- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
What causes the greatest misunderstanding in physics?
To be translated into the unfamiliar world, intuition can be accessed through appropriate metaphor, one that facilitates such insight with the bridge of imagery. For instance, the comparison between the musical string theory of Pythagoras and superstrings of today promotes efficiently the mathematically similar modern model.I think a main culprit is an over reliance on intuition. Our macroscopic, slow-moving everyday reality shapes our expectations of the world. Those who succeed in physics are those who can overcome the temptation of thinking that those expectations are sacred.
Loren Booda said:What causes the greatest misunderstanding in physics?
wuliheron said:I voted "other", what I call the "human factor". Not only do the limits of our perceptions limit physics, but the limits societies impose do so as well. As with anything people attempt, the worst opponent we have is ourselves. No one can fight us to a stalemate faster than ourselves.
I voted "other", what I call the "human factor". Not only do the limits of our perceptions limit physics, but the limits societies impose do so as well. As with anything people attempt, the worst opponent we have is ourselves. No one can fight us to a stalemate faster than ourselves.
Gza said:To me, this seems a rather pessimistic view. Look at all the wonders the "H-Factor" has allowed us to understand. Calling it a limit is really stating the obvious, since all "thinking" physical entities in the universe, no matter how complex and better wired than us, will never succeed at surpassing their perceptions.
FaverWillets said:At least with me, this begs the question about our scientific/social endeavors, those that push such allied sciences as applied physics, artificial intelligence, symbiotics, and robotics ever forward toward fully functional independent models of we human beings; is whether we ARE or COULD create such a thing that is without such limitations of perception... it's just too eerie, thus too attractive an idea NOT to entertain.
Phil
Philocrat said:I am totally against any scientific research aimed solely at replicating the human intelligence or consciousness 'JUST FOR THE FUN OF IT'. My main concern is not about all the researches that you are listing...by all means they are very necessary and must go on...but I am worrying about replicating it and making the carrier of such human ability totally independent and completely divorced from the human reality. If the outcomes of those researches are for a human-focused re-engineering of the human reality, then this must be fully welcomed. But I see no light in creating something that may very well outfox the human counterpart. Even if this were not schematically achievable, but the fact remains that we may accidently do so. That's my fear. I continue to find it senseless why we must first indendently replicate the human intelligence before commencing the crucial and most important project of re-engineering ourselves.
My interest in learning more than Newtonian physics started with reading "A Brief History of Time" and I can tell you that intuition/preconceptions are the biggest hump to get over. At first glance, neither Relativity nor QM make any sense. Accepting the reality of the evidence and the implications is a big step to take. From what I see in the TD forum, that's the biggest thing standing in the way.Tom Mattson said:I think a main culprit is an over reliance on intuition. Our macroscopic, slow-moving everyday reality shapes our expectations of the world. Those who succeed in physics are those who can overcome the temptation of thinking that those expectations are sacred.
FaverWillets said:My take on this is simply that this is happening by default: a consequence of the human ego. People around the world are working independently of any centrally controlled study toward this end. But, as you said, it will finally evolve as a series of accidents. A thought exercise I have used from time to time concerns, (brace yourself but don't throw anything at me JUST YET), the problem posed by intersteller travel...just for arguments sake let us suppose that some other form of cognitive intelligence like our own does exist somewhere 'out there'... the human form requires food, water, waste recycling, sex and the ability to stay SANE, and is biologically vulnerable to extremes in G loading, temperature, atmosphere...you get the idea... now, just for snicks and grins let's say that some of the reports of UFOs truly do represent some other advanced lifeform... would they likely be of a biological nature, or a ...mechanical nature?
Not wanting to be so narrow minded and completely devoid of vision I will not say that interstellar travel is impossible PERIOD... I will say that it is to our known physics and allied sciences at this time in OUR history... I wonder that IF ANY of these sightings, however slight in numbers MIGHT turn out to be of some other "intelligence and technology" that is beyond our present day capacity to understand... would they by necessity be cybernetic? I'd think yes. But then, I would also be surrendering to a probable ultimate fate for our own kind. Something I really, really find bothersome.
russ_watters said:My interest in learning more than Newtonian physics started with reading "A Brief History of Time" and I can tell you that intuition/preconceptions are the biggest hump to get over. At first glance, neither Relativity nor QM make any sense. Accepting the reality of the evidence and the implications is a big step to take. From what I see in the TD forum, that's the biggest thing standing in the way.
What causes the greatest misunderstanding in physics?
Gza said:To me, this seems a rather pessimistic view. Look at all the wonders the "H-Factor" has allowed us to understand. Calling it a limit is really stating the obvious, since all "thinking" physical entities in the universe, no matter how complex and better wired than us, will never succeed at surpassing their perceptions.
Leaping antalope said:I voted other. I think it is our brains that cause misunderstandings in physics. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said that "People only see what they are prepared to see". I think this is important to scientific development. Scientists do have hypothesis before they do an experiment. And therefore when the experiment turns out to have slighty different results, scientists often blame on some human errors during the experiment. Also, most scientists believe that what the predecessors concluded are accurate, and their experiments are based on the conclusions of previous scientists, which might be wrong. From these we can see that it is our brains that cause the many misunderstanding in physics.
Mathematics and physics are closely intertwined fields, with mathematics providing the language and tools for describing and understanding the physical world. Physics relies heavily on mathematical models and equations to explain and predict natural phenomena.
While mathematics has been crucial in advancing our understanding of physics, it can also lead to misunderstandings if used incorrectly or without proper context. For example, some mathematical concepts may not accurately represent real-world phenomena or may be misapplied to physical situations.
It is difficult to pinpoint one single cause for misunderstandings in physics, as there are often multiple factors at play. While mathematics can certainly contribute to misunderstandings, it is not the sole root cause. Other factors such as incomplete data, flawed experiments, and human error can also play a role.
To minimize misunderstandings, it is important for scientists to carefully consider the limitations and assumptions of mathematical models and to validate their results with experimental data. Collaboration and peer review among scientists can also help identify and correct any potential misunderstandings caused by mathematics.
While it is possible to have a basic understanding of some physical concepts without a strong mathematical background, a deep understanding of physics is not possible without a solid foundation in mathematics. Mathematics provides the tools and language for accurately describing and predicting the behavior of the physical world.