Am I the only one who sees the dominance of maths in explanations of physics as something of a cancer?
I have no problems at all with using nothing but formulas to make practical use of one's physics knowledge, but forumlas have limited use in learning, because they're only good for demonstrating explained relationships.
You can get a good grade still of course, if you have a purely mathematical understanding of a phenomenon (since assessment style reflects teaching style) but creative applications of such knowledge are out of the question.
And yet no one seems to see a problem with this.
Earlier today I saw a question on Hawking Radiation.
>asker: "Why do small black holes radiate more energy?"
>responder: "because T = 1/r"
I've got a bounty of mathematical explanations before me when I go onto the internet, but being able to calculate and not know what's really going on is useless when I want to research if Hawking Radiation can be used to exploit a loophole in entropy implied by many worlds theory.
And then, of course, there's pages of information that evert several words uses a jargon term that'd take at least a minute to learn the meaning of. Sure, it saves the author and sufficiently learned readers some time, but does it have to be that every source of information on advanced topics is like this? There's a lot of science out there to learn and to generalise any of it one needs to have a flawless understanding of a large scope, but the only ways to learn like that is to either be a level 99 autist or be reading the science equivalent of baby food.
>>7744574
>Am I the only one who sees the dominance of maths in explanations of physics as something of a cancer?
No, there are many other butthurt retards like you on the internet.
>>7744592
/thread
>>7744574
Study philosophy breh. I hear philosophers care about this kind of bullshit.
>>7744643
no they don't
>>7744574
>asker: "Why do small black holes radiate more energy?"
>responder: "because T = 1/r"
What more do you want? to be spoon fed everything?
you now know that Hawking radiation follows the relationship T = 1/r [sic], so look up the derivation of this equation to see that a Schwarzschild black hole has a metric
[eqn] ds^2 = -\left(1-{2M\over r}\right)dt^2 + {1\over 1- 2M/r} dr^2 + r^2 d\Omega^2. [/eqn]
Since an accelerated frame sees a temperature (and according GR there is a direct equivalence between gravity and acceleration) you can use the Unru effect to calculate the temperature with [math] \beta = {2\pi \over a}. [/math] Some basic manipulation then shows you that
[eqn] T = {\hbar \, c^3 \over 8 \pi G M k_\text{B}} \; [/eqn]
Do you want is in terms of baby words? Thats not how it works
If you want to understand this you NEED to understand General relativity, and anyone who understand GR with know how to interpret a metric, same with the rest of the proof.
If you want to skip all the material leading up to the result that 'T = 1/r', you will have to take the whole explanation on faith alone,so I can just tell you
>The smaller a black hole, the weaker the gravity and thus more radiation can escape from it, which results in a larger measured temperature.
Is this correct? Can you make any meaningful interpretation of this sentence if you dont understand GR? I might as well have just told you
>The quantum field around a black hole consists of pure energy, the smaller the black hole is the less space there is for the wave to entangle with the black hole thus less dark matter can accumulate on the horizon, meaning it has a lower energy
From your perspective this is just as correct as the first explanation because you lack the knowledge to understand it.
Its because lazy retards like you want to go I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE!', and want to jump right into the 'woohoo quantum mechanics!' end without understanding (cont)
>>7744692
the prerequisites that the world is filled with so much pseudoscience popsci nonence that people eat up.
You think that people can make creative applications without understanding the math behind it? Sure they can, just look at all the free energy devices ion the internet. The people behind it think they can make a breakthrou in physics without even knowing the math behind something as simple as magnetism, when was the last time you saw any of those people use any math? Its always just
>The magnets push against each other, so it makes free energy
Again, this sentince means nothing if you dont know the math. How will you judge if this is correct or not without using math?
>>7744574
Posted this a few months ago on reddit. You need math to understand Physics, but that doesn't mean you lose physical intuition.
>>7744692
i have no idea what that means, and I have no position in this debate, but god damn that is the most intellectual thing i've ever seen on 4chan
>>7744692
Clearly, you're knowledgable on the topic, so to you it seems like a trivial task to analyse jargon-dense derivations of the equation.
However, a zero-maths explanation is almost always not only possible but easy; and many of the most respected physicists of past and present saw the importance of such explanations.
I'm not the asker of that original question, although I will admit using that as an example made me curious, so I looked it up and apparently it's to do with how sharp the curvature of spacetime is. Now if that was combined with an explanation of how steep curvature generates higher temperature, then a purely non-mathematical explanation would be achieved.
At a guess, I think it has something to do with how quickly gravity increases as the event horizon is passed, so for a huge black hole it could take many kilometres of travel for the force on one of the virtual particles created at the event horizon to double, whereas for a tiny one it could double with the first millimetre.
>>7744733
>However, a zero-maths explanation is almost always not only possible but easy
No. Learn the math. Explanations that try and leave the math out are not only useless but are almost always only half-correct. If you want to understand physics, then study fucking physics.
>>7744711
That's not physical intuition.
It's exactly the opposite: Intuition would say that "black holes can't emit black body radiation because their matter is cloaked by an event horizon", so one needs to explain the exact process through which energy is lost.
Not asking you to explain it here, but you need to realise when your "intuitive explanation" clarifies nothing.
>>7744739
That is physical intuition. Quantum Mechanics, General Relativity, and Statistical Mechanics are all extremely mathematical theories. So to someone who has not been trained in the subjects and the corresponding mathematics, the derivation may seem to be based on arbitrary mathematics. But if you really look at what is going on, each step taken in the process has a physical basis.
>>7744737
Obviously the math has to be learnt to apply the physics, an intuitive understanding can only be used for rough predictions.
Rough predictions are still extremely useful though/
Explanations that leave out the math can be thought of like a labelling for a concept, telling a physicist or engineer whether he can apply that concept or not; and being able to figure out if knowledge is applicable before learning it in-depth is incredibly important for rapid innovation.
Additionally, an intuitive understanding can make the mathematical understanding much easier to achieve.
>>7744692>>7744574
what you fail to grasp is that physics is the study, not of phenomenon like the typical realist would say, in claiming that physics is the study of nature, reality and other deliriums, but of already-abstractions through the unconscious choice to link two categories/concepts which are not related.
in passing, to categorize and to hierarchize are the same thing : to put things which we sensate aside, but we already must group things together to speak of things, but to put things together is already a hierarchy.
example : light [which is a concept]+lightbulb[which is another concept], or heat [which is a concept] and temperature [which is concept]
then we go further in abstraction in qualifying the various categories/hierarchies.
then since the classical rationalist who thinks that he no longer needs god to ''explain'' events, the scientist believes that he is bright in claiming that it is spot on to quantify the qualities ascribe to the concepts.
Now physics is the study of events, that some humans think are repeatable [top lel] through parameters which are quantified. so of course you need math, but only because you choose to do math beforehand.
And since you love your little maths so much, do not hesitate how to tell us how, since you work in classical logic as a good little physicist, the principle of excluded middle is real, or since you likely work in ZFC, how the set {} connects to your explanation of this temperature. But since you remain impotent, you will claim that ''this is not a question for the physicist'' even though every physicist on the planet do not hesitate to claim, like you, that the temperature is what you stated.
By the way, not a single scientist is able to tell you what ''to explain'' means, what a cause is, what a consequence is. not a single scientist is able to justify his choice of vocabulary. and even less to say why matters what they are doing, that is to say, to have faith in their imagination/reason.
>>7744750
>an intuitive understanding can only be used for rough predictions.
if all this is so intuitive, then why did we have to wait for math to be developed ?
>>7744751
>babies first philosophy of science
>>7744753
There's a surprising number of phenomena that don't require mathematics to explain.
For example, although it took us until the 20th century to figure it out, Everett Interpretation quantum mechanics could have been figured out far, far earlier as it requires only two things:
>infinite universe/multiverse (virtually no science, and zero mathematics needed)
>finite number of particles travelling between any two objects (not sure if there is a non-empirical method to figure this out, but this concept did originate from the ancient Greeks)
A black hole definitely requires maths to predict the existence of: It requires one to calculate whether gravity or pressure wins over as density approaches infinity.
But Hawking Radiation only requires knowledge of an event horizon (must logically exist for infinitely dense objects) and the existence of pairs of virtual particles (how were these discovered anyway?)
I have no doubt that with any of this advanced science, maths was used to help, but it's fun to consider how much could have been worked out with simple logic since hindsight is always 20:20.
>>7744760
While I will admit it's sloppy writing, attacking what he wrote with that is worse.
>>7744751
How is this relevant to whats being ranted about in the OP? Induction is impossible? nobody cares. were long past that definition of science.
Your post is why people stereotype philosophy as
>you cant know nothin
God damn, "philosophers of science" and popsci faggots are pure cancer.
>>7744765
>But Hawking Radiation only requires knowledge of an event horizon (must logically exist for infinitely dense objects) and the existence of pairs of virtual particles (how were these discovered anyway?)
that doesn't follow in any way
You need a finite speed of light for one, pairs of virtual particles is not sufficient since virtual particles are just a way to organize the terms in a Taylor expansion of an interaction (so by claiming virtual particles you are actually talking about the math)
>>7744751
Please return to /lit/ and stay there
>>7744786
Good point, a finite speed of light isn't required by any logical process I can think of, so it likely needs to be identified with hard science.
>>7744574
>Am I the only one who sees the dominance of maths in explanations of physics as something of a cancer?
Unfortunately, no
>I've got a bounty of mathematical explanations before me when I go onto the internet, but being able to calculate and not know what's really going on is useless when I want to research if Hawking Radiation can be used to exploit a loophole in entropy implied by many worlds theory.
There is no "really going on". You seem to be prioritizing a qualitative explanation that tells you what you want to hear over a direct calculation when a direct calculation is preferred. Also, it sounds like what you want to work on is drivel, so I suggest not wasting your time.
>>7744782
I'd say that science needs an ever so slightly firmer backbone of philosophy, because things become so much easier when you've got a completely non-arbitary way of expressing things.
We've got it mostly non arbitary.
>>7744791
butthurt
>>7744776
>Your post is why people stereotype philosophy as
the fact that you take his post as philosophy is why people stereotype philosophy as you cant know nothin.
>>7744797
The reason I have that prioritisation is >>7744750 because I admit that what I want to work on is probably drivel, but the sooner I can rule it out as such the better. But mathematics won't help me rule it out, since I already know where the issues in the concept would lie if there are any.
Kant clarified the use of reason. you could read him.
>>7744765
>as density approaches infinity.
Can you explain why this isn't gibberish, mathematics or none?
You don't approach infinity. It's probably just very large anyway, and the method of calculating is fucked up and leading to bad results. No evidence anything can be anything other than finite, nor any indication density would approach infinity.
This is what the OP is talking about. What the fuck are you even trying to say? Mathematics leads to some pretty stupid shit coming out of people's mouths.
>>7744773
>sloppy writing,
what points are sloppy ?
>>7744826
The density of a black hole may be infinite, but the mass is still finite.
But now that you mention it, I suppose it is mathematics, I accidentally slipped into a mathematical explanation thinking I was giving a mathsless one.
Which makes me a hypocrite, since I am the OP.
>>7744831
It's not the points that are sloppy, it's just sloppy construction of the post as a whole. Poor flow.
>>7744692
>>The smaller a black hole, the weaker the gravity and thus more radiation can escape from it, which results in a larger measured temperature.
Not the OP but that's a perfectly clear explanation, bravo.
>>7744848
>you will have to take the whole explanation on faith alone,so I can just tell you
I think it's deliberate false information being used as an example.
>>7744574
You cannot understand something that you cannot perceive. Understanding something means you can perceive it and describe it.
We can perceive newtonian mechanics with our inner ear (acceleration), our proprioception (force), and our haptic feedback (pressure). We can also describe it with mathematics, therefore we understand newtonian mechanics.
We can describe QM and GR with mathematics, but we can't perceive it (no sensors to perceive space-time curvature, nor the Hamiltonian. Therefore, we will never truly understand it, and whether you describe those with mathematics or philosophy won't change a thing.
>>7744850
Well, that would be embarrassing, though I don't see what it proves. Of course someone who doesn't know a topic can be led to believe false things about it. I don't see why that precludes them from understanding correct information.
>>7744851
I can work to a limited extent with quantum physics and have no trouble understanding 4 dimensional things, even though I only have a very basic understanding of the maths behind the two.
>>7744851
There goes understanding mathematics.
How neatly arbitrary, your idea of perception.
>>7744856
>I can work to a limited extent with quantum physics
You can work with something you don't fully understand, for example... your brain.
>have no trouble understanding 4 dimensional things
That's because you can perceive 3 dimensions and have the capacity to extrapolate this perception to 4 dimensions.
>>7744861
I didn't say that perception was limited to the senses I mentioned, but you have to admit that we have no way of perceiving the fundamental variables of QM and GR.
As for mathematics, you can perceive quantities and recognize patterns so there goes most of mathematics. More obscure things like p-adic numbers are quite hard to understand.
>>7744868
I think novel mental structures can be developed to encompass abstract or strange things that depart heavily from the senses. This can be done with the senses, and mental processes themselves. I often say that without "feelings" you'd be rendered near braindead, because it's a large chunk of your intuitive understanding, and logic.
Whenever I get into metacognition people call me a pretentious, new age, stupid faggot, though. So I'm out of here. The message is to try trying more.
>>7744863
So? That's enough of an understanding to make creative use out of them. I don't know fully what I'm doing with my brain either, and yet I've got enough control over it that I pretty much rewrote my personality manually.
>>7744871
Well, to be fair
>novel mental structures
does feel kind of pretentious and new age. But I get where you're going though, to understand very counterintuitive things we have to go through some "mental gymnastics" that may correspond to new neural structures within your brain. Not my field tough, so I'm going to stop there.
>>7744876
My point was that it's not because you can work with QM that you understand it. It felt that your first statement was a counterpoint to mine, maybe I misunderstood.
>>7744871
>The message is to try trying more.
No. People who refuse to learn the math need to try more.
Math is the perfect language for physics. It does everything we could possibly need it to, and it just keeps advancing and becoming more amazingly beautiful. It integrates with physics perfectly and if you think we need to find a different way to interpret physics than you are not trying hard enough.
Once you learn the mathematics, learn the language, previously very abstract concepts in physics start to fit together perfectly and truly make sense.
>>7744884
It's a very broad shorthand for an abstract way of conceptualizing what the brain is actually doing, able to do, and will be apt to do, on a physical level. Because viewing it mechanically is often either not possible, or unnecessary.
Everything from how your memories are stored and linked, to details the mind will retain automatically. Emotional control, burying memories. Making mental judgements and calculations faster by mapping them with certain relationships, on shapes, with impossible colors. Controlling the details of perception itself. Whatever, list goes on. Real shame what I've been doing since I was a young child is suddenly pretentious new age bullshit, and therefore not okay to learn or think about. Though to put it bluntly, once you begin to take the cover off the black box and see some of what is inside, sometimes you should know when to put it back on and leave it on. It can be srsbsns, especially if, like me, you're a terrible mix of durable and flimsy. ie, too much insight and control in the wrong ways.
>>7744889
That sounds kind of unsettling, to be honest. I can kind of get the feel I imagine you must be feeling, but to me it's just a bit terrifying. Like when I learned to read and realized I understood these symbols automatically, gave me a bad feeling I didn't really understand at the time. Later I would realize it's because it was dualistic and I didn't know what to expect. Now that I have no choice but to know, the words and meanings can clutter up your head and control you.
Similarly, I imagine one day I might become so myopic and debased that I say things like "it approaches infinite density" and actually find it sensible and meaningful. I might claim "the universe is probably infinite!" and ignore that it's unfalsifiable, untestable, and not even feasible to indirectly indicate as most likely.
No offense intended, it's just not a great thought. Warrants caution. I'm too pretentious to just believe it all.
Not him but you have to Alize that science and math work on axioms no matter what, so you will have these feelings forever if you are truly aware of where self evidence is warranted and implemented to help stengthen a theory that models and predicts phenomenon in life and in our minds
to say that mathematics goes beyond human rules, is like saying that english is more than conventions and that the world is literally made up of words.
Any believer in mathematics could learn about nominalism.
>>7744848
>>7744850
>>7744855
The entire point of the original post was to demonstrate that without the mathematical tools necessary to really understand the physics, you can easily be tricked or trick yourself into believing something that may not be true.
A physicist doesn't see reliance on mathematics as a hindrance in the same way a poet doesn't see competency in the language of their art as a hindrance.
>>7744889
>Math is the perfect language for physics. It does everything we could possibly need it to, and it just keeps advancing and becoming more amazingly beautiful. It integrates with physics perfectly and if you think we need to find a different way to interpret physics than you are not trying hard enough.
and yet physics is nothing but a few models and so far, nobody can motivate why those models matter. why should we have fundings for physics ? why should we care aboutwhat physicists write ?
>>7744934
Do you think physics can be understood without mathematics?
Because if so, you should go be a philosophy major and see how far that gets you.
>>7744848
You're cheering on an insult there. That sentence is meant to be insulting treating the reader like a retard for having to say it like that.
>>7744574
to be more precise, there is nothing beyond the ''striving of the scientist for more and more fine predictions''.
-you ask a scientist why predictions matter, he will not answer you.
-you ask a scientist why finer predictions matter, he will say as you said: because it has better applications than the applications than we have today.
-you ask why having (better) applications than we have today matters, he either does not reply, or replies ''because easing the life of the humans matters''.
-and when you ask why ''easing the life of the humans matters'', there is no answer again.
the conclusion is that:
-science/technology has always been easing in our life, and conflating this explicit purpose with ''giving us knowledge in accessing truths about the objective reality'' and other realist-rationalist fantasies to legitimate the development of this field [pure hedonism having always bad press] have clearly failed.
at best, the rationalist falls back, from his faith in the concept of objectivity, on the faith in the concept of ''inter-subjectivity'' which is roughly the faith in the concept of ''objective criterion to rank personal choices, once that a person wishes to solve some problem''
>>7744953
-even without applications, pure predictions are nothing but a concept and having faith in it shows how much the humanity clings to the abstraction of certainty in a desperate attempt to refuse the contingency of events [and it is a choice, in the first place, to think in such terms of contingency/necessity of life/events].
>>7744953
The only true philosophy is that of Absurdism.
Life is meaningless and therefore so is every human endeavor including science, but that wont stop us from trying to figure as much of this shit out as we can.
Also, science is NOT about application. Nor is it about prediction. It is about shedding light on the true nature of our world. Prediction is a necessary part of that process, and application is an inevitable product.
the scientist does not even know what he is doing. the scientist lacks of reflexivity. without this questioning, the scientist is like a hammer salesman telling you that hammers are great, that you need one, then you buy a few hammers without even knowing why you buy them, and why you listen the salesman in the first place.
>>7744751
>>7744953
>>7745049
>Striving for more valid predictions
is as valid an answer to the question of why scientists do what they do as
>Telling scientists what their work is drivel because you cannot know nuffin so I can feel better about wasting my time on philosophical word games
is as an answer to the question of why you keep making these posts
>>7744932
>physics is nothing but a few models
What are physicists suppose to be doing if not model the physical the world?
>nobody can motivate why those models matter
That is just untrue.
