Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #567249 > unrolled thread

Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 12:58 -0500
    p.e.a noTthaTguY <abu.kuanysh05@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 13:47 -0700
    Re: Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality? edprochak@gmail.com - 2016-04-01 14:02 -0700
      Re: Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 16:20 -0500
      Re: Maths/Theories conflict, sometimes. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-01 23:15 +0000
        Re: Maths/Theories conflict, sometimes. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 01:49 +0000
          Re: If you can't measure it, is it still science ? ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 20:00 -0700
          Re: If you can't measure it, is it still science ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-02 19:03 +0000
            Re: If you can't measure it, is it still science ? ! moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 05:04 +0000
              Re: If you can't measure it, is it still science ? ! benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-03 02:01 -0400
              Re: Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-04-03 06:23 +0000
                Re: Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney. xxein1@att.net - 2016-04-03 10:54 -0700
              Re: Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-03 14:05 -0700
                Re: Loop Quantum Gravity. Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2016-04-05 14:07 -0700
        Re: Maths/Theories conflict, sometimes. benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 22:31 -0400
    Re: Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-04-01 17:33 -0400
      Re: Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-04-02 12:26 -0400
        Re: Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2016-04-04 08:54 -0400
    Re: Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2016-04-03 20:13 -0500

#567249 — Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For Understanding Reality?

Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For 
Understanding Reality?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7XKKYlFLjs


> This video is part of World Science U, a new digital education
> platform for teaching and learning science.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#567297 — p.e.a

p.e.a ;
you can configure every thing from those three equations,
that you might nEEd (pi, base of natural logs, Fermat's LITLLE theorem

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567303

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 1:59:00 PM UTC-4, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For 
> Understanding Reality?
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7XKKYlFLjs
> 
All theories are wrong. Some are useful.

Math seems to prove to be a very useful tool. As simple as that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567310

On 4/1/16 4:02 PM, edprochak@gmail.com wrote:
> Math seems to prove to be a very useful tool. As simple as that.


   Very good.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567329 — Re: Maths/Theories conflict, sometimes.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Maths/Theories conflict, sometimes.  For example:
>The "black hole" notion violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Why do you claim that?  The HUP states that you cannot know both the 
position and the momentum of something more accurately than a certain
value.  Why do you believe something about black holes involves 
ultraprecise position and momentum knowledge?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567349 — Re: Maths/Theories conflict, sometimes.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>  This means that the mass within the singularity has
>  a well defined location and momentum at the same time.

Why do you say that, or at least why is it more than the position/momentum 
of something massive like a star?

If anything, we can measure the position/momentum of a black hole LESS
accurately since all measurement info must be from outside the event
horizon.  No information about the position/momentum measurements can make
it outside from inside.  All our measurements must be from a distance, and
we cannot see "inside" to sense exactly where it is and where it is going.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567362 — Re: If you can't measure it, is it still science ? !

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 7:02:55 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>  
> You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me):
> > >   According to general relativity, 
> > >   no path in spacetime can leave the singularity within a black hole.
> > 
> > No information about the position/momentum measurements can make
> > it outside from inside.  All our measurements must be from a distance, and
> > we cannot see "inside" to sense exactly where it is and where it is going.
> 
> If you can't measure it, is it still science ? !
> 
> Without measurement, how would one know if 
> the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was violated or not ?

Sampling, measurement, and observation, may have 
mathematical foundations as to why the discretization 
of an event from the continuous or the counting of its 
number may so influence the event or series of events 
that is the sampling, measurement, or (ongoing) ob-
servation.  

Something like Feynman's Path Integral very well needs 
new mathematics to derive its solutions in their central 
placement in the current models of physics (mathematical 
physics).  This is definitely of "continuum mechanics", 
not some finite approximation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567536 — Re: If you can't measure it, is it still science ? !

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me):
>> >   According to general relativity, 
>> >   no path in spacetime can leave the singularity within a black hole.
>> 
>> No information about the position/momentum measurements can make
>> it outside from inside.  All our measurements must be from a distance, and
>> we cannot see "inside" to sense exactly where it is and where it is going.

>If you can't measure it, is it still science ? !

>Without measurement, how would one know if 
>the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was violated or not ?

If you can't measure it, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle doesn't
even apply! HUP tells you that you cannot MEASURE both position and
momentum at the same time to more than a certain accuracy.  It does NOT
put restrictions on the actual accuracy of either position or momentum
beyond that.  For example, in trying to determine whether an electron is
really point-like, we've measured its diameter to within 10^-19 meters, a
really really small number.  Maybe even smaller than this by now.  This
doesn't violate HUP as any attempt to measure its momentum at the same
time would result in a rather large number.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567602 — Re: If you can't measure it, is it still science ? !

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>According to general relativity, 
>no path in spacetime can leave the singularity within a black hole;
>so we humans can't see anything there.

Yes, as I said before, all our information about the position/momentum of
a black hole's singularity would have to come from outside the event 
horizon.  So, information about its position/momentum are likely to be
_less_ accurate than the Heisenberg limit.  Which it certainly allows.

So where is the violation of the HUP?

>The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle puts _less_ restrictions
>on the measurement of the singularity... which is right ?

>They don't agree.

I don't know what the heck you're trying to say here.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567621 — Re: If you can't measure it, is it still science ? !

On 04/03/2016 01:04 AM, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
>
>> According to general relativity,
>> no path in spacetime can leave the singularity within a black hole;
>> so we humans can't see anything there.
>
> Yes, as I said before, all our information about the position/momentum of
> a black hole's singularity would have to come from outside the event
> horizon.  So, information about its position/momentum are likely to be
> _less_ accurate than the Heisenberg limit.  Which it certainly allows.
>
> So where is the violation of the HUP?
>
>> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle puts _less_ restrictions
>> on the measurement of the singularity... which is right ?
>
>> They don't agree.
>
> I don't know what the heck you're trying to say here.
>
Rolf never knows what he's trying to say either...

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567625 — Re: Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney.

Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:

>Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney.

>The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle 
>tells us that you can't simultaneously know 
>the (pseudo)singularity's position and momentum so precisely.

>"Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'"
>http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583

That article doesn't even mention the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Hawking may disbelieve in black holes, and maybe he's right, but his
arguments don't involve the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

So once again: Why do you say black holes violate the Heisenberg 
Uncertainty Principle?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567711 — Re: Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney.

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 2:24:09 AM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> writes:
> 
> >Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney.
> 
> >The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle 
> >tells us that you can't simultaneously know 
> >the (pseudo)singularity's position and momentum so precisely.
> 
> >"Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'"
> >http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583
> 
> That article doesn't even mention the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> Hawking may disbelieve in black holes, and maybe he's right, but his
> arguments don't involve the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
> 
> So once again: Why do you say black holes violate the Heisenberg 
> Uncertainty Principle?

xxein:  In principle, you could be inside the event horizon to make a HUP measurement or otherwise explore the singularity, but who could you tell?  Besides that, the 'singularity' may be comprised of an unrecognizable soup - a melding of mass and energy with no discernible structure to probe, even if a probe could exist there as 'not part of the soup'.

At what point 'position and momentum' degenerate is anybody's guess.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567726 — Re: Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney.

On Saturday, April 2, 2016 at 10:33:19 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>  
> Stephen Hawking disagrees with you, Michael Moroney.
> 
> The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle 
> tells us that you can't simultaneously know 
> the (pseudo)singularity's position and momentum so precisely.
> 
> "Stephen Hawking: 'There are no black holes'"
> http://www.nature.com/news/stephen-hawking-there-are-no-black-holes-1.14583


Yes, Hawking has spoken!  Actually he recanted about claiming that black holes exist years ago.  So why continue all these pointless discussions here about black holes?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#568116 — Re: Loop Quantum Gravity.

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 5:13:20 PM UTC-7, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>  
> Also: ＜＜
> 
>   LQG [ Loop Quantum Gravity ] predicts that not just matter,
>   but space itself, has an atomic structure.
> 
>   Today LQG is a vast area of research, 
>   developing in several directions, 
>   which involves about 30 research groups worldwide.  ＞＞
> 
>      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity


Yes, the aether must have its particles.  How else would it flow?

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567358 — Re: Maths/Theories conflict, sometimes.

On 04/01/2016 07:57 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
>
>     You (MichaelMoroney) replied (to me):
>     > > Maths/Theories conflict, sometimes.  For example:
>     > > The "black hole" notion violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
>     >
>     > Why do you claim that?  The HUP states that you cannot know both the
>     > position and the momentum of something more accurately than a certain
>     > value.  Why do you believe something about black holes involves
>     > ultraprecise position and momentum knowledge?
>
>     Quoting
>     https://www.quora.com/Does-the-singularity-of-a-black-hole-violate-the-Heisenberg-uncertainty-principle
>     ＜＜
>        According to general relativity,
>        no path in spacetime can leave the singularity within a black hole.
>
>        This means that the mass within the singularity has
>        a well defined location and momentum at the same time.  ＞＞

Hint Rolf: Math is not reality.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567318

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:58:56 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

>Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For 
>Understanding Reality?
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7XKKYlFLjs
>
>
>> This video is part of World Science U, a new digital education
>> platform for teaching and learning science.

Math is a language that helps to express relationships within some
types of reality.

It does nothing for understanding love.

Math is useful for expressing F = m * a.

Do tell, Sam, how that math helps you to **understand** reality to the
extent that it is described by F=ma.

That is, what does math tell you about **why** F = ma?

Please discuss, as you suggest in your sig.

Remember: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it
well enough." - Albert Einstein 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567485

On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 17:33:00 -0400, Wally W. wrote:

>On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:58:56 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For 
>>Understanding Reality?
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7XKKYlFLjs
>>
>>
>>> This video is part of World Science U, a new digital education
>>> platform for teaching and learning science.
>
>Math is a language that helps to express relationships within some
>types of reality.
>
>It does nothing for understanding love.
>
>Math is useful for expressing F = m * a.
>
>Do tell, Sam, how that math helps you to **understand** reality to the
>extent that it is described by F=ma.
>
>That is, what does math tell you about **why** F = ma?
>
>Please discuss, as you suggest in your sig.
>
>Remember: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it
>well enough." - Albert Einstein 
>

<Crickets> from Mr. Discussion.

How does math help us to understand why someone is a troll?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567830

On Sat, 02 Apr 2016 12:26:29 -0400, Wally W. wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Apr 2016 17:33:00 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:58:56 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>>Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For 
>>>Understanding Reality?
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7XKKYlFLjs
>>>
>>>
>>>> This video is part of World Science U, a new digital education
>>>> platform for teaching and learning science.
>>
>>Math is a language that helps to express relationships within some
>>types of reality.
>>
>>It does nothing for understanding love.
>>
>>Math is useful for expressing F = m * a.
>>
>>Do tell, Sam, how that math helps you to **understand** reality to the
>>extent that it is described by F=ma.
>>
>>That is, what does math tell you about **why** F = ma?
>>
>>Please discuss, as you suggest in your sig.
>>
>>Remember: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it
>>well enough." - Albert Einstein 
>>
>
><Crickets> from Mr. Discussion.
>
>How does math help us to understand why someone is a troll?

Come on, Sam.

Where is your discussion?

See your sig:
"sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues."

Why do you quote that so often and then abandon your own thread?

You aren't simply trolling with other people's words, are you?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#567749

On 4/1/2016 12:58 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Why Do You Have Confidence That Math Is The Proper Language For
> Understanding Reality?
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7XKKYlFLjs
>
>
>> This video is part of World Science U, a new digital education
>> platform for teaching and learning science.
>
>
>

more BS, what you gonna use LATIN ??



go ask TRUMP to help you "understand reality" TV

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web