. You are welcome to opt out of course. Thank you for your time.

 

[romsofia]

I think I can articulate what OP is trying to state: Can the interaction of the fundamental forces in the universe be viewed in a casual idea similar to how a cranking a handle causes gears to turn? That is, is the universe just one big mechanical system?

So while these ideas can be fun to think about OP, they aren't really answerable in my opinion if you're coming from a pure scientific perspective. We know that the universe exists, and we know that these forces interact, and we can describe how they interact for the most part, but how the forces arise is still a mystery.

We don't really understand which force is "more" fundamental to interactions. We can't say which one is the crank, and which one is the gear, and then which one is pushing on the crank?

In a example, this is what I believe you're picturing: "Universe exists, and we have 4 forces that exist. From gravity, this occurs. Because gravity forced this to occur, it made the strong force do this. Because the strong force did this, electromagnetism reacted this way and out pops reality."

 

[phinds]

You were of course welcome to check the links in the earlier responses prior to responding, which would have addressed your doubts. As for the rest, I acknowledge it would take significant effort to achieve beneficial communication on both our parts. You are welcome to opt out of course. Thank you for your time.

OK, I just checked and he did indeed say exactly what I said he said. You have misinterpreted it, as I suspected. It's not the answer you want, so you are letting confirmation bias get in your way.

 

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

OK, I just checked and he did indeed say exactly what I said he said. You have misinterpreted it, as I suspected. It's not the answer you want, so you are letting confirmation bias get in your way.

I did not intend to make you defensive, I apologize.

 

[Dale]

The emphasis the author puts on the significance of the math in his statements, in my opinion, are indicative of his inability to understand the importance of logic in his chosen field

Again, logic is a branch of math.

Your subsequent statements do not clarify your actual question. Please spend some substantial effort to carefully clarify your question

 

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

I think I can articulate what OP is trying to state: Can the interaction of the fundamental forces in the universe be viewed in a casual idea similar to how a cranking a handle causes gears to turn? That is, is the universe just one big mechanical system?

So while these ideas can be fun to think about OP, they aren't really answerable in my opinion if you're coming from a pure scientific perspective. We know that the universe exists, and we know that these forces interact, and we can describe how they interact for the most part, but how the forces arise is still a mystery.

We don't really understand which force is "more" fundamental to interactions. We can't say which one is the crank, and which one is the gear, and then which one is pushing on the crank?

In a example, this is what I believe you're picturing: "Universe exists, and we have 4 forces that exist. From gravity, this occurs. Because gravity forced this to occur, it made the strong force do this. Because the strong force did this, electromagnetism reacted this way and out pops reality."

Thank you! On the right track for communication. I understand what you're saying. I deliberately refrained from elaborating on the original question because this process obviously has varying results depending on the crowd. I will elaborate in another post, if you get a chance to peek. Thanks for your time thus far.

 

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

Again, logic is a branch of math.

Your subsequent statements do not clarify your actual question.

Math is a branch of logic, lol. Agree to disagree, on that for certain. I will extrapolate in a post shortly. Thanks for your time so far.

 

[phinds]

I did not intend to make you defensive, I apologize.

This is just deflection. You are avoiding answering what I said and focusing on some imagined tone of defensiveness.

 

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

Thanks all for your time thus far. To be clear, no, I am not trying to resolve this right this second. I am also well aware that my thoughts could amount to absolutely nothing and am absolutely prepared to accept that as a possible logical conclusion. The very reason I'm here is to make that determination, deferring to your knowledge before arriving. I absolutely intend no emotional reaction from anyone with any of my words, and do not think I'm smarter than anyone at all, just, different. Perhaps very different, lol.

 

[ThisTimeTomorrow]

This is just deflection. You are avoiding answering what I said and focusing on some imagined tone of defensiveness.

I honestly do not know what to say at this point. I am very confused. Allow me to cut to the chase. Do you believe, specifically, that you and I, could, in a reasonable amount of time, achieve a level of communication that could have a beneficial outcome in the pursuit of knowledge? I thought the balance of your initial answer was your way of indicating that you did not think that was possible and I accepted that as an answer. I intend offense to no one.

 

[phinds]

Do you believe, specifically, that you and I, could, in a reasonable amount of time, achieve a level of communication that could have a beneficial outcome in the pursuit of knowledge?

No, I think we're past that point but the good news is that perhaps others here will be more helpful.

 

[DaveE]

Yikes, there are a lot of words in this thread. Do you have a question about relativity? Perhaps if you restated your original post?

 

[PeterDonis]

In the article, the author emphatically states that if you cannot do the math, you have no business discussing or thinking about physics.

I assume you mean the Insights article that I wrote. No, that's not what I said. What I said was that, if you don't understand the math, you do not have an informed opinion about the physics.

Numbers and ones ability to work with them is rendered irrelevant absent logical construct.

I didn't say "numbers and one's ability to work with them". I said "math". Math is not just numbers. Math is a logical structure (actually, an infinite set of logical structures). Perhaps the point I was making in the article will be clearer if I rephrase it to eliminate the word "math", since that word seems to have confused you:

If you don't understand the logical structure of a physical theory, as that structure is expressed in the mathematical equations and rules of the theory, you do not have an informed opinion about the physics described by that theory.

The next question that that rephrasing naturally leads to is, why do physicists express the logical structure of their theories in mathematical equations and rules? And the answer is, because they have found by long experience that that's the best tool for the job. Ordinary language is too vague and imprecise.

someone asked what kind of logic. Please accept the previous statement as an example.

All I see from your example is that (a) you do not understand what math is and what role it actually plays in physics--see above for clarification on that--and (b) you do not grasp how much you do not understand, so you are overconfident in your conclusions.

 

[phinds]

All I see from your example is that (a) you do not understand what math is and what role it actually plays in physics--see above for clarification on that--and (b) you do not grasp how much you do not understand, so you are overconfident in your conclusions.

@ThisTimeTomorrow I think the above quote from Peter is the crux of the problem in this thread. No one here is trying to give you a hard time but you came to this site to get information from folks who know what they are talking about and yet you seem very disinclined to absorb what you are being told.

 

[Dale]

I will extrapolate in a post shortly.

Since we are now at 27 posts without a clear description of the actual question, this thread is closed. It is important that you start any thread with a clear description of the question. When you fail to clarify immediately then the thread becomes irreparable, like this.

For future threads, please spend a substantial effort at making the OP very clear, and as further clarification is requested please clarify your question before responding to tangential topics.