What does physics describe?

  • Thread starter RuroumiKenshin
  • Start date
  • #71
FZ+
1,599
3
Prediction: If I punch myself, it would hurt.

No maths involved.
 
  • #72
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
That is why math is DIFFERENT (that a language).

You do realize that the very first thing in the formal presentation of mathematics is a specification of the grammar for the language of propositional logic, right?
 
  • #73
Originally posted by Mentat
I didn't respond about the rainbow, because you have already "explained" it's origin (as it is held in your religion) and I don't think I'll get anywhere by telling you that you are using mathematics to desribe a physical phenomenon (as I've already told you this, but you ignored me).

Which physical phenomenon? There is nothing physical in rainbow (contrary to your faith). I believe that you lack of understanding of physical phenomenon comes simply from you ignorance (=lack of knowledga about origin of "physical" objects and phenomena).

When you ACTUALLY start studying physics, you will be surprised little of "physical" is there in physics. Moreover, the more you study it, the LESS "physical objects" and "physical phenomena" remains. The rest will be math, math and only math.
 
  • #74
quantumdude
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,575
23
Originally posted by Alexander
Which physical phenomenon? There is nothing physical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).

Which mathematical phenomenon? There is nothing mathematical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).

See how easily that is turned around? Also, the reverse case I presented has more merit, because you can actually see the rainbow (which, in my book, makes it physical).

I believe that you lack of understanding of physical phenomenon comes simply from you ignorance (=lack of knowledga about origin of "physical" objects and phenomena).

This is just plain dumb. Most people who know physics agree with Mentat's reasoning, and he will probably still hold to it after he starts studying physics.

When you ACTUALLY start studying physics, you will be surprised little of "physical" is there in physics. Moreover, the more you study it, the LESS "physical objects" and "physical phenomena" remains. The rest will be math, math and only math.

Why, oh why, don't you start addressing Mentat's logic? You keep parroting this mantra over and over again, and you consistently avoid addressing the hurdles that Mentat and I have presented.

Why do you refuse to see how weak your argument is? It really is totally devoid of any kind of logic. In fact, what you are preaching here is none other than idealism. You are confusing ideal Platonic forms with real, material objects.

I am surprised that someone who was educated in the USSR, with its strong emphasis on dialectical materialism, would cling to such nonsense.
 
  • #75
Originally posted by Tom
Which mathematical phenomenon? There is nothing mathematical in rainbow (contrary to your faith).



Oh, my god. Nothing mathematical, huh?

Tom, did you study optics? Dispersion of light? Atomic physics? There is PLENTY of mathematics in explaining why the electrons in glass respond to e/m field of different frequency differently.

Rainbow, contrary to your claim, is not a physical phenomenon. There is no rainbow per se (=by itself). It is the mathematical result of interaction of several more basic objects/phenomena.

Now, let's honestly ask ourselves: does rainbow bow originate from light itself? Nope. There is no rainbow in sunlight. Indeed, look at the Sun - do you see the rainbow? Nor there is a rainbow in a droplet of H20. Again one can take a droplet and attempt to get rainbow out of it (without adding sunlight or other light). But adding them together (droplet AND sunlight) and looking at their interaction at certain angle - voila - we observe a rainbow circle. And the dispersion of electron's respond to e/m wave is key factor in creating rainbow out of light and water. The shape of rainbow, the location and the order of colors are dictated by dispersion function of respond of outer electron in O atom in a water molecule to passing e/m wave.

So, we need several ingridients to cook a rainbow: mix of photons (sunlight), spherical droplets, and dispersion of electron interaction. Then a rainbow with all its "physical" properties follows as a mathematical consequence.

Each of "appear to be physical" ingridients (say, sunlight, or electron) can be analysed futher (as another object) and similarly found to be a mathematical consequence of more fundamental "parts". And so on.

So, there is not as much "physics" in a rainbow as you think. But much more math resulting in all its observable properies: angular radius of rainbow, location, colors order, colors angular separation, overlapping of wavelengths (due to angular size of Sun), spread of individual colors (due to diffraction on droplet), angular size of second reflection created rainbow, inverse order of colors in that rainbow, etc etc - all these properties are mathematical consequence of interaction of light with distribution of droplets PLUS the location of observer (system of reference). What can be seen by one observer (in one system of reference) can not be seen by another one (say, in shifted reference system) despite that both observer look at the SAME water droplets illuminated by SAME light.

It is plenty of math, dude.
 
  • #76
Originally posted by Tom


Also, the reverse case I presented has more merit, because you can actually see the rainbow (which, in my book, makes it physical).


Seeing something and understanding its origin are two different things.

See how easily that is turned around?

What turned around? Facts don't depend on your opinion.
 
  • #77
Originally posted by Tom
Why, oh why, don't you start addressing Mentat's logic? You keep parroting this mantra over and over again, and you consistently avoid addressing the hurdles that Mentat and I have presented.


There is no logic in his statements (your statements lose logic too when you parrot his statements, by the way. You were more argumentative at times). There is simply layman view (shall I rather say, misunderstanding?) of math (as being just an artificial human construct similar to languages, which math is different from).

Logic is NOT just a human language. Logic is inherent property of existence. That is why logic (and thus math), unlike a language is much more useful in making PREDICTIONS of how existing objects can and how they can not behave. Is this hard to grasp - the origin of logic?

That is why math is used to indeed make correct predictions, and a language is not.
 
  • #78
Mentat
3,918
3


Originally posted by Alexander
To show you on a simple undertandable to you example how wrong are your long posts just try to predict what might be the result of tripling of a few coins you have in your pocket. Plain english is fine to make a valuable prediction. Feel free NOT to use any math (say, numbers).

First off, your question involves numbers, and so cannot be answered without them. Duh!

Anyway, if you actually took the time to read my posts, you might see why I make the conclusions I do. But why would you do that? It's not like YOU could actually learn something from me.
 
  • #79
Mentat
3,918
3
Originally posted by Alexander
There is no logic in his statements

If I approached your posts with this attitude, I would probably behave just as you do (and continue to PREACH my opinion at you). The difference is, I actually read your entire post, think about what you posted, and then supply a response. This is the logical course of debate.

Logic is NOT just a human language. Logic is inherent property of existence.

Why do you keep changing your sermon? Sometimes you say "logic is a property of existence", sometimes you say "logic is the origin of existence", sometimes you say "there is no 'physical' existence, just maths". When are you going to decide what to believe?

That is why logic (and thus math), unlike a language is much more useful in making PREDICTIONS of how existing objects can and how they can not behave.

In your opinion.

Is this hard to grasp - the origin of logic?

Wait a minute...there's an "origin of logic"? Isn't this contradictory to your previous proposition: that logic is the origin of all existence?
 

Suggested for: What does physics describe?

Replies
20
Views
495
Replies
2
Views
278
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
541
Replies
12
Views
824
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
591
Replies
5
Views
419
Replies
74
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
346
Replies
1
Views
286
Replies
4
Views
531
Top