Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Not that I know any more!
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Perhaps this will clarify it further. Basically we are being played, the only reason atoms behave the way they do is because that is how we understand them to behave. That is not to say, what we are seeing is not true. It is true, for example if we believed that there was a universe where Newton's laws did not apply then by all means there will be a place like that. Whatever we perceive, universe will act accordingly. It's a fascinating point of view but is still pretty hushed in the science community. At least, that is what I understood from his lecture.
This is where mathematics comes in. To separate out perception from reality and in the process advance theoretical sciences. Like someone said, 'data is from the devil; models are from gods'. If you take individual data point, you could end up with the wrong 'reality'. It is only after you model it using mathematics, you will know what reality is.
Southie, what aqua is referring to is only applicable at micro or quantum level. Read about "observer's effect" for more on what she is talking about
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Will do. I think I get your point.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
This is where mathematics comes in. To separate out perception from reality and in the process advance theoretical sciences. Like someone said, 'data is from the devil; models are from gods'. If you take individual data point, you could end up with the wrong 'reality'. It is only after you model it using mathematics, you will know what reality is.
Makes sense but isn't Mathematics a man-made concept as well? I don't know, maybe I am just reading too much in between the lines here.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Perhaps this will clarify it further. Basically we are being played, the only reason atoms behave the way they do is because that is how we understand them to behave. That is not to say, what we are seeing is not true. It is true, for example if we believed that there was a universe where Newton's laws did not apply then by all means there will be a place like that. Whatever we perceive, universe will act accordingly. It's a fascinating point of view but is still pretty hushed in the science community. At least, that is what I understood from his lecture.
You are referring to a Biocentric universe, aren't you? It is one of the many ideas scientists have thought about to make sens of our placement in the universe. The theory seems to be supported by Quantum Physics but doesn't seem to fit any where else. It is somewhat mystical and definitely worth entertaining.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
This is where mathematics comes in. To separate out perception from reality and in the process advance theoretical sciences. Like someone said, 'data is from the devil; models are from gods'. If you take individual data point, you could end up with the wrong 'reality'. It is only after you model it using mathematics, you will know what reality is.
Very well said.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Makes sense but isn't Mathematics a man-made concept as well? I don't know, maybe I am just reading too much in between the lines here.
As far as how it is expressed, yes. However, the concept and logic is universal. If it were man made, we wouldn't be able to calculate and predict things like movement of celestial bodies, weather, and seismic activity. We couldn't validate most scientific theories without mathematics.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Read up on observer effect. Essentially the measuring instruments change behavior of what is being observes. A voltmeter draws some current. An ammeter increases circuit resistance thus decreasing current.
This can happen all the way down to electron level.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Newton, he invented maths (calculus specifically) just to prove his laws of motion, and gravitational attraction of bodies with mass.
Aqua is referring to non-Newtonian mechanics, yes the Newtons laws of motion do not define movement and behavior of quantum particles.
Mathematics is the universal language of reason. Yes it is man-made, and helps us evaluate everything we can find a relation for.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Read up on observer effect. Essentially the measuring instruments change behavior of what is being observes. A voltmeter draws some current. An ammeter increases circuit resistance thus decreasing current. This can happen all the way down to electron level.
It happens on every level. Importance of this fact is reflected by the required accuracy in measurement. Yes ammeter draws current changing the circuit resistance and hence total current in circuit, but is that factor or change too much to have significant effect on readings? It is negligible for most of the measurements.
For example we all know light travels in straight lines, but actually it does not. And since we are too slow to realized that and it is not affecting required accuracy or causing a significant change, therefore we continue to neglect bending of light waves due to gravity, and that too gravity of our bodies :)
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
As far as how it is expressed, yes. However, the concept and logic is universal. If it were man made, we wouldn't be able to calculate and predict things like movement of celestial bodies, weather, and seismic activity. We couldn't validate most scientific theories without mathematics.
What I meant by that statement was that although Mathematics has been invented to explain current phenonomana. I think the universe is far more advanced than that, what about the era before big bang. There were no celestial bodies, no gravity, just gas particles. How did a reaction come out of nothingness to form big bang? Let's go even farther, how did an atom form out of nothing, why that specific structure? Can that be explained through Math?
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
E=MC2 
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Makes sense but isn't Mathematics a man-made concept as well? I don't know, maybe I am just reading too much in between the lines here.
Even if we concede that Mathematics is man-made, it is something with a singular perception. What I mean is, it does not differ from one person to the other, one culture to the other or one location to the other. In short, it is independent of point of view.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
What I meant by that statement was that although Mathematics has been invented to explain current phenonomana. I think the universe is far more advanced than that, what about the era before big bang. There were no celestial bodies, no gravity, just gas particles. How did a reaction come out of nothingness to form big bang? Let's go even farther, how did an atom form out of nothing, why that specific structure? Can that be explained through Math?
I will write a long drawn out response to this as soon as I get home.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
What I meant by that statement was that although Mathematics has been invented to explain current phenonomana. I think the universe is far more advanced than that, what about the era before big bang. There were no celestial bodies, no gravity, just gas particles. How did a reaction come out of nothingness to form big bang? Let’s go even farther, how did an atom form out of nothing, why that specific structure? Can that be explained through Math?
[/quote]
Laws can be explained using math. They don’t get invented using math
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
I will write a long drawn out response to this as soon as I get home.
Are we there yet?
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
What I meant by that statement was that although Mathematics has been invented to explain current phenonomana. I think the universe is far more advanced than that, what about the era before big bang. There were no celestial bodies, no gravity, just gas particles. How did a reaction come out of nothingness to form big bang? Let's go even farther, how did an atom form out of nothing, why that specific structure? Can that be explained through Math?
I had to think about how to respond to this so thank you!
Here is my two cents. Theory is not just an idea, it is backed up by data and evidence. Mathematical data can be used as evidence. Yes, the universe is far more advanced or we wouldn't be trying to understand how it works. Mathematics has been long used to make future predictions because we know some parts of the equations but not the rest. How do you think many came to accept the Big Bang theory as the beginning of our universe? It was a combination of sciences and mathematics that determined how our universe came about but Bing Bang isn't the only theory. There has been many theories actually however they lack supporting evidence so they are less plausible. How do you think we know there were no celestial bodies before the Big Bang? Because we know in certain conditions what can and cannot exist. In this case, we use mathematics to calculate how much of what could exist. Mathematics play a huge role in theoretical and experimental physics. Scientists calculate and hypothesize first then run their experiments accordingly to see if the results support their claim. Without mathematical data and evidence, a theory is pretty much a philosophical idea.
As for how an atom formed out of nothing, there are many theories for that too. It is not necessarily formed out of nothing. One of favorite is Alan Guth's theory of Cosmic Inflation. It supports the theory of a Multiverse. It claims our universe is one of many in a huge multiverse. A multiverse has every universe of a possible combination of elements meaning there are many beginnings and endings AND there are many of YOU and ME out there. Cosmic Background Radiation, recently observed, also somewhat supports the theory of a multiverse.
Re: F=MA or E=MC2
Laws can be explained using math. They don't get invented using math
That is kind of my point, Newton's laws did not apply at that time so although these laws can be proven through mathematical equations for what we are seeing and observing today. It does not mean there are no exceptions in some other corner of space. Bottom line, I believe that with the sheer area of space, there are so many possibilities and circumstances that can not be imagined by humans.