travelling faster than light

[Saint]

Nonsense. Your conclusion simply does not logically follow from your premises. But we don't even need to resort to formal logic here because common sense is enough to debunk your argument. Cars are built with tools' date=' and yet a car is not 'tools'. Does that mean that tools are not necessary to build cars? If you tried to convince any auto builder of that he would laugh you out of the room. And it doesn't sound any more sensible when you apply the argument to physics.[/quote']

 

Actually Tom, I did not say that tools are not necessary. I said that no single tool is necessary. We have many tools at our disposal. Math is just one of them.

 

There's a difference between my curiosity and your opinions: I am open to learning new things' date=' whereas you just want to tell people 'how it is', despite the fact that you have never so much as lifted a finger to see 'how it is' for yourself. The claims I have seen you make both in this thread and elsewhere are marked by having equal parts ignorance and arrogance. That is why, to the extent that you make those claims, your contribution to this thread in particular and SFN in general is rubbish, and should be exposed as such.[/quote']

 

I've learned quite a bit here, Tom. I read the threads here all the time. I don't comment on many, but I read most. I do have a problem when people on this board take math to be somehow equal to reality. Math is a tool. Nothing more. There is a reality outside of the equations we use to model it. That's all I'm trying to push.

 

But come on Tom, did you actually accuse me of posting with arrogance? Have you ever read one of your posts?

 

Anyone can have an opinion. But in order for that opinion to not be meaningless at best or misleading at worst' date=' then the required level of study is far higher than you have bothered to undertake.[/quote']

 

I don't think our disagreement has anything to do with a level of study. It's a fundamental disagreement. And, I think, a valid one. I think the world can be understood outside of mathematics. You don't. Why all the insults, Tom?

[bascule]

Is it your assertion that physics cannot be understood outside of mathematics?

 

It's not that it can't be understood per se, but the devil is in the details. If you hope to do anything remotely useful with your knowledge of physics, you will need to understand the underlying math. You can do experiment after experiment until you're old, gray, and eccentric like Tesla did, but if your underlying idea is mathematically infeasible (like wireless power for the whole world), you'd be saving yourself a lot of time trying to figure that out on paper rather than attempting something which is mathematically infeasible empirically only to find out each time that it doesn't work.

 

The equations to show Tesla his idea was impossible existed when Tesla was alive, but sadly Tesla never bothered to do the math and just kept figuring he was on the cusp of a great discovery. He died penniless and alone trying to sell various governments his Death Ray...

[Mart]

Originally Posted by Tom Mattson

Of course it's an analogy. I stated it as a counterexample to Saint's argument, which is:

 

P is used to build Q.

Therefore, P is not necessary to achieve Q

.

 

Saint said:

P is used to build Q

U is not Q

Therefore U is not P

 

If you claim that Saint said :

 

P is used to build Q.

Therefore, P is not necessary to achieve Q

 

then this is a misrepresentation of Saint's argument.

 

If I parse your last paragraph correctly you are saying:

 

Using valid logical arguments requires standard textbook study

V is not a valid logical argument

Matson used an invalid argument

therefore it is probable that Saint has not studied standard textbooks.

 

Using a faulty argument you claim that Saint's use of logic is not to be judged on it's validity but on whether Saint has the book-learning. You sound like the person who, when presented with a message, doubted its value because the messenger was a lazy knave who didn't know his letters.

[Saint]

It's not that it can't be understood per se' date=' but the devil is in the details. If you hope to do anything remotely useful with your knowledge of physics, you will need to understand the underlying math. You can do experiment after experiment until you're old, gray, and eccentric like Tesla did, but if your underlying idea is mathematically infeasible (like wireless power for the whole world), you'd be saving yourself a lot of time trying to figure that out on paper rather than attempting something which is mathematically infeasible empirically only to find out each time that it doesn't work.

 

The equations to show Tesla his idea was impossible existed when Tesla was alive, but sadly Tesla never bothered to do the math and just kept figuring he was on the cusp of a great discovery. He died penniless and alone trying to sell various governments his Death Ray...[/quote']

 

Bascule - I think we agree. An "applicable" understanding of physics must be framed in such a way that we can use it for the application we have in mind. For engineering applications, that generally means math. If you plan on building something based on your understanding, you'll need some specifics (lengths, widths, heights, forces...).

 

I was more or less talking about about undersanding in general. You know, what is gravity, why do things orbit each other, what is the nature of... nature...?

[Tom Mattson]

Actually Tom' date=' I did not say that tools are not necessary. I said that no single tool is necessary. We have many tools at our disposal. Math is just one of them.

[/quote']

 

But the necessity of making quantitative predictions makes it the central tool. And it is not just for a "complete understanding" that mathematics is necessary, it is for the most basic understanding. That fact is made perfectly obvious by the fact that one could not even pass Physics I without a knowledge of mathematics.

 

I've learned quite a bit here, Tom. I read the threads here all the time. I don't comment on many, but I read most. I do have a problem when people on this board take math to be somehow equal to reality. Math is a tool. Nothing more. There is a reality outside of the equations we use to model it. That's all I'm trying to push.

 

"Mathematics=Reality" is not the issue at hand, which is rather "Is an understanding of mathematics necessary for an understanding of physics?"

 

But come on Tom, did you actually accuse me of posting with arrogance? Have you ever read one of your posts?

 

I think you mistake authority for arrogance. It is not arrogant to speak on what one knows. It is arrogant to presumptuously peddle misinformation on subjects on which one is completely ignorant. It would be just as bad if I were to go to a message board on neuroscience and start telling professional researchers and educators in that field what is and what is not required to understand their subject. It would not only be arrogant, it would be positively obnoxious.

 

I don't think our disagreement has anything to do with a level of study. It's a fundamental disagreement. And, I think, a valid one. I think the world can be understood outside of mathematics. You don't.

 

That "the world can be understood outside of mathematics" is not the issue. It is whether physics can be so understood. Physics is a discipline that requires formal training. Without that training, one is not in any position to say what is and what is not required to understand it.

 

Why all the insults, Tom?

 

I am calling it like I see it.

[Tom Mattson]

Mart,

 

I've read your post, and I am afraid that you just don't get it. The argument by Saint clearly concludes with a statement on the necessity of mathematics in understanding physics (specifically, it denies the same).

 

.

 

Saint said:

P is used to build Q

U is not Q

Therefore U is not P

 

That was not Saint's argument. But even if that were Saint's argument' date=' so what? That argument isn't valid either.

 

You sound like the person who, when presented with a message, doubted its value because the messenger was a lazy knave who didn't know his letters.

 

???

 

I made comments that directly addressed the logic of the argument. I also made comments based on experience that directly addressed the truth value of the conclusion. I don't know it is possible that one could read my attack on the value of the message and miss those things, but unfortunately you did.

[Saint]

"Mathematics=Reality" is not the issue at hand' date=' which is rather "Is an understanding of mathematics necessary for an understanding of physics?"

 

 

That "the world can be understood outside of mathematics" is not the issue. It is whether [b']physics[/b] can be so understood. Physics is a discipline that requires formal training. Without that training, one is not in any position to say what is and what is not required to understand it.

QUOTE]

 

OK, what's physics? Is it the study of the natural world, or is the study of the equations we use to model the natural world? If you want to call physics the study of the equations we use to model the world, then I agree with you that math is required. I don't think that's what physics is, but if that's where you're coming from, I can agree with you on that.

 

And what is this level of training you keep spouting off about? Will you simply define it to be that which I have not reached, or is there some actual level you have in mind? Or, is that level reached by simply agreeing with the "experts"?

[bascule]

I was more or less talking about about undersanding in general. You know, what is gravity, why do things orbit each other, what is the nature of... nature...?

 

I've tried to comprehend quantum, relativity, string theory, etc. on a purely conceptual level. Brian Greene does a great job trying to explain string theory to the layman. But it doesn't work. Needs more math.

[Tom Mattson]

OK, what's physics? Is it the study of the natural world, or is the study of the equations we use to model the natural world?

 

Physics is the science that has as its ultimate objective as complete an accounting of the observed phenomena of the natural world as possible.

 

By my inclusion of the word "science" in that definition, I am implying that prediction of the outcome of experiments is part and parcel of this discipline.

 

If you want to call physics the study of the equations we use to model the world, then I agree with you that math is required. I don't think that's what physics is, but if that's where you're coming from, I can agree with you on that.

 

I have made it obvious to anyone who has at least a pair of brain cells to rub together that I do not think that physics is merely the study of any set of equations. In case you have forgotten, my comments on this point can be found in Posts 36 and 38 of this thread.

 

In short: Mathematics is necessary but is not sufficient to understand physics.

 

And what is this level of training you keep spouting off about?

 

Once again for the hard-of-caring: I have already made this obvious to all but the most simple.

 

The only level of training about which I have ever elluded (For the record, I do not "spout". I leave that to the cranks.) is that level of training that qualifies one to state what is and what is not required to understand physics. I would say that a necessary condition is the completion of a degree in Physics, and that the higher the degree the greater the qualifcation in this regard.

 

Will you simply define it to be that which I have not reached,

 

This is a telling symptom of that arrgance I mentioned. Saint, you apparently have yet to reach the zero level of education in phyiscs. And yet you brazenly think that your ill-informed, ill-reasoned opinions are worthy of "equal time" on SFN, despite the fact that there are people here who know much better than you do about scientific issues.

 

There are two rough categories of people who read these boards who concern me most. There are people who have completed a scientific education, and there are those who have yet to embark on that journey and who would like to know what is needed to do it. When some ignorant fool starts posting that a knowledge of mathematics is not necessary for an understanding of physics, those two groups of people will absorb and react to that in two different ways.

 

The people who do not know what is necessary to become a physicist will be mislead.

 

The people who do know what is necessary to become a physicist will know that said ignorant fool is talking out of his arse, and will step up to call said ignorant fool on it.

 

In either case, the ignorant fool would be doing a great service to the community by knocking it off, and he would be doing a great service to himself by shutting the hell up an listening to those who have actually taken the time to study physics.

[Saint]

The only level of training about which I have ever elluded (For the record' date=' I do not "spout". I leave that to the cranks.) is that level of training that qualifies one to state what is and what is not required to understand physics. I would say that a necessary condition is the completion of a degree in Physics, and that the higher the degree the greater the qualifcation in this regard.[/quote']

 

I've studied physics Tom. And I've studied mathematics, Tom. And I have a degree in what could be considered applied physics and mathematics - Aerospace Engineering. My point is that, while math was a useful tool in the application of physical laws, it was never the tool I used for an understanding of them. As a matter of fact, as I moved into the higher level classes, I found it more useful from an information retention standpoint, to follow the theories conceptually before ever applying the equations to the problems. That's how it made sense to me. I needed to understand the concepts, then understand the math, then understand the application of the math to the problem at hand. I never tried to learn aerdynamics, or astromechanics, or boundary layer, or controls, or attitude determination..... via the mathematical models (equations). I tried to understand the underlying concept first. Then, once I had a handle on how things work conceptually, I would move into mathematical application for problem solving and prediction. I believe that approach leads to a more fundamentally sound understanding of phenomena.

 

If you choose to figure things out mathematically, good for you. That's not the way I did it. Is math necessary for engineering applications - yes. Is it necessary for an understanding - not for me.

[Red_Ninja]

I found Joao Magueijo's Variable Speed of Light (VSL) theories to be very interesting, and no more or less plausible than the inflationary theory of the early universe. Also involved were the likes of Andy Albrecht, John Moffat, Stephon Alexander and others.

 

General idea is that c, while a constant and fundamental speed limit at any one time, has had different values in the past and will have different values in the future. The idea was that it would help to explain the homogenity of the universe and some of the other 'big bang mysteries'. You don't need inflation to make the universe all look the same if the speed of light was higher in the early universe.

 

One interesting outcome of one of the VSL flavours developed by Magueijo has to do with cosmic strings. Cosmic strings are theoretical objects predicted by many successful particle theories. They haven't been observed as of yet so of course no-one knows if they actually exist. They aren't dissimilar in origin to the magnetic monopoles that worried Alan Guth. Cosmic strings are long threads of concentrated energy extending across the universe.

 

When you 'plug' cosmic strings into a particular VSL theory, something interesting emerges; the speed of light could become much larger in the immediate vicinity of the string, as if 'coated' by high speed light.

 

That would in fact create a corridor with an extremely high speed limit, extending across the universe. Because the local speed of light would be far higher, you could reach incredibly high speeds without relativistic effects such as the twins paradox. You wouldn't need to worry about your civilisation being long gone when you got back. Since along a VSL cosmic string the value of c may be much higher, we could move at very high speeds and still be travelling much more slowly than the local value of c.

 

If possible at all; it's for some other species to work out (aliens!!!) as ours is sadly to dumb to even feed itself and keep from wrecking the planet

[Mart]

From Tom Mattson's last post.

Tom thinks:

I don't suffer fools gladly.

Saint makes me suffer..

Therefore Saint is a fool.

 

From the tenor of Tom's posts I conclude that his insults (aimed indirectly at Saint) are the result of Tom's irritable disposition interacting with his faulty logic to produce the rude fellow syndrome (RFS).

 

The carrier of the RFS is frequently reported in the literature as being visually identifiiable by the curled lip, the beetled brow and the bulging eye, a rubification of the facial tissue and an above average tendency to escalate minor confrontations via physical force.

 

Anders and Cholmondly, in their most recent study, postulate that all RFS victims (sic) are "convinced that logical and reasonable argument is insufficient as a persuasive device". This is not universally accepted by members of the scientific community and vigorous discussion of the condition continues, marred, one has to say, by frequent evidence (see Postwaite, Mathers and Flock (2004) ) of RFS.

[Severian]

Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly could not understand Quantum Field Theory without the mathematics. (And let me be blunt - if you don't understand QFT, you don't understand much about physics.)

[timo]

[...'] if you don't understand QFT, you don't understand much about physics.

I dunno. I think that statement is heavily biased by your viewpoint. A lot of people working in the fields of solid state physics, optics, experimental/applied nuclear physics or biophysics would probably not agree.

 

On-topic: I don´t really know if it´s possible to understand physics without math. Given that physics is supposed to be a quantitative model for nature and that I´d have a hard time quantifying something without using math I´d tend to "no". But -as this forum demonstrates from time to time- it is very well possible to entirely misunderstand physics without math.

 

@Saint: I´m not really convinced if Tom spoke of an engineering degree when he talked about a degree in physics. Some physicists actually don´t like it if engineers tell them "I´ve learned the same physics as you - plus more" (only thing that´s worse is chemicists claiming that ). And they also don´t like being called engineers (I could guess the groups listed above would be called that by Severian, though) as it´s not really considered a token of appreciation. And one very important thing for your future life: Never argue with a mathematican. Those heartless borg only know "right", "wrong" and "cannot be decided within the given set of axioms" ...

[Saint]

On-topic: I don´t really know if it´s possible to understand physics without math. Given that physics is supposed to be a quantitative model for nature and that I´d have a hard time quantifying something without using math I´d tend to "no". But -as this forum demonstrates from time to time- it is very well possible to entirely misunderstand physics without math.

 

@Saint: I´m not really convinced if Tom spoke of an engineering degree when he talked about a degree in physics. Some physicists actually don´t like it if engineers tell them "I´ve learned the same physics as you - plus more" (only thing that´s worse is chemicists claiming that ). And they also don´t like being called engineers (I could guess the groups listed above would be called that by Severian' date=' though) as it´s not really considered a token of appreciation. And one very important thing for your future life: Never argue with a mathematican. Those heartless borg only know "right", "wrong" and "cannot be decided within the given set of axioms" ...[/quote']

 

Oh, I'm sure that Tom would not be impressed with an engineering degree. And I certainly didn't want it too come across as though my engineering degree was somehow a physcis degree ++. All I'm saying is that I'm not completely ignorant of physics principles through some sort of formal education.

 

Again, this really comes down to understanding vs application in my mind. Using pictures, diagrams, experimental data, thought experiments, a few beers.... I think a phenomena can be understood. If you then want to apply that understanding, I believe you need to then frame it in the language of the application. For purposes of this discussion, I'll admit that any quantitative prediction, or engineering solution needs to be framed mathematically. It seems that the argument from Tom, and perhaps Severian, is that without the language of application there cannot exist any understanding. I disagree with that.

[Severian]

It seems that the argument from Tom, and perhaps Severian, is that without the language of application there cannot exist any understanding. I disagree with that.

 

I think my objection would be more in the sense of what you actually define as 'physics'. Engineering is just as worthy (perhaps more worthy?) as physics, but it is not physics.

 

Even if you were the best tenor in the world, you would not be offended if I claimed you could not sing soprano.