Two slit experiment
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Apollo Mission: a Giant Leap Discrediting Greenhouse Gas Theory
Next: Misconceptions from bad use of language was Re: Two slit experiment
From: Inertial on 6 Jun 2010 23:21 "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5vednSz-C70q_pHRnZ2dnUVZ_tednZ2d(a)mchsi.com... > On 6/6/10 10:06 PM, Huang wrote: >> You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can >> accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are >> equivalent to mathematics. > > Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without > mathematics? ANY? And in case he tries it .. writing out a mathematical expression in English (like "add this value to that value") doesn't stop it being mathematics .. its just another notation.
From: Y.Porat on 7 Jun 2010 03:08 On Jun 7, 5:06 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Huang" <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:4d49a5fc-a034-4004-a839-9c0ed947395c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can > > >> > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. > > > >> No > > > > Science (including physics) is : > > > [1] qualitative > > > [2] quantitative > > > [3] predictive > > > [4] reproducible > > > [5] falsifiable > > > Fine > > > > Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called > > > physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not. > > > It is it quantitative and predictive, then it is explained mathematically. > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > equivalent to mathematics. > > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the > scope of a mathematical proof - Huang you are wasting your precious time on morn parrots crooks find yourself better teacher of physics i can see and predict clearly the people from far east will beat the pompous 'westerns ' *as they do in economy * !!! because they are more open minded AND LESS ARROGANT !!! ATB Y.Porat -----------------
From: Huang on 7 Jun 2010 08:52 On Jun 6, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/6/10 10:06 PM, Huang wrote: > > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > > equivalent to mathematics. > > Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without > mathematics? ANY? The best example would indeed be the simplest. From there, you can build up to more complex things. The wording will be vastly different from what you are accustomed to because you have been using mathematics during your entire tenure as a scientist. But, the numbers should jive with equal precision. The simplest possible example I can think of at the moment is rectilinear motion. An object is moving in a straight line. Using mathematics (say calculus for example) you might describe the position of the object as (x,y,z) where x=0, y=0, and z=t. There are lots of ways to write parametric equations, or transform things with linear algebra, bla bla bla. All wonderful stuff and I dont question it. Consider the interval t = [0, 10] and you have an object that moves with constant motion for 10 seconds from (0,0,0) to (0,0,10). But We will write this same parametrization a little differently. First, the points along each axis, including time, do not exist with certainty = 1. Lets make it easy and say that each point exists with certainty 1/2 and just leave the "distribution of certainties" uniform, I would call that a linear distribution as would most people I suspect. We want the "expected time" to be 10, as in the example above. The "expected distance" should also be 10. So, along each axis, x,y,z, you have 10 units of length which exists and you compose that with 10 units of nonexistent length. This gives a total length of 20, but it is 1/2 nonexistent and so the expected length is 10. You can view it 2 different ways, the nonexistent portion is either discretely distributed, or could be continuously distributed, either way it does not matter because they are equivalent in terms of the end result. These are "conjectured lengths", and clearly we are no longer doing mathematics. You also have 20 units of "conjectured time", 10 exist and 10 do not, giving expected time of 10. So we want to model something which is "conjectured to be", we cannot assume existence of our object either, it is conjectured as well.....and we want that "conjectured object" to move the same way the other one did in the original example. The origin (0,0,0) may or may not exist, and the odds are 50:50, and so too each point may exist with the odds being 50:50 all the way to (0,0,10). There is a 50:50 chance that time will index forward at each moment, and when it does we will find that (0,0,t) is is motion along the z axis, we cannot know exactly where it is at any given moment because 1/2 the points in z = (0,20) do not exist. But t is also going from o to 20, with 50:50 odds pointswise continuously and so it's really no different than the standard mathematical parametrization. Conjectured object has an "expected motion", moving from (0,0,0) to (0,0,10). That may need a little polishing and it sounds quite bizarre but it is approximately what you would need to say to reason this way.
From: Inertial on 7 Jun 2010 09:02 "Huang" <huangxienchen(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:25c3e352-3735-423d-b762-07aac2202a33(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 6, 10:12 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/6/10 10:06 PM, Huang wrote: >> >> > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can >> > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are >> > equivalent to mathematics. >> >> Have you got ANY example of physics that can be done without >> mathematics? ANY? > > > > > The best example would indeed be the simplest. From there, you can > build up to more complex things. The wording will be vastly different > from what you are accustomed to because you have been using > mathematics during your entire tenure as a scientist. But, the numbers > should jive with equal precision. > > > The simplest possible example I can think of at the moment is > rectilinear motion. An object is moving in a straight line. > > Using mathematics (say calculus for example) you might describe the > position of the object as (x,y,z) where x=0, y=0, and z=t. There are > lots of ways to write parametric equations, or transform things with > linear algebra, bla bla bla. All wonderful stuff and I dont question > it. Consider the interval t = [0, 10] and you have an object that > moves with constant motion for 10 seconds from (0,0,0) to (0,0,10). > > But We will write this same parametrization a little differently. > > First, the points along each axis, including time, do not exist with > certainty = 1. Why not? Where are they if they don't exist? Why do you think it makes any difference? [snip a whole lot of math about probabilities of existence etc] And all the above is mathematics .. you were supposed to show something that is NOT mathematics. FAIL
From: PD on 7 Jun 2010 10:31
On Jun 6, 10:06 pm, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 6, 7:36 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Huang" <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:4d49a5fc-a034-4004-a839-9c0ed947395c(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > If I invent a tool (other than math) which can > > >> > successfully model physical processes, then I would call that physics. > > > >> No > > > > Science (including physics) is : > > > [1] qualitative > > > [2] quantitative > > > [3] predictive > > > [4] reproducible > > > [5] falsifiable > > > Fine > > > > Any physical theory which satisfies these things will be called > > > physics - whether it is based on mathematics or not. > > > It is it quantitative and predictive, then it is explained mathematically. > > You really think that mathematics is the only thing which can > accomplish this ? I disagree. There are other tools which are > equivalent to mathematics. > > And Im sure you'll agree that this is a question which is beyond the > scope of a mathematical proof - There are tools other than mathematics for producing quantitatively predictive results? |