Why is physics quantitative?

DeiRenDopa

Master Poster
D
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
2,582
In quite a few threads here in this Science (Maths, Medicine & Technology) section of JREF, the discussion (if it can be called that) has essentially ground to a halt.

Why?

Because the two sides (if they can be called that) are no longer engaged in an ongoing, meaningful exchange.

And why is that?

I think it's because one side does not accept - explicitly or, more often, implicitly - that physics is fundamentally quantitative; indeed, in some threads there seem to be some pretty stern views expressed to the effect that engaging in a quantitative discussion would somehow remove the scientific basis for a discussion, that - somehow - 'getting quantitative' makes the discussion scientifically invalid.

Having seen this kind of thing often, I've wondered what's going on; is it, perhaps, that some JREF members feel that physics is not quantitative? Or that though it is, it shouldn't be (to be science)?

Hence this thread.

It's primarily aimed at those who seem so reluctant to engage in a discussion in which numbers, values, equations, calculations, estimates, orders-of-magnitude, backs-of-the-envelope, etc is central (you know who you are), but of course anyone can join in.

And by 'physics' I include related fields, such as cosmology, astrophysics, astronomy, and so on.

Of course, if any reader is curious to know whether physics is quantitative, well, let's discuss that too! :)
 
DeiRenDopa said:
I think it's because one side does not accept - explicitly or, more often, implicitly - that physics is fundamentally quantitative; indeed, in some threads there seem to be some pretty stern views expressed to the effect that engaging in a quantitative discussion would somehow remove the scientific basis for a discussion, that - somehow - 'getting quantitative' makes the discussion scientifically invalid.
Click to expand...


Could you link to some examples of this, please?
 
Qualitative: (1) of, relating to, or involving quality or kind; (2) a subjective opinion of worth or validity (i.e.: religion, pseudo-science).

Quantitative: (1) of, relating to, or expressible in terms of quantity; (2) of, relating to, or involving the measurement of quantity or amount; (3) based on quantity; (4) an objective measurement (i.e.: good science).

Even the quality of a quantitative measurement is determined by other quantities.

That there are some JREF members that feel otherwise may have much to do with their desire to be believed at the expense of actually knowing and understanding the truth. [1] [2] [3]
 
no reason to get fancy with this

DeiRenDopa said:
In quite a few threads here in this Science (Maths, Medicine & Technology) section of JREF, the discussion (if it can be called that) has essentially ground to a halt....

And why is that?

I think it's because one side does not accept - explicitly or, more often, implicitly - that physics is fundamentally quantitative; indeed, in some threads there seem to be some pretty stern views expressed to the effect that engaging in a quantitative discussion would somehow remove the scientific basis for a discussion, that - somehow - 'getting quantitative' makes the discussion scientifically invalid.

Having seen this kind of thing often, I've wondered what's going on
Click to expand...
I haven't done the quantitative research, but my anecdotal impression is that most (all?) members who don't accept the quantitative nature of physics are themselves unable to deal with mathematics at the requisite level of sophistication.
 
Quantitative: (1) of, relating to, or expressible in terms of quantity; (2) of, relating to, or involving the measurement of quantity or amount; (3) based on quantity; (4) an objective measurement (i.e.: good science).
Click to expand...
Not necessarily true. In geology, for example, many concepts have been developed qualitatively. The idea of an angular unconformity was discovered with qualitative observations ("These rocks cut into those rocks at an angle"). Stratigraphic relationships are always qualitative ("This rock is below this other rock, and is cut by this third rock"). And while there are quantitative measures for concepts like sorting, roundness, and "young" vs. "mature" sands, 99% of the people in the field use these as qualitative measurements. Even fields that CAN be quantified in geology tend towards discussion in every-day language rather than math. The math is presented, but it's always explained in English as well (not that physics isn't, but geologists tend to use equations as a starting point, a way to focus their thoughts, while physicists use math as a language in and of itself).

This just doesn't work in physics. It's a different science, with different expectations, different requirements for proof, and a different history.

My question would be how to adequately present the equations necessary to discuss physics on this board. I don't see an integral key on my keyboard. :p
 
Dinwar said:
Not necessarily true. In geology, for example, many concepts have been developed qualitatively. The idea of an angular unconformity was discovered with qualitative observations ("These rocks cut into those rocks at an angle"). Stratigraphic relationships are always qualitative ("This rock is below this other rock, and is cut by this third rock"). And while there are quantitative measures for concepts like sorting, roundness, and "young" vs. "mature" sands, 99% of the people in the field use these as qualitative measurements. Even fields that CAN be quantified in geology tend towards discussion in every-day language rather than math. The math is presented, but it's always explained in English as well (not that physics isn't, but geologists tend to use equations as a starting point, a way to focus their thoughts, while physicists use math as a language in and of itself).

This just doesn't work in physics. It's a different science, with different expectations, different requirements for proof, and a different history.

My question would be how to adequately present the equations necessary to discuss physics on this board. I don't see an integral key on my keyboard. :p
Click to expand...

Try

[latex] \int f(x)dx[/latex]

(LaTeX)
 
Last edited:
W.D.Clinger said:
most (all?) members who don't accept the quantitative nature of physics are themselves unable to deal with mathematics at the requisite level of sophistication.
Click to expand...
Is it because they don't accept its quantitative nature, or just that they don't want to accept that math is required? I freely admit to being lost in the complex equations, but I certainly would not try to suggest that using math to describe physics is invalid. How else would you do it?

I think that people prefer qualitative analysis because it offers the simplest (although possibly wrong) answer. An equation has much more predictive power, but you need to calculate the solutions. Many people just want a yes/no answer so that they can make a decision, but in many cases they should still do a quantitative analysis (eg. the answer to 'Do I have enough fuel in the tank to get home' is not 'Yes' just because the gauge is currently showing 'Not Empty').
 
Quantifying enables measurement of accepted quantities.

Energy ain't a potential difference.

That is the underlying problem within the whole of the current paradigm. Energy is underwritten by speed with the whole of physics is held with that error. The reason is the ideology of flow by second law of thermodynamics of a potential difference "quantified".

It works to build things but not in understanding nature.
 
It works to build things but not in understanding nature.
Click to expand...
Actually, this is false. Math can be viewed as a language describing relationships between things. For example, F=ma describes how force equates to mass and acceleration, how mass relates to force and acceleration, and how acceleration relates to force and mass. Using this equation, you can deduce a large amount of data about an object from a limited number of observations. Similarly, things like Mohr Circles and diversity statistics allow us to describe the relationships between things--stress and species, in these examples.

Considering how many people use math every day to learn new things about nature, I think your statement is pretty much disproved.
 
Bishadi said:
Quantifying enables measurement of accepted quantities.

Energy ain't a potential difference.

That is the underlying problem within the whole of the current paradigm. Energy is underwritten by speed with the whole of physics is held with that error. The reason is the ideology of flow by second law of thermodynamics of a potential difference "quantified".

It works to build things but not in understanding nature.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to quantify gibberish. But this is an eleven.
 
Mathematics and Physics I

DeiRenDopa said:
Having seen this kind of thing often, I've wondered what's going on; is it, perhaps, that some JREF members feel that physics is not quantitative? Or that though it is, it shouldn't be (to be science)?
Click to expand...

I think that a large part is played by an active disdain for mathematics. The "open minded" alternative thinker is convinced that mathematics is just so much "mumbo jumbo" (I have heard that specific phrase before, mathematical mumbo jumbo). It is seen as artificial and unreal. Witness Mozina's constant refrain that only controlled laboratory experiments count as empirical science. Not only does he disdain mathematics, but even observations of nature are discounted, because they lack laboratory controls.

Remember this:
Arthur Mann said:
Tim Thompson said:
Notice the common term in both equations:
Click to expand...
Oh, so you're defining "magnetic energy" with an equation? That's a novel approach to defining words, using math.
Click to expand...

Maybe the now banned Mann was being deliberately facetious, or maybe he really meant it. But the attitude seems typical, that there is no connection between math & reality, and since math is how the quantifying is done, then that too is suspect. The alternative thinkers are not only incapable of understanding mathematics per se, but also quite ignorant of the truly profound relationship between the existential, physical universe, and the logic of mathematics.

Tim Thompson said:
One must also keep in mind that there is a profound relationship between empirical science and mathematics. Too many "alternative thinkers" want to dismiss mathematics as irrelevant to real science or real empiricism, but that would be quite wrong. The uncertainty principle in quantum physics and chaos theory in classical physics are both unintuitive, unanticipated, and really surprising aspects of physics. Yet both are purely mathematical in origin; not predicted as a consequence of observation but rather derived from mathematical theory with no a-priori observation required (e.g., Fourier Transforms and Uncertainty). Any real understanding of science must include an understanding at some level of the profound interplay between empiricism and mathematics (e.g., Tegmark, 2008; Bernal, Sanchez & Gil, 2008 and Eugene Wigner's 1960 essay, "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics").
Click to expand...

Beginning with Galileo & Newton, Mathematics has become the real language of science in general, and physics in particular. But the real impact of mathematics is the philosophically surprising conclusion that the underlying logic of mathematics and the underlying logic of the physical universe are one and the same. To speak of understanding one without understanding the other is absurd.
 
I can think of several people the OP might be about, who's response when asked to provide evidence is something along the line of 'I'll provide evidence when 'I' want to, because this is MY thread' or 'I don't bark math just because you tell me to'. while continuing to claim expertise in the field.

What these folks are missing is that mathematics is the language that actually describes the world. The words we use are approximations at best. Trying to describe some of the more arcane and subtle properties of the world in english is difficult; the words aren't there, and were created to describe other situations, of more intuitively obvious nature.

One example, just off the top of my head, is in the field of geometry. You can't get beyond the idea that a straight line is the shortest difference between two points, when using a definition that circularly defines the line as the shortest distance, and the shortest distance as the line. This limits you to using plane geometry, and makes some real world situations incomprehensible.

Refusal to show the work, or to 'bark math' as one poster puts it, just shows that that poster doesn't understand the language of the subject that they're claiming expertise on. It makes them just as legitimate as if they stated expertise on some obscure aspect of catholicism, that had never been translated from its original latin, but responded to all requests to proof that they'd read it with a flat refusal to even show that they understood the language.
 
Jeff Corey said:
It's difficult to quantify gibberish. But this is an eleven.
Click to expand...
No, your math is wrong. You forgot to carry something.:)

Nigel%20b%20nov11.jpg
 
FenerFan said:
No, your math is wrong. You forgot to carry something.:)

[qimg]http://blogs.houstonpress.com/rocks/Nigel%20b%20nov11.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I have a copy of that poster! Autographed by Jim Marshall himself!!! :cool:
 
Tim Thompson said:
I think that a large part is played by an active disdain for mathematics. The "open minded" alternative thinker is convinced that mathematics is just so much "mumbo jumbo" (I have heard that specific phrase before, mathematical mumbo jumbo). It is seen as artificial and unreal. Witness Mozina's constant refrain that only controlled laboratory experiments count as empirical science. Not only does he disdain mathematics, but even observations of nature are discounted, because they lack laboratory controls.
Click to expand...

But YOU are discounting the lab work and i bet with no math to back it up.

Is that open minded or subjective? Which is a scientific mind?
But the attitude seems typical, that there is no connection between math & reality, and since math is how the quantifying is done, then that too is suspect. The alternative thinkers are not only incapable of understanding mathematics per se, but also quite ignorant of the truly profound relationship between the existential, physical universe, and the logic of mathematics.
Click to expand...
how about the a rehash; math imposes a subjectivity when the premise is against what is natural.

A method of observing this fact, is that the complacent observe a system with blinders while the higher intelligence observed the the greater scope of applicability. For example; to tap the surface of a flat pond, the rant sees only the wave and claims, 'the law says the wave will get small over time, thru to equlibration' but the comprehending mind, observes, 'well the wave is entangling more mass, time and space and does not equlibrate, per the fact of conservation (in english; maintains the quantification of the energy itself)

The fool, thinks energy equilibrates per the second law, but drops the first law to quantify it.


Beginning with Galileo & Newton, Mathematics has become the real language of science in general, and physics in particular.
Click to expand...
Ptolemaic, Euclid and a whole host of math prior to Galileo and Newton.

Math is the UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE but using the language without the integrity of observational evidence to back it up, is simply gibberish.


But the real impact of mathematics is the philosophically surprising conclusion that the underlying logic of mathematics and the underlying logic of the physical universe are one and the same.
Click to expand...

and that line of BS is why i even touched your post.

The laws of physics are completely opposing nature, the underlying logic and the descriptions of the universe. And the proof of that statement is found by comparing the concept of life and definitively the evolution of living origanisms. There is not method of describing the processes of natures living things within the reductionary paradigm of todays physics. That is why the creationist still have a hold on the education within today's sciences. ie... if an evolution was defined to the molecular level, then the comprehension could in fact, and i quote the real impact of mathematics is the philosophically surprising conclusion that the underlying logic of mathematics and the underlying logic of the physical universe are one and the same.

But right now, the current system is reductionary and does not describe an evolution to the molecular level.

So the whole of the universe is misdefined with dark crap.

To speak of understanding one without understanding the other is absurd.
Click to expand...

that is my claim.

ie... if you live within the unverse and cant describe yourself in math, at this day and age, you are uneducated and the people who post the claim, that the current model is correct, are by far the most absurd as they do it without integrity, which is opposing to the concept of science itself.


No one can ask, "hey where is YOUR math", because the same math is available to any who actually do their homework.


This thread in itself is a sham as it is a rant of gibberish to label people who are not complacent. Kind of like a theist calling another an atheist for not believing like they do.


How many people are willing to rehash the core laws of the complacent to assist them in the socrates philosophical approach;

“To live in accordance with the essence of things, as Socrates said, is the premise of the moral life. One cannot live in peace of mind without at the same time being in harmony with reality.”

“The premises of a moral life is based on a covenant with reality.” “No life is authentic that is in conflict with the order of the universe.”

And not knowing the order of the universe constitutes a serious handicap in living a moral life!


Reality is more important than being accepted and if the math guru's around here are not honest enough to know the current model is off, are basically lying to themselves and anyone they come into contact with.
 
And the proof of that statement is found by comparing the concept of life and definitively the evolution of living origanisms. There is not method of describing the processes of natures living things within the reductionary paradigm of todays physics.
Click to expand...
I've explained emergent properties to you before. The concept is rather easy, once you get past your obsession with trying to boil every single thing in the universe down to atoms and energy. In fact, there are even equations for it--Punnett Squares, the Hardy/Weinburg Equilibrium, and a number of others.
 
Dinwar said:
I've explained emergent properties to you before.
Click to expand...

you dont explain anything, you return to gibberish when you find that you cannot comprehend.


ie.... define the emergent property within a system of atoms and energy combining to make even the simpliest life work (within an environment)

Show it!
The concept is rather easy, once you get past your obsession with trying to boil every single thing in the universe down to atoms and energy. In fact, there are even equations for it--Punnett Squares, the Hardy/Weinburg Equilibrium, and a number of others.
Click to expand...

i know that bunches and bunches and bunches and bunches of scientists have observed a process that is opposite of the 2nd law (to equilibrate).

ie... life; abuses entropy

but for some reason, even with alll them folks writing and performing experiment and even ranting about a 'reversal of entropy' you just dont like the idea of having to be honest with yourself you recognize that 'emergent property' is not a thing. And no matter how bad you hate it, all that exists within the universe is within the confines of mass, energy and time. SO either you can define within the confines of reality or you are pissing in the wind.
 
Mojo said:
Could you link to some examples of this, please?
Click to expand...

I would like to see a link to better judge too. Sometimes qualitative reasonning is good enough (to describe to a lay what the double slit experience is, I would not go in math first , I would go into qualitative description), but if it is one of those mega thread where some people are saying the accepted theory are wrong, and electric universe is better , I can udnerstand wanting to see the math.
 
Last edited:
Bishadi said:
the kats, that cant read a basic thread and answer it nor understand the answers, are the ones that walk right by with their tails in the air.
Click to expand...

I knew a guy who could walk into a room and people would say "Who left?"
 
Aepervius said:
<snip>

Sometimes qualitative reasonning is good enough (to describe to a lay what the double slit experience is, I would not go in math first , I would go into qualitative description)

<snip>
Click to expand...

Either way you'd probably get a slap round the face.
 
Aepervius said:
I would like to see a link to better judge too.
Click to expand...
. Lots on this forum that will render that the primary difference is in how energy itself is observed. I suggest that a system can be described causally both mathematically and with words. The problem is the current quantitive and accepted approach is observing kinetic as the energy of mass versus what is causing the mass to resonate.
Sometimes qualitative reasonning is good enough (to describe to a lay what the double slit experience is, I would not go in math first ,
Click to expand...
. Good point as it is best to observe evidence. I contest the double slit is providing evidence for the particle duality. And the reason is that the recieving mass is not included within the description of cause. Clearly put, the pattern to the results will be different based on the recieving mass (elements/molecules). The proof is represented by einstein in the photo electric effect as well logic by comprehending the colors or spectrum released by mass.
if it is one of those mega thread where some people are saying the accepted theory are wrong, and electric universe is better , I can udnerstand wanting to see the math.
Click to expand...
alfvren's eletric univer is a bit off. Not going over it here because no one here that I have seen knows that math or the implications of it either but I do contest the current system personally in which there is no electric charge,in motion without it's other half..magnetism.... Right hand rule; faraday/Maxwell on electromagnetism (light).

Ie.... I claim all mass is combines by light (electromagnetism) in one form or another; all cases. (see the em spectrum) The change is simply how the energy of a system is described.

It's stupid easy. The good part is you and I can understand what we are (combines nature in which we (a part of) can comprehend itself). The bad part is whole reductionary comprehension to nature is reversed and that screws with the whole paradigm of understanding within the knowledge of mankind.

Kind of like learning that the world ain't flat. The cool part is with the current understanding anyone can put it together themselves and experience reality right now. You are light upon mass. Now go learn about yourself.
 
Last edited:
TubbaBlubba said:
Energy upon mass.
Click to expand...

sorry.... isnt that like 'godwin' to other conversations.

i am sorry, but the scope is so stupid easy but few just sit back and think about it.

try a simple approach; if you are alive, then the lights are on, if you dead, your lights are out.

kind of like the process of the fire stopped.

it's stupid easy
 
drkitten said:
Being stupid is indeed easy.
Click to expand...
i can gather you have first hand experience.

That's been demonstrated.
Click to expand...

quite often

We're trying to help you take the more difficult route and learn real, smart, physics.
Click to expand...

Show me the math if i have a golf ball sized amount of u235 in one hand and the same in another. If i slapped them together, what would occur? (densities/thresholds)

how difficult is that?

i find it pretty stupid easy.

but trying to calculate how big the universe is and how them galaxies are moving away from us, is not easy.

but you'd have to be a moron to think that answer is more important than figuring out how a phospholipid bilayer forms. ie... did you know them lipid are not combined together (inverted) by an electron but resonating?
 
Bishadi said:
Show me the math if i have a golf ball sized amount of u235 in one hand and the same in another. If i slapped them together, what would occur? (densities/thresholds)

how difficult is that?

i find it pretty stupid easy.
Click to expand...

There would be a metallic "clack" sound. Probably a small proportion of extra neutrons would be emitted. Beyond that I don't know.

Since you find it "pretty stupid easy" I'd be grateful if you would show me the math.
 
you dont explain anything, you return to gibberish when you find that you cannot comprehend.


ie.... define the emergent property within a system of atoms and energy combining to make even the simpliest life work (within an environment)

Show it!
Click to expand...
I have. An emergent property is one which cannot be explained completely by reducing the system to its components. Evolution cannot be explained by looking at what the electrons in each atom of a DNA molecule are doing. Ecosystems cannot be understood by looking at what each digestive enzyme is doing. Population dynamics cannot be explained by examining the organs of animals or plants. In a simple organisms (bacteria, for example) you see emergent properties like reproduction, metabolism, and the like. More complex (not more highly evolved, merely more complex) organisms exhibit more emergent properties.

If you don't believe me, please explain how a mass extinction can be explained using only data on the physical properties of the atoms involved.

i know that bunches and bunches and bunches and bunches of scientists have observed a process that is opposite of the 2nd law (to equilibrate).

ie... life; abuses entropy
Click to expand...
You have yet to demonstrate an understanding of the laws of thermodynamics. And life and evolution do not violate any physical laws--all of the chemical processes abide by the same physical laws as the rest of the universe.

but for some reason, even with alll them folks writing and performing experiment and even ranting about a 'reversal of entropy' you just dont like the idea of having to be honest with yourself you recognize that 'emergent property' is not a thing.
Click to expand...
The red and green part have nothing to do with one another. As far as the red part goes, you're missing important parts of the equation--life can LOCALLY reduce entropy, at the cost of increasing it elsewhere. Every metabolic process that I know of does this. As for the second, you're wrong. Emergent properties are very important in understanding systems. Equations, theories, even processes that work on one scale within a system can become ineffective, inapplicable, or completely nonsensical on another scale.

Don't believe me? Please calculate the Hardy/Weinburg Equilibrium of an infinite population of completely randomly breeding organisms which breed via sexual reproduction, using only the equations that apply to subatomic particles.

And no matter how bad you hate it, all that exists within the universe is within the confines of mass, energy and time. SO either you can define within the confines of reality or you are pissing in the wind.
Click to expand...
I have never denied that mass, energy, space, and time are what we have to work with. I merely acknowledge the complexity of the world, particularly specific aspects of it. Scale is important, and misapplication of theories is not a sign of intelligence. Nor, by the way, are rampant insults and swearing.
 
In the movies, intelligence is indicated by stars wearing glasses, even if they are fake.
 
Aepervius said:
..(to describe to a lay[sic] what the double slit experience[sic] is, I would not go in math first , I would go into qualitative description),...
Click to expand...

Ivor the Engineer said:
Either way you'd probably get a slap round the face.
Click to expand...

Aepervius said:
No. Usually it is derisive jeer at "the nerdy guy which know this sort of useless knowledge".

never got a slap on the face, though.
Click to expand...

You may have missed the humor (sexual innuendo) potential caused by your particular word choices.:)

Some of us engineer types (and non-engineers, too) spot these and find them amusing retort fodder.

HTH

Carry on. [/DERAIL]

Cheers,

Dave
 
Bishadi said:
[snip]

Show me the math if i have a golf ball sized amount of u235 in one hand and the same in another. If i slapped them together, what would occur? (densities/thresholds)

how difficult is that?

i find it pretty stupid easy.
[snip]
Click to expand...

Don't need the math (densities/thresholds) for a reasonable QUALITATIVE prediction.
(could find if needed)
Assuming reasonable purity,
Clack and neutron flux,

Soon, blisters, sickness, lead casket for you

Good bye.

Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom