socrat44 » August 3rd, 2018, 6:50 pm wrote: Physicists lost reality in Mathematics
socrat44 » August 3rd, 2018, 6:50 pm wrote:a)
1905 - Einstein involved negative time in SRT
( nobody knew what negative time really was)
socrat44 » August 3rd, 2018, 6:50 pm wrote:b)
1908 - Minkowski said that Einstein's equations look ''ugly''
And he gave beautiful mathematical solution changing
Einstein's ''ugly'' negative time into a positive time.
Minkowski explained his solution as a ''space-cone''
Today professors say to students:
''you cannot be physicists if you don't understand Minkowski's
beautiful mathematical solution''
( but nobody explains what ''space-cone'' or 4-D really is )
socrat44 » August 3rd, 2018, 6:50 pm wrote:And in 1969 ''string''- physicists involved 11-D, 27-D, M-D
These super - D have never been observed, but physicists believe
that they are on the right way
socrat44 » August 3rd, 2018, 6:50 pm wrote: You cannot do more complex arithmetic if you don't know what 2+2 = 4
and if you don't know what 4-D really is, then more complex dimensions
are only mathematical play for mathematicians
socrat44 » August 3rd, 2018, 6:50 pm wrote:====
a) Classic view: dimension = direction
There are Descartes' three dimensions in space as
three directions in space. The point where all directions
are united shows place where object is.
We don't need more dimension, 3-D is enough to solve problem.
Looking on watch we know at what time object was in this point.
b) Minkowskki view:
there are four dimensions in space as four direction in space
but this ''space'' is not ordinary but very specific '' an absolute spacetime''.
In this ''absolute spacetime'' we don't know the point and time
where object is exactly.
=====
socrat44 » August 4th, 2018, 6:09 am wrote:2) From 1919 Kaluza / Klein's hypoteza (EM + Gravity)
doesn't work (from any point of view, excapt of math for mathematician)
socrat44 » August 4th, 2018, 6:09 am wrote:3) the "classic logical view" must be used to understand quantum physics.
socrat44 » August 4th, 2018, 6:09 am wrote:The proper comparison here should between Euclidean and Minkowski.
(Euclidean plus +2D and Minkowski negative -2D , Pseudo-Euclidean )
socrat44 » August 4th, 2018, 6:09 am wrote:4) How things look from General Relativity view
How things look from Special Relativity view
socrat44 » August 4th, 2018, 6:09 am wrote:5)
a) Euclidean space and time:
two different subjects, conceptions
b) Minkowski space-time:
space-time is one subject, one conception where.
socrat44 » August 4th, 2018, 6:09 am wrote:c) Space-time in SRT is a cosmic fabric for everythings
socrat44 » August 4th, 2018, 6:09 am wrote:d) Minkowski absolute flat space-time can be curved locally.
The local curvature of flat spacetime depends on masses and speed.
(The gravity-masses in the universe as whole are very few 5% - 7%
This amount of masses cannot curve the universe as whole )
someguy1 » August 4th, 2018, 8:45 pm wrote:In 1623, Galileo Galilei said:
Philosophy is written in this grand book, which stands continually open before our eyes (I say the 'Universe'), but can not be understood without first learning to comprehend the language and know the characters as it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and its characters are triangles, circles and other geometric figures, without which it is impossible to humanly understand a word; without these one is wandering in a dark labyrinth.
So you tell me.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
socrat44 » August 8th, 2018, 10:49 pm wrote: A math point - particle
===
A point particle is an ideal particle (not real image of particle in nature)
A point particle is mathematical idealization of particle heavily used in physics
Definitions:
zero-dimensional, a point- mass, a point- charge, a nonzero charge ,
an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume
mitchellmckain » August 9th, 2018, 3:33 am wrote:socrat44 » August 8th, 2018, 10:49 pm wrote: A math point - particle
===
A point particle is an ideal particle (not real image of particle in nature)
A point particle is mathematical idealization of particle heavily used in physics
Definitions:
zero-dimensional, a point- mass, a point- charge, a nonzero charge ,
an elementary particle, with no internal structure, occupies a nonzero volume
Yes, it is picture of things which has always troubled physicists
it makes them singularities as a source of a field.
The field goes to infinity as you approach the particle.
This is one of the things which makes string theory so appealing --
no more point particles and no more field singularities.
If only we could get string theory to work...
socrat44 » August 9th, 2018, 11:17 pm wrote:
Why does quantum particle have ''string'' geometric form ?
Why quantum particle cannot have another geometrical forms:
triangle, square, circle, membrane, . . . drum . . . ?
=====
mitchellmckain wrote:Yes, it is picture of things which has always troubled physicists it makes them singularities as a source of a field. The field goes to infinity as you approach the particle. This is one of the things which makes string theory so appealing -- no more point particles and no more field singularities. If only we could get string theory to work...
mitchellmckain » August 10th, 2018, 12:45 am wrote:socrat44 » August 9th, 2018, 11:17 pm wrote:
Why does quantum particle have ''string'' geometric form ?
Why quantum particle cannot have another geometrical forms:
triangle, square, circle, membrane, . . . drum . . . ?
=====
M-theory consists of branes which instead of just one-dimensional strings
can be objects of any number of dimensions.
socrat44 » August 10th, 2018, 11:54 pm wrote:mitchellmckain » August 10th, 2018, 12:45 am wrote:socrat44 » August 9th, 2018, 11:17 pm wrote:
Why does quantum particle have ''string'' geometric form ?
Why quantum particle cannot have another geometrical forms:
triangle, square, circle, membrane, . . . drum . . . ?
=====
M-theory consists of branes which instead of just one-dimensional strings
can be objects of any number of dimensions.
String-particles ''consists of branes which instead of just one-dimensional strings
can be objects of any number of dimensions.''
===
socrat44 » August 11th, 2018, 11:11 pm wrote:Theoretical Physics Is Pointless without Experimental Tests
/ By Abraham Loeb on August 10, 2018 /
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... tal-tests/
=====
mitchellmckain » August 12th, 2018, 5:19 am wrote:socrat44 » August 11th, 2018, 11:11 pm wrote:Theoretical Physics Is Pointless without Experimental Tests
/ By Abraham Loeb on August 10, 2018 /
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... tal-tests/
=====
But this is wrong! Don't misunderstand.
I am constantly explaining the importance of tests (i.e. demonstrability).
It is where any claim to objectivity in science comes from.
But this statement by Loeb goes too far.
Developments can begin with theory without tests and eventually leads to tests.
Thus theory without tests is not pointless.
The most you can say is that the validation of the value of theory IN PHYSICS
must ultimately come from tests.
Mathematics is different, however, and to call mathematics pointless is outrageous.
socrat44 » August 11th, 2018, 10:11 pm wrote:Additional amusement has come for many in guessing what
the M might stand for ...
someguy1 » August 12th, 2018, 4:41 pm wrote:socrat44 » August 11th, 2018, 10:11 pm wrote:Additional amusement has come for many in guessing what
the M might stand for ...
I always figured it's an upside-down 'W', for Witten.
I got this idea when I heard that Stefan Banach studied
infinite-dimensional complete normed vector spaces and
referred to them as "spaces of type B."
Just as he no doubt planned all along, these are now known as Banach spaces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banach
Return to Philosophy of Science
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests