|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
I've been wanting to start writing about some of the interesting stuff I'm learning in my physics degree or stuff I've read around the subject for a while now. A kind of introduction to physics for people who didn't know much about it. I was planning on starting this week and then my PSU broke. Then the new one I bought was broken so while I wait for a replacement I'm stuck with only a phone and can't do the subject justice. So for now I'll just write a bit about why physics is so interesting. Also I haven't slept for 30 or so hours so this could be a bit rambling.
Everything, when you look closely enough, relies on physics. Even all the complex processes that make you who you are can be described by fundamental physical process. And we didn't even know some of what was going on even existed till the mid 20th century. In fact the last 100 years has seen a massive change in how we perceive the world and how nature works. We have gone from thinking the universe was euclidian and obeyed deterministic laws to one where space, on a small scale at least, is curved and intrinsically linked with time and that there is an inherent probabilistic nature to how everything interacts.
By far the most interesting thing is that this isn't the whole picture. We know that there are holes in our current theories. We know that quantum mechanics and relativity don't work well together when you have situations where you are dealing with large masses in a small area, for example black holes. We don't have a good understanding of how gravity works. There is the relativistic model of gravity where gravity is a by product of the curvature of space and not a force in the way electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are or the proposed particle physics explanation where a particle, which has been dubbed the graviton, acts the force carrier for gravity. We know the standard model is incomplete in other ways as well. We don't have a definite candidate for dark matter which appears to be far more abundant in the universe than ordinary matter. We don't even have a definite understanding of the implications of quantum mechanics, a field of physics that has been around since the start of the 20th century.
It is all these unanswered questions that make physics, and all science for that matter, such an interesting subject.
 
|
I absolutely agree. Everything relies on physics/fundamental physical processes. You realize that really quickly when you work in the medical field. I really enjoyed reading your blog! Seems like you found something that interests you and sparks a lot of questions - there's nothing better.
|
Jesus answered those questions long ago, duh.
|
I know that a lot of things in SC2 are implausible or inconsistent with physics, but can you name something that you feel is something that could happen in the future?
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:23 Grumbels wrote:
I know that a lot of things in SC2 are implausible or inconsistent with physics, but can you name something that you feel is something that could happen in the future?
I don't really understand what you are asking.
|
On January 25 2013 21:29 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 21:23 Grumbels wrote:
I know that a lot of things in SC2 are implausible or inconsistent with physics, but can you name something that you feel is something that could happen in the future? I don't really understand what you are asking.
yellow
|
On January 25 2013 21:29 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 21:23 Grumbels wrote:
I know that a lot of things in SC2 are implausible or inconsistent with physics, but can you name something that you feel is something that could happen in the future? I don't really understand what you are asking.
I think he wants to know whether some of the things in the Starcraft universe could be possible within the laws of physics in ours, i.e. blink stalkers or something. I think ^^
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 25 2013 21:32 loazis wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 21:29 imallinson wrote:On January 25 2013 21:23 Grumbels wrote:
I know that a lot of things in SC2 are implausible or inconsistent with physics, but can you name something that you feel is something that could happen in the future? I don't really understand what you are asking. I think he wants to know whether some of the things in the Starcraft universe could be possible within the laws of physics in ours, i.e. blink stalkers or something. I think ^^
I'm not convinced teleportation is even possible. You basically have to decompose the matter and somehow rebuild it exactly as it was at the other end. Given how many atoms are in a person I can't see this actually being possible.
edit: even if it were possible it would require some very complex equipment. Not something you could fit on a stalker sized object.
edit: from a quick Google search the number of atoms in an average human is about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Figuring out how all of them are arranged is basically impossible never mind building a replica from scratch.
|
i disagree with both of your statements^
|
I have always found physics to be very interesting, although I'm rarely intelligent enough to truly understand what it is dem scientists are doing. I'd recommend the show "through the wormhole" for anyone like me that just needs a few more pretty pictures to understand all the theory 
|
On January 25 2013 21:23 Grumbels wrote:
I know that a lot of things in SC2 are implausible or inconsistent with physics, but can you name something that you feel is something that could happen in the future?
Yes, almost all of it is. (Source: physics degree)
Teleportation, (mechanical) telepathy, (theoretical) time travel, wormholes (warp gates), laser weapons, cloaking, Zerg-scale genetic engineering and shields should all be possible.
I agree physics is beautiful but I think the way it is currently taught succeeds in killing one's interest in it rapidly.
|
On January 25 2013 21:39 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 25 2013 21:32 loazis wrote:On January 25 2013 21:29 imallinson wrote:On January 25 2013 21:23 Grumbels wrote:
I know that a lot of things in SC2 are implausible or inconsistent with physics, but can you name something that you feel is something that could happen in the future? I don't really understand what you are asking. I think he wants to know whether some of the things in the Starcraft universe could be possible within the laws of physics in ours, i.e. blink stalkers or something. I think ^^ I'm not convinced teleportation is even possible. You basically have to decompose the matter and somehow rebuild it exactly as it was at the other end. Given how many atoms are in a person I can't see this actually being possible. edit: even if it were possible it would require some very complex equipment. Not something you could fit on a stalker sized object. edit: from a quick Google search the number of atoms in an average human is about 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Figuring out how all of them are arranged is basically impossible never mind building a replica from scratch.
And teleportation will kill you every time you do it (by disintegration. You will literally stop to exist, save your atoms.) An old argument, but still gold.
|
I agree that the universe is awesome. When I say awesome, I mean it. Awe inspiring. Worthy of awe.
I want to get in to quantum computing. :D I've seen documentaries that touch on it briefly, but those aren't enough for me, because they don't give me a deep understanding of the subject, which I want.
However, you didn't explain WHY physics is fucking awesome. Just saying.
|
I have a Question for you:
How can the universe be Finite? What is there at the "end" ?
So, we know that the most remote objects we can see are Quartz some 15 bilion light years aqay from us. But how is it possible that space is limited? like quantified i mean. So i heard talk about the Theory of infinite parallel universes, but i don' t believe in that. Infinite does not exist. Nothing material can be infinite. One day, (if the nature persues its course) the Sun will implode and all life as we know it on earth will come to an end.
An example of why i do not believe in this theory. If i stand on my street, i see up to a certain point. Lets assume i never moved from where i stand, and therefore i do not know what is beyond from where i can see. Now, thanks to technology, i can access google maps and see what is beyond my street, and i see another street. However, many years ago (say 2000) i could not do this. The only way i could this was by actually travelling to that other street i could not see. Or i could just stand where i was and assume, try to imagine what was there. And maybe someone would come and tell me that beyond my road there where infinite roads, when in fact they are many roads in the world but they are Finite definable number.
The same with our universe. We were able to map it because we developed the technology to do it. But we still don' t have the technology to see beyond a certain point. Thats my opinion. Like we don' t have the technology to truly see what is at the center of our earth.
So, the question that has always bugged me, was what is there beyond what we can see and how is it possible that "space" is limited?
I' d like to hear your opinion on the subject
|
On January 26 2013 01:02 pebble444 wrote:
I have a Question for you:
How can the universe be Finite? What is there at the "end" ?
So, we know that the most remote objects we can see are Quartz some 15 bilion light years aqay from us. But how is it possible that space is limited? like quantified i mean. So i heard talk about the Theory of infinite parallel universes, but i don' t believe in that. Infinite does not exist. Nothing material can be infinite. One day, (if the nature persues its course) the Sun will implode and all life as we know it on earth will come to an end.
An example of why i do not believe in this theory. If i stand on my street, i see up to a certain point. Lets assume i never moved from where i stand, and therefore i do not know what is beyond from where i can see. Now, thanks to technology, i can access google maps and see what is beyond my street, and i see another street. However, many years ago (say 2000) i could not do this. The only way i could this was by actually travelling to that other street i could not see. Or i could just stand where i was and assume, try to imagine what was there. And maybe someone would come and tell me that beyond my road there where infinite roads, when in fact they are many roads in the world but they are Finite definable number.
The same with our universe. We were able to map it because we developed the technology to do it. But we still don' t have the technology to see beyond a certain point. Thats my opinion. Like we don' t have the technology to truly see what is at the center of our earth.
So, the question that has always bugged me, was what is there beyond what we can see and how is it possible that "space" is limited?
I' d like to hear your opinion on the subject
There is no end or boundary to space but it is finite. Imagine standing on a spherical surface and trying to run around it and find the "edge". You can't yet it's still finite in size. That is like the 2D analog to the 3D universe.
The universe is constantly growing in size at a rate faster than the speed of light. At the moment of the big bang there was no space or time. What the big bang really signifies is the expansion of space-time from point like to a finite size. It's helpful to imagine space and time as physical entities that can expand, bend etc rather than just being concepts.
|
You're so close to the truth, yet so far.
Clearly everything is explained by Math, the language of physics. I mean, after all, God created the integers. And the rest is just abstraction from there. All of physics, and by extension the universe (and all possible universes, as well as the completely abstract) relies on Mathematics.
xkcd Purity
|
On January 26 2013 01:02 pebble444 wrote:
So, the question that has always bugged me, was what is there beyond what we can see and how is it possible that "space" is limited?
Here's an easy analogy to conceptualize a finite universe. Imagine that we lived in a one-dimensional universe, like a number line. Possible universes:
1. The entire real line. This is what most people imagine; space stretching on forever in all (both) directions. Plausible.
2. A finite but really really really large interval around zero, say [-a,a] for some obscenely large number a. This is what you're imagining as a finite universe, where there's a sudden end at a point too far away for us to observe. You're right to think this is implausible, unless there's more to the story. Not likely.
3. Same as before, but an open interval (-a,a). Basically just as implausible, but now there is no location which is literally "the edge of space". Not likely.
Here's where it gets interesting.
4. A finite interval, say [-1,1], but with the endpoints identified, so just when you would fly off the left end of the universe, you reappear on the right end heading back to your start point. Note that this is the same as replacing the number line with a circle. This works just as well in higher dimensions -- think of Asteroids, where if you fly off the edge of the screen you reappear on the opposite edge. You're actually flying around on the surface of a sphere in Asteroids. This is the same as what L3gendary said. Very plausible. #topologyfuckyeah
5. A finite open interval, say (-1,1), but with the laws of physics rigged up so that the closer you are to the boundary, the more energy it takes to move towards it. There's an "end" to space in that there is a maximum distance two objects can be from each other, but it's still sensible because you cannot fly off the edge without using infinitely large quantities of energy, which you do not have. Plausible.
6. More exotic stuff. Take the real line and delete zero. In each half, rig physics so it takes arbitrarily large amounts of energy to approach the zero point. You now have two mirror universes. Why stop there? Take the real line and delete all the integers, making each subinterval (n,n+1) its own universe like those in 4 or 5 above. You now have infinitely many parallel universes. Go nuts. Perhaps less plausible, but cool.
Side note: physicists talk about "open" and "closed" universes to mean ones with positive or negative curvature, not ones whose shape is an open (without boundary) or closed manifold. Also, each spatial dimension need not have the same topology as the others... For example, imagine playing Asteroids where the top/bottom edges of the screen teleport you as usual, but otherwise it's a side-scroller; the left/right edges pan infinitely. Now you're flying on the surface of a cylinder.
Generalize this up to three spatial dimensions (intervals -> circles -> spheres) and there you go. Or however many spatial dimensions our universe actually has...
|
|
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 26 2013 02:01 Artisian wrote:You're so close to the truth, yet so far. Clearly everything is explained by Math, the language of physics. I mean, after all, God created the integers. And the rest is just abstraction from there. All of physics, and by extension the universe (and all possible universes, as well as the completely abstract) relies on Mathematics. xkcd Purity
While maths is really interesting and physics is exceptionally reliant on it you need an interpretation of the maths to have a full understanding of how the universe works. But yes physics is mostly applied maths.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 26 2013 00:52 vOdToasT wrote:
I agree that the universe is awesome. When I say awesome, I mean it. Awe inspiring. Worthy of awe.
I want to get in to quantum computing. :D I've seen documentaries that touch on it briefly, but those aren't enough for me, because they don't give me a deep understanding of the subject, which I want.
However, you didn't explain WHY physics is fucking awesome. Just saying.
Quantum information and computation is a fascinating subject that I really don't know enough about 
Yeah I was a bit incoherent but I was trying to convey how much enjoyment I derive from learning how the universe works on a fundamental level.
edit: also that it's fascinating that even though we have figured out so much there is so much we still don't know.
|
I am proud that I understand every single word  GOOO IB PHYSICS!
|
On January 26 2013 01:02 pebble444 wrote:
I have a Question for you:
How can the universe be Finite? What is there at the "end" ?
So, we know that the most remote objects we can see are Quartz some 15 bilion light years aqay from us. But how is it possible that space is limited? like quantified i mean. So i heard talk about the Theory of infinite parallel universes, but i don' t believe in that. Infinite does not exist. Nothing material can be infinite. One day, (if the nature persues its course) the Sun will implode and all life as we know it on earth will come to an end.
An example of why i do not believe in this theory. If i stand on my street, i see up to a certain point. Lets assume i never moved from where i stand, and therefore i do not know what is beyond from where i can see. Now, thanks to technology, i can access google maps and see what is beyond my street, and i see another street. However, many years ago (say 2000) i could not do this. The only way i could this was by actually travelling to that other street i could not see. Or i could just stand where i was and assume, try to imagine what was there. And maybe someone would come and tell me that beyond my road there where infinite roads, when in fact they are many roads in the world but they are Finite definable number.
The same with our universe. We were able to map it because we developed the technology to do it. But we still don' t have the technology to see beyond a certain point. Thats my opinion. Like we don' t have the technology to truly see what is at the center of our earth.
So, the question that has always bugged me, was what is there beyond what we can see and how is it possible that "space" is limited?
I' d like to hear your opinion on the subject
I am no physicist (not yet, at least) but I am very interested in physics as a layman and I remember one helpful simple analogy of this. May not be 100% accurate but I like it, maybe you have heard it, but still.
Imagine a plastic balloon. Its surface doesn't have end, border, center, beginning, its just continuous - but finite. Then, imagine all spacetime is on its surface. Yeah, spacetime has 3 space dimensions, but for example in this picture spacetime is illustrated as 2D (well, its curved, but having no depth) - so imagine something similar. And what happens when universe is expanding, is like filling the plastic balloon with more and more gas. All points on the surface became more distant from each other and all expand in constant velocity. But there are no borders, no ends and no beginnings on the surface. Its just becoming bigger.
Hopefully someone found it helpful. I am no physicist as I said, but I think it helps to understand the matter.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 26 2013 06:12 Overpowered wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 01:02 pebble444 wrote:
I have a Question for you:
How can the universe be Finite? What is there at the "end" ?
So, we know that the most remote objects we can see are Quartz some 15 bilion light years aqay from us. But how is it possible that space is limited? like quantified i mean. So i heard talk about the Theory of infinite parallel universes, but i don' t believe in that. Infinite does not exist. Nothing material can be infinite. One day, (if the nature persues its course) the Sun will implode and all life as we know it on earth will come to an end.
An example of why i do not believe in this theory. If i stand on my street, i see up to a certain point. Lets assume i never moved from where i stand, and therefore i do not know what is beyond from where i can see. Now, thanks to technology, i can access google maps and see what is beyond my street, and i see another street. However, many years ago (say 2000) i could not do this. The only way i could this was by actually travelling to that other street i could not see. Or i could just stand where i was and assume, try to imagine what was there. And maybe someone would come and tell me that beyond my road there where infinite roads, when in fact they are many roads in the world but they are Finite definable number.
The same with our universe. We were able to map it because we developed the technology to do it. But we still don' t have the technology to see beyond a certain point. Thats my opinion. Like we don' t have the technology to truly see what is at the center of our earth.
So, the question that has always bugged me, was what is there beyond what we can see and how is it possible that "space" is limited?
I' d like to hear your opinion on the subject I am no physicist (not yet, at least) but I am very interested in physics as a layman and I remember one helpful simple analogy of this. May not be 100% accurate but I like it, maybe you have heard it, but still. Imagine a plastic balloon. Its surface doesn't have end, border, center, beginning, its just continuous - but finite. Then, imagine all spacetime is on its surface. Yeah, spacetime has 3 space dimensions, but for example in this picture spacetime is illustrated as 2D (well, its curved, but having no depth) - so imagine something similar. And what happens when universe is expanding, is like filling the plastic balloon with more and more gas. All points on the surface became more distant from each other and all expand in constant velocity. But there are no borders, no ends and no beginnings on the surface. Its just becoming bigger. Hopefully someone found it helpful. I am no physicist as I said, but I think it helps to understand the matter.
That is probably the best way to visualise a finite continuous universe. Obviously its a lot harder to see exactly how it works when you are dealing with a four dimensional spacetime but it is essentially the same idea. Interestingly though current evidence seems to point to a flat universe that is infinite in space and the forward time direction.
|
I have to say I really don't like when people say "physics/ science is awesome/great". Physics is not the universe. Physics is the human study of the universe, the human perception of the universe. These two aspects are invariably conflated in these sorts of statements. I don't think that's a mistake though. If you call physics merely the human perception of the universe, then you make it less grand all encompassing. You admit that your understanding is but a narrow slit. If you are speaking instead of the wonder and majesty of the universe, again, you make the subject bigger than you. This is important because the subtext of these proclamations are that humans will ultimately understand and control the universe. Thus, you must make physics and the universe the same thing. So ask yourself: Are you marveling at the magnitude of something of which you ultimately will only ever understand a tiny fraction of, or are you patting yourself on the back as part of a cult of human domination of nature?
I'l leave you with a poem:
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal these words appear:
“My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 26 2013 06:54 Jerubaal wrote:
I have to say I really don't like when people say "physics/ science is awesome/great". Physics is not the universe. Physics is the human study of the universe, the human perception of the universe. These two aspects are invariably conflated in these sorts of statements. I don't think that's a mistake though. If you call physics merely the human perception of the universe, then you make it less grand all encompassing. You admit that your understanding is but a narrow slit. If you are speaking instead of the wonder and majesty of the universe, again, you make the subject bigger than you. This is important because the subtext of these proclamations are that humans will ultimately understand and control the universe. Thus, you must make physics and the universe the same thing. So ask yourself: Are you marveling at the magnitude of something of which you ultimately will only ever understand a tiny fraction of, or are you patting yourself on the back as part of a cult of human domination of nature?
I'm not trying to claim that physics is exactly how everything works, I know that it is a mathematical model for how it works. I think this lack of knowledge is the most interesting part about it though. If we understood everything perfectly it would be rather dull because there would be nothing new to discover and learn about. Even though our knowledge is such a small portion of the true reality of the universe and we will never be able to reach a complete understanding of it pushing the boundary of that knowledge out just that little bit further is what is truly amazing about science in general.
To quote Carl Sagan:
Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.
|
On January 26 2013 06:54 Jerubaal wrote:
I have to say I really don't like when people say "physics/ science is awesome/great". Physics is not the universe. Physics is the human study of the universe, the human perception of the universe. These two aspects are invariably conflated in these sorts of statements. I don't think that's a mistake though. If you call physics merely the human perception of the universe, then you make it less grand all encompassing. You admit that your understanding is but a narrow slit. If you are speaking instead of the wonder and majesty of the universe, again, you make the subject bigger than you. This is important because the subtext of these proclamations are that humans will ultimately understand and control the universe. Thus, you must make physics and the universe the same thing. So ask yourself: Are you marveling at the magnitude of something of which you ultimately will only ever understand a tiny fraction of, or are you patting yourself on the back as part of a cult of human domination of nature?
Did you ever read this article?
|
Oh I think it's clear that you've conflated the two in your post. You start off by saying that "everything relies on physics." Well no it doesn't. Everything in the natural world depends on nature (both statements somewhat tautological). The rest of your paragraph focuses exclusively on human science. Propositions and attitudes are two different but related things, even though you claim to deny the proposition I am attributing to you, the attitude surely remains.
It's one thing to blandly say you know science doesn't know or will ever know everything. Once you delve into the nitty gritty of what that means and understand the true limitations of natural science it still looks fascinating and clever and useful and a worthy occupation for a great mind, but it no longer looks like the sole arbiter of every decision on earth, which is what it's made out to be.
I find such discussions tiresome, honestly. One of my favorite quotations is from Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach and goes something like "there is nothing wrong with the system, the fault was in your expectations of the system'". "Science" deserves no criticism, only those who would misappropriate it.
On January 26 2013 08:13 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 06:54 Jerubaal wrote:
I have to say I really don't like when people say "physics/ science is awesome/great". Physics is not the universe. Physics is the human study of the universe, the human perception of the universe. These two aspects are invariably conflated in these sorts of statements. I don't think that's a mistake though. If you call physics merely the human perception of the universe, then you make it less grand all encompassing. You admit that your understanding is but a narrow slit. If you are speaking instead of the wonder and majesty of the universe, again, you make the subject bigger than you. This is important because the subtext of these proclamations are that humans will ultimately understand and control the universe. Thus, you must make physics and the universe the same thing. So ask yourself: Are you marveling at the magnitude of something of which you ultimately will only ever understand a tiny fraction of, or are you patting yourself on the back as part of a cult of human domination of nature? Did you ever read this article?
I might have seen that some time back. I guess I kinda agree, but those are more sociological observations while I'm making philosophical ones.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 26 2013 08:43 Jerubaal wrote:Oh I think it's clear that you've conflated the two in your post. You start off by saying that "everything relies on physics." Well no it doesn't. Everything in the natural world depends on nature (both statements somewhat tautological). The rest of your paragraph focuses exclusively on human science. Propositions and attitudes are two different but related things, even though you claim to deny the proposition I am attributing to you, the attitude surely remains. It's one thing to blandly say you know science doesn't know or will ever know everything. Once you delve into the nitty gritty of what that means and understand the true limitations of natural science it still looks fascinating and clever and useful and a worthy occupation for a great mind, but it no longer looks like the sole arbiter of every decision on earth, which is what it's made out to be. I find such discussions tiresome, honestly. One of my favorite quotations is from Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach and goes something like "there is nothing wrong with the system, the fault was in your expectations of the system'". "Science" deserves no criticism, only those who would misappropriate it. Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 08:13 Grumbels wrote:On January 26 2013 06:54 Jerubaal wrote:
I have to say I really don't like when people say "physics/ science is awesome/great". Physics is not the universe. Physics is the human study of the universe, the human perception of the universe. These two aspects are invariably conflated in these sorts of statements. I don't think that's a mistake though. If you call physics merely the human perception of the universe, then you make it less grand all encompassing. You admit that your understanding is but a narrow slit. If you are speaking instead of the wonder and majesty of the universe, again, you make the subject bigger than you. This is important because the subtext of these proclamations are that humans will ultimately understand and control the universe. Thus, you must make physics and the universe the same thing. So ask yourself: Are you marveling at the magnitude of something of which you ultimately will only ever understand a tiny fraction of, or are you patting yourself on the back as part of a cult of human domination of nature? Did you ever read this article? I might have seen that some time back. I guess I kinda agree, but those are more sociological observations while I'm making philosophical ones.
The everything relies on physics I was more meant as our understanding of the world and all of science can be boiled down to physics. A statement about how fields like biology, chemistry or geology can be attributed to processes described by physics. It wasn't really intended to be a statement about how nature follows the laws of physics because, as you have pointed out, this is backwards. I'm of the opinion that science becomes much more interesting when you view it as a limited lens through which we perceive the universe rather than an arbiter of the universe.
|
On January 26 2013 09:00 imallinson wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 08:43 Jerubaal wrote:Oh I think it's clear that you've conflated the two in your post. You start off by saying that "everything relies on physics." Well no it doesn't. Everything in the natural world depends on nature (both statements somewhat tautological). The rest of your paragraph focuses exclusively on human science. Propositions and attitudes are two different but related things, even though you claim to deny the proposition I am attributing to you, the attitude surely remains. It's one thing to blandly say you know science doesn't know or will ever know everything. Once you delve into the nitty gritty of what that means and understand the true limitations of natural science it still looks fascinating and clever and useful and a worthy occupation for a great mind, but it no longer looks like the sole arbiter of every decision on earth, which is what it's made out to be. I find such discussions tiresome, honestly. One of my favorite quotations is from Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach and goes something like "there is nothing wrong with the system, the fault was in your expectations of the system'". "Science" deserves no criticism, only those who would misappropriate it. On January 26 2013 08:13 Grumbels wrote:On January 26 2013 06:54 Jerubaal wrote:
I have to say I really don't like when people say "physics/ science is awesome/great". Physics is not the universe. Physics is the human study of the universe, the human perception of the universe. These two aspects are invariably conflated in these sorts of statements. I don't think that's a mistake though. If you call physics merely the human perception of the universe, then you make it less grand all encompassing. You admit that your understanding is but a narrow slit. If you are speaking instead of the wonder and majesty of the universe, again, you make the subject bigger than you. This is important because the subtext of these proclamations are that humans will ultimately understand and control the universe. Thus, you must make physics and the universe the same thing. So ask yourself: Are you marveling at the magnitude of something of which you ultimately will only ever understand a tiny fraction of, or are you patting yourself on the back as part of a cult of human domination of nature? Did you ever read this article? I might have seen that some time back. I guess I kinda agree, but those are more sociological observations while I'm making philosophical ones. The everything relies on physics I was more meant as our understanding of the world and all of science can be boiled down to physics. A statement about how fields like biology, chemistry or geology can be attributed to processes described by physics. It wasn't really intended to be a statement about how nature follows the laws of physics because, as you have pointed out, this is backwards. I'm of the opinion that science becomes much more interesting when you view it as a limited lens through which we perceive the universe rather than an arbiter of the universe.
You could be a comic book villain: Professor Notwen: "the laws of physics heed only my call, I can bend the universe to my will! mhaha" etc.
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 26 2013 09:07 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2013 09:00 imallinson wrote:On January 26 2013 08:43 Jerubaal wrote:Oh I think it's clear that you've conflated the two in your post. You start off by saying that "everything relies on physics." Well no it doesn't. Everything in the natural world depends on nature (both statements somewhat tautological). The rest of your paragraph focuses exclusively on human science. Propositions and attitudes are two different but related things, even though you claim to deny the proposition I am attributing to you, the attitude surely remains. It's one thing to blandly say you know science doesn't know or will ever know everything. Once you delve into the nitty gritty of what that means and understand the true limitations of natural science it still looks fascinating and clever and useful and a worthy occupation for a great mind, but it no longer looks like the sole arbiter of every decision on earth, which is what it's made out to be. I find such discussions tiresome, honestly. One of my favorite quotations is from Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach and goes something like "there is nothing wrong with the system, the fault was in your expectations of the system'". "Science" deserves no criticism, only those who would misappropriate it. On January 26 2013 08:13 Grumbels wrote:On January 26 2013 06:54 Jerubaal wrote:
I have to say I really don't like when people say "physics/ science is awesome/great". Physics is not the universe. Physics is the human study of the universe, the human perception of the universe. These two aspects are invariably conflated in these sorts of statements. I don't think that's a mistake though. If you call physics merely the human perception of the universe, then you make it less grand all encompassing. You admit that your understanding is but a narrow slit. If you are speaking instead of the wonder and majesty of the universe, again, you make the subject bigger than you. This is important because the subtext of these proclamations are that humans will ultimately understand and control the universe. Thus, you must make physics and the universe the same thing. So ask yourself: Are you marveling at the magnitude of something of which you ultimately will only ever understand a tiny fraction of, or are you patting yourself on the back as part of a cult of human domination of nature? Did you ever read this article? I might have seen that some time back. I guess I kinda agree, but those are more sociological observations while I'm making philosophical ones. The everything relies on physics I was more meant as our understanding of the world and all of science can be boiled down to physics. A statement about how fields like biology, chemistry or geology can be attributed to processes described by physics. It wasn't really intended to be a statement about how nature follows the laws of physics because, as you have pointed out, this is backwards. I'm of the opinion that science becomes much more interesting when you view it as a limited lens through which we perceive the universe rather than an arbiter of the universe. You could be a comic book villain: Professor Notwen: "the laws of physics heed only my call, I can bend the universe to my will! mhaha" etc.
Well all this supposed interest in the subject is just a front to hide my evil plan to take over the world.
|
Ive always thought that
Math is Math
Engineering is Math with explosions
Physics is Math with magic
|
Are you sure what you like is physics? Or is it the "popular science" bastardization of physics described entirely with flowery words meant to impress and confuse the reader, with not an equation or proof in sight?
|
United Kingdom3482 Posts
On January 26 2013 13:34 iamke55 wrote:
Are you sure what you like is physics? Or is it the "popular science" bastardization of physics described entirely with flowery words meant to impress and confuse the reader, with not an equation or proof in sight?
Its definitely actual physics I enjoy I'm currently doing a BSc in it and am really enjoying the course. I was planning a more in depth blog that went into some of the actual physics behind this but my current lack of a PC has temporarily put this off.
|
I did two semesters of physics then switched majors to engineering because I wanted job security (I'm now on the ECE track), but god damn do I miss it. I think the best analogy I can make is that engineering is boring foreplay, whereas physics is the gradual process of enticing the universe to let us put more and more things up her butt, and the ultimate pursuit of transcendental knowledge is "how far can I shove my finger up the asshole of the universe before she gets pissy."
Thanks to those of you that are willing to just shove it up there (experimentally, of course) and see what happens. You guys are awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
