What is the Future of Physics in Relation to Other Sciences?

[Loren Booda]

What other science will most influence physics in the foreseeable future?

 

[Prometheus]

Linguistics

 

[yesicanread]

Technology integration with a eye on mental health, and fun. :yuck:

 

[loseyourname]

Since when is linguistics a science? Biology will have the biggest impact on biophysics.

 

[Nexus[Free-DC]]

The major influence on Physics will be what is has always been: Mathematics.

 

[Rader]

It will be a toss up between nano-tecknology=new materials and nuclear engineering=fission.

 

[wuliheron]

Mathematics is already making a huge impact on physics and it is thought that within the next five to fifty years the two will finally be reconciled. Logistics under pin mathematics and linguistics under pin logistics.

 

[marcus]

What other science will most influence physics in the foreseeable future?

astronomy is the science with the most influence on the development of theoretical physics now and for the foreseeable future

what technologies will influence physics is another question:
the technology that e.g. goes into satellite observatories (gammaray, microwave observing) and neutrino astronomy and ultrahigh energy cosmic ray astronomy, and so forth is an important factor.
but instrument R and D is its own thing distinct from science.
so for the most influential science I say astronomy

 

[yesicanread]

I said technology integration.
There is a overflow of papers that go unnoticed by the physics, and science researchers.

:yuck:

 

[Prometheus]

Since when is linguistics a science?

Since the beginning of time, so to speak. I believe that lingistics will have the most profound impact on all sciences in the near future, particularly on physics.

Are you really not aware that linguistics is a science? Check dictionary.com, for starters.

For example:

linguistics

\Lin*guis"tics\ (-t[i^]ks), n. [Cf. F. linguistique.] The science of languages, or of the origin, signification, and application of words; glossology.

[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

linguistics

n 1: the scientific study of language 2: the humanistic study of language and literature [syn: philology]

 

[p-brane]

Philosophy will always be a big contributor to the science of Physics. Trepidaciously I might add that the relationship between Philosophy and Physics is a synergistic one. And that this relationship produces a tangible progress in the efficiency of the understanding of all things existencial.

 

[loseyourname]

linguistics

\Lin*guis"tics\ (-t[i^]ks), n. [Cf. F. linguistique.] The science of languages, or of the origin, signification, and application of words; glossology.

Yeah, but it's a social science. That isn't science.

 

[wuliheron]

Yeah, but it's a social science. That isn't science.

Not true, Functional Contextualists have become the first to bridge the cognitive and behavioral sciences in a consistent and nontrivial manner by studying linguistics. In other words, the hard numbers of the behavioral sciences can now be applied to the study of linguistics. No longer are the cognitive and social sciences always separate and distinct entities from those of the so called hard sciences.

 

[loseyourname]

Jeez, guys, can you take a frickin' joke?

 

[wuliheron]

Jeez, guys, can you take a frickin' joke?

Why do you assume I was not joking?

 

[Loren Booda]

joking|gnikoj

 

[Locrian]

I got a good chuckle out of the linguistics response!

 

[Prometheus]

Since when is linguistics a science?

What do you really know about physics? How do you know this? How do you organize this knowledge? I will give you a hint. You organize your knowledge of physics along the lines of the grammar of the language in which you think. You perhaps think, incorrectly, that there is only one way to view reality, and that your grammar provides a completely unbiased and universal way to view reality and to organize your understanding of physics. This is a major mistake on your part, in my opinion.

For example, physics speaks of space-time. However, the English language does not naturally support a unified concept of space-time, but instead subdivides the concept of space from the concept of time. It takes great theoretical effort for the mind to bridge this division that is built into our grammar.

Eventually, followers of physics will learn that in addition to looking outward, to the ends of the universe, in order to understand the structure of the world, they should also look inward, and analyze the structure of the language through which they filter 100% of all understanding that they have ever had about the structure of the world.

To respond to the original question, I think that linguistics is a safe bet.

 

[Locrian]

Physics doesn't use language as a medium, it uses math. Words like "space-time" don't have any meaning in physics, except as much as they apply to math. You'll need to show the linguistic basis of math to do the same for physics.

 

[Rader]

Physics doesn't use language as a medium, it uses math. Words like "space-time" don't have any meaning in physics, except as much as they apply to math. You'll need to show the linguistic basis of math to do the same for physics.

Except when math is latin to the unskilled user. What you mean to say is those who know the language of math use it as a medium to understand physics.

 

[Prometheus]

Physics doesn't use language as a medium, it uses math. Words like "space-time" don't have any meaning in physics, except as much as they apply to math.

Sure. I believe you. When you studied physics, you never used English. Everything was in math language. I believe that every book that you ever read on physics used only math, and had no English at all. Now, here on this forum, we never use English to make our points either, but only math.

When you ponder a theory in physics, or when you try to develop your own, do you really use no English at all?

I recommend that you give this a little more thought.

 

[wuliheron]

Linguistics have been a well grounded science since Acceptance and Commitment therapy proved itself clinically. It is derived from the work of Radical Behaviorists who became the first to meaningfully span the cognitive and behavioral sciences over the last thirty years or so.

 

[loseyourname]

Sure. I believe you. When you studied physics, you never used English. Everything was in math language. I believe that every book that you ever read on physics used only math, and had no English at all. Now, here on this forum, we never use English to make our points either, but only math.

When you ponder a theory in physics, or when you try to develop your own, do you really use no English at all?

I recommend that you give this a little more thought.

The theories of physics are consistent and applicable across all linguistic lines, precisely because they are mathematically expressed. You can talk about an equation in a thousand different languages and every time you are expressing the same idea.

 

[Egmont]

The theories of physics are consistent and applicable across all linguistic lines, precisely because they are mathematically expressed. You can talk about an equation in a thousand different languages and every time you are expressing the same idea.

To give just one example of how this reasoning is not correct:

The Lorentz transformation is mathematically expressed, yet nobody knows what it means when v > c, since the time dilation factor becomes imaginary and nobody has a clue what "imaginary time" means. Yet several mathematical equations also give imaginary results, and we often don't have a problem with those. For instance, "imaginary current" has a very clear meaning in electricity, "imaginary position" has a very clear meaning in mechanics, and so on.

Back to the Lorentz transformation, the only way to find out what "imaginary time" means is by investigating our language, not our math. There's nothing in mathematics that says v can't be greater than c in the equation; it's only our inability to make (linguistic) sense of the concept "imaginary time" which prevents us from asserting that "an object can move faster than the speed of light" (a purely linguistic statement as well, whose truth does not depend on mathematics at all)

Either that, or physics is not as consistent as physicists claim.

 

[Prometheus]

The theories of physics are consistent and applicable across all linguistic lines, precisely because they are mathematically expressed. You can talk about an equation in a thousand different languages and every time you are expressing the same idea.

It is certainly very easy for you to make this claim, isn't it? Can you provide any evidence to support it?

Do you know a thousand different languages such that you have any evidence to back up your statement, or are you just making a claim that you suppose is true?

To me, your statement reflects clearly the fact that you have little understanding of the differences among languages. Concepts such as space and time are not mathematical concepts, they are words in language. Not all languages have the same grammtically induced concept for these words as English. In fact, most do not.

You are suggesting that all statements in physics are mathematical equations, and that all topics in physics are discussed on the basis of fundamental equations.

Theories in physics are based on postulates. These postulates are described using language, not using equations. In order for an equation to have meaning, a linguistic environment is prerequisite.

 

[Locrian]

Sure. I believe you. When you studied physics, you never used English. Everything was in math language. I believe that every book that you ever read on physics used only math, and had no English at all. Now, here on this forum, we never use English to make our points either, but only math.

Being sarcastic is an excellent alternative to presenting an argument. You don't need to discuss the difference between physics and communicating physics, or the difference between proving math has a linguistic basis and proving physics has a linguistic basis or any other such topic, you just have to be snide and ask people to think alot.

 

[Locrian]

they should also look inward, and analyze the structure of the language through which they filter 100% of all understanding that they have ever had about the structure of the world.

I make the case that physics provides no understanding of any "structure of the world," but instead is a mathematical system designed to predict past and future events. I feel an argument can be made for this because looking into the past at the philosophy of science, I find that the "understanding" scientists think they have at any time is dependant on a mistaken use of language to translate mathematical concepts, and invariably it ends up being that this idea they created (which is most certainly built on language) is thrown in the can when a new theory comes along.

On the other hand, the original math still has merit. All the language was a waste, but the math is still a predictor. On top of that, these frameworks created to describe the world philosophically can actually impede future development, by suggesting a way things "should" be, instead of concentrating on a mathematical system to predict observables. If philosophical interpretations of the mathematics were a part of physics, then why do they not aid the science and sometimes hinder it? It seems to me people assume creating a philosophical framework of what physics "means" is part of physics because it is often done by physicists. I do not feel they are correct.

In other words, I dissagree with your very definition of physics, as I find it includes a spurious idea (that physics provides a "structure of the world") that has no place in the science.

 

[Prometheus]

Being sarcastic is an excellent alternative to presenting an argument.

On the contrary, this is the argument. Without an understanding of a language, such as English, there is no way that you could understand physics, or that physics could ever have developed in the first place. The science of physics did not even begin to develop until language grammar had evolved to support such development.

You don't need to discuss the difference between physics and communicating physics, or the difference between proving math has a linguistic basis and proving physics has a linguistic basis or any other such topic

What is the difference? When you think about physics, is that not communicating to yourself? Is not the structure of the world, as ingrained in your mind as a reflection of your understanding of the grammar of the language in which you think, critical in how you communicate physics to yourself? Is not all of your understanding and description of physics based on your communication of ideas to yourself?

 

[Prometheus]

I make the case that physics provides no understanding of any "structure of the world," but instead is a mathematical system

I consider that you are making an incredible jump in thinking, using your language to enable yourself to do so, when you think that mankind developed mathematics out of think air rather than because the grammar of language has evolved to the degree that modern grammar supports the development of such math. This is my opinion, of course.

You say that the language was a waste, and the math still remains. However, was it not language that enabled the development of the math?

This is meaningful. If we have different concepts of what physics entails, then this is a source of disagreement and discussion. You state that physics provides no undersganding of the sructure of the world. Therefore, you are suggesting, I gather, that our belief that there is a universe, that it is composed of matter, that there is energy, that time, space, and light are important concepts, and so on are not relevant, because do not concern these words that give us a concept of the structure of the world.

I have 2 questions. 1. What is the subject of non-science does the study of the structure of the world belong, in your opinion? 2. Please provide me an example of physics, so that I can get an idea of what physics is, in your opinon.

 

[Locrian]

You say that the language was a waste, and the math still remains. However, was it not language that enabled the development of the math?

You'll need to show the linguistic basis of math to do the same for physics.

I see we agree on this. Once you strip away all the muck that is associated needlessly with physics (but isn't physics) we can get down to the question of how much language affects math. More importantly, how is an advancement in linguistics going to affect the math that affects physics? I'd be interested in hearing your response.

I can use language and ponder swimming. I can converse about swimming with my friends. I can even write a book with words about swimming. However, language is not necessary for swimming. Fish show me this is true. This is all so postmodern. Has a physicist Trojan Horsed another paper on the New Math into a journal?

I think you might also be able to go the route of observables and the use of language to determine them. Still, this is right on the line between what physics is and isn't, so I have a hard time seeing any great advance that will come from linguistic advances in the communication of experimental measures. In any case, "the structure of the world" or maybe "how the universe really is" are concepts left to the philosophers. They can have them and do what they will with them, just so long as they don't push them on me, suggest they are important, or suggest they denote the quality of my work.

 

[loseyourname]

Back to the Lorentz transformation, the only way to find out what "imaginary time" means is by investigating our language, not our math. There's nothing in mathematics that says v can't be greater than c in the equation; it's only our inability to make (linguistic) sense of the concept "imaginary time" which prevents us from asserting that "an object can move faster than the speed of light" (a purely linguistic statement as well, whose truth does not depend on mathematics at all)

To stay on this route, you don't investigate what "imaginary time" is by looking into language. "Imaginary time" means that the quantity coming out of the equation when v is greater than c is an imaginary number. To understand what this means, we need to understand what an imaginary number is. It is certainly not a linguitic anomaly. It is a number system built from multiples of the number that, when multiplied by itself, results in -1. If anyone ever figures out exactly how this might translate into a physical phenomenon (it is entirely possible that it does not), it will be a mathematician, not a linguist.

 

[loseyourname]

And of course, the point remains that any calculation using the Lorentz Transformations will always give the same results, when it is made using the same input, regardless of the language spoken by the person performing the calculation.

 

[zeronem]

On the contrary, this is the argument. Without an understanding of a language, such as English, there is no way that you could understand physics.

I doubt that. Imagine a primitive Human Being who knows nothing of language or how to read. He just scavenges for food. Well one day he found an apple on the floor, he threw it straight up in the air and having no idea about gravity the apple came back and hit him in the head. He was exited by this apple coming back down to hit him, so he threw it up in the air again and he would catch it and throw it up again and again. He then finds an orange on the ground, notices how it is different from the apple and throws it up in the air, once again he notices that it comes back down just like the apple. He starts to jump himself and he notices that he comes back down just like the apple and the orange. This primitive being is aware of gravity. Well he is primitive so he can't really give this force a term intill language develops. BUT, he has come to some understanding of the Physical Phenomena Gravity.

 

[Loren Booda]

How about psychology, or brain development? Physiologists pore over Einstein's brain - why not his or future evolution of cognitive abilities revealing a new area of physics not currently accessible to typical homo sapiens sapiens?

 

[loseyourname]

Without an understanding of a language, such as English, there is no way that you could understand physics, or that physics could ever have developed in the first place.

Just to elaborate on the point zeronem made, language is not necessary to understanding. It isn't even necessary to communication. For instance, a tiger has a great understanding of the grazing habits of its prey, without language. A bee can very effectively communicate with its hive by the alignment of its dance with the lines of the honeycomb, the angle between them indicating the direction that food lies in. This is essentially nothing more than pointing in a certain direction and I doubt would qualify as language.