Insights Thinking Outside The Box Versus Knowing What’s In The Box

[DaveC426913]

60+ years later, I still consider it a mathematical hoax that you can take away more pies than are there.

Substitute "dollars" for "pie".

A lot of people (especially grad students with loans) wish they could live in a world where you can't have negative money.

 

[martinbn]

Substitute "dollars" for "pie".

A lot of people (especially grad students with loans) wish they could live in a world where you can't have negative money.

It is not really different. If there are ten pies on the table and you own three, but take four and leave you have minus one pie i.e. you owe a pie.

 

[DaveC426913]

It is not really different. If there are ten pies on the table and you own three, but take four and leave you have minus one pie i.e. you owe a pie.

It's less relatable, IMO. In what real-world scenario does one take pies and then owe them back?

And you don't really resort to negative math when you that, you just count positive pies elsewhere. It can be tortured into a scenario, but it ends up being contrived and unintuitive. IMO.

 

[mathwonk]

As to the breadth of Galois' research, the third part of his testamentary letter, on integrals, displays keen insight into basic questions on abelian integrals, later clarified by Riemann, in particular the division of differentials into first, second, and third kind, according to the nature of their poles, a classification I thought due to Riemann, writing decades later, and specifically a definition of the genus in terms of numbers of periods, and a statement that the space of holomorphic differentials have dimension equal to the genus. Of course Galois gives no details at all. Here he was building on work of Jacobi and Abel, as he built on that of Lagrange in algebra.

 

[Esim Can]

Why? I am not going to make much strides in solving the Collatz Conjecture by keeping myself innocent of the good work that's come before.

Innocence is great, but I am pretty confident that few physics or math discoveries have sprouted from innocence in the absense of a deep understanding of the phenomenon (and, usually, the math).

The 'deep understanding' of the phenomenon IS outside the box. The box is a model, with which we try to describe the phenomenon. One should never forget, that the map is not the terrain. In fact most of the deepest discoveries were made only because someone thought outside the box and did not believed, that the model, the map is identical with the terrain. Maths (at least in physics) is the language, with which we describe the model or visa versa.

The box said, time is absolute and the background with which we describe all phenomena. The phenomena said, that time is not absolute. In that sense, loosing innocence means believing into a theory and thinking then, that it describes the phenomena perfectly. It is just a map, not the terrain.

 

[renormalize]

The 'deep understanding' of the phenomenon IS outside the box.

You've moved the goal posts by adopting an idiosyncratic definition of the "box". In reality, the box is simply the body of all the knowledge of established physics as understood by those individuals who have studied and contributed to that body. And that body of knowledge certainly does include a "deep understanding" of specific areas of physics by some of those individuals.

In fact most of the deepest discoveries were made only because someone thought outside the box and did not believed, that the model, the map is identical with the terrain.

Yes, and no one disagrees with that. But I claim "knowing what's in the box" is essential for that "someone" to develop and vet their alternative to the orthodoxy. If you truly believe that a deep understanding of the orthodoxy is not required to develop viable alternatives to it, you should easily be able to cite multiple examples where a non-expert was successful in updating our collective understanding of physics.
I'll wait.

 

[Esim Can]

So you think, that the knowledge of QM does include the understanding of the phenomena, it describes,.. well i highly doubt that. I think the evidence shows more and more, that we do not understand the phenomena, which are described by QM at all.

 

[weirdoguy]

that we do not understand the phenomena

You define "understand" differently than e.g. I do. And with my definition, I do understand these phenomena, since I do know QM on a working level. Do you? What is the basis for your claims? Pop-sci articles?

One thing is for sure - most people who have problem with "the box" are the ones who are not physicists. Think outside the box all you want, but if you can't solve Shroedinger equation on the fly, in the middle of the night - I'm not taking you seriously.

 

[renormalize]

So you think, that the knowledge of QM does include the understanding of the phenomena, it describes,.. well i highly doubt that. I think the evidence shows more and more, that we do not understand the phenomena, which are described by QM at all.

Still another claim made without providing said "evidence". Please cite credible references that "shows more and more, that we do not understand the phenomena, which are described by QM at all (emphasis added)." so we have a rational basis for discussion.

 

[Esim Can]

LOL! The claim is on your side if you claim for a model with 19 unknown as 'understanding'. If so, where are the derivations of the masses, where is the derivation of the Yukawa coupling, Weinberg angle? There is a huge difference of a wacky interpretation, and understanding. Last would give us the 19 parameter free.

The rational basis is, if we claim to understand something, then we should be able to predict the values of SM.

 

[Esim Can]

You define "understand" differently than e.g. I do. And with my definition, I do understand these phenomena, since I do know QM on a working level. Do you? What is the basis for your claims? Pop-sci articles?

One thing is for sure - most people who have problem with "the box" are the ones who are not physicists. Think outside the box all you want, but if you can't solve Shroedinger equation on the fly, in the middle of the night - I'm not taking you seriously.

Then deliver some of the 19 parameters, derivation and prediction, even a few would do of the standard model to prove your claim.

 

[renormalize]

The rational basis is, if we claim to understand something, then we should be able to predict the values of SM.

So because we don't as yet have a successful "Theory of Everything" you claim that "we do not understand the phenomena, which are described by QM at all (emphasis added)"? Your pessimism is breathtaking. Can you cite any area of physics that you believe we do well-understand by your criteria?

 

[Motore]

LOL! The claim is on your side if you claim for a model with 19 unknown as 'understanding'. If so, where are the derivations of the masses, where is the derivation of the Yukawa coupling, Weinberg angle? There is a huge difference of a wacky interpretation, and understanding. Last would give us the 19 parameter free.

The rational basis is, if we claim to understand something, then we should be able to predict the values of SM.

Nobody is saying we absolutely understand everything, just that the understanding can come from within the box, because the knowledge in the box is very very vast already. Your premise was that the box is unchanging, which is of course not true. The box is changing and ever expanding. The box represents the current knowledge not the absolute knowledge. And if something is discovered outside the box (although it is rare and getting rarer) it will fall into the box, not replace it. And even that discovery can only happen if the discoverer knows what's in the box already.