The Science Thread

Mathematics can be used as a description of the real world as an abstract model.

But you can dream in mathematics, too. You can even theoretically try to calculate another universe, with other rules.

We can't experience a 4-dim space. But we can calculate this space.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
20,079
Location
Germany
We can't experience a 4-dim space. But we can calculate this space.

Unless we are already in a higher dimensional space, and don't yet know it.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,085
Nevertheless, there are still things that I find fascinating. Take e.g. the imaginary number i that we were talking about. With Euler's formula e^ix = cos(x) + i*sin(x) we relate complex exponentials to oscillations. This gives rise to the Fourier transform where signals in the time domain can be expressed by signals in the frequency domain. It can be extended with the Laplace transform that is very useful to express differential equations as algebraic equations. In Control Theory, working in the s-domain (Laplace Transform) is very common and it impresses me how we can mathematically construct complex dynamical systems by interconnecting simple block diagrams in the s-domain.

Of course, there is a caveat, and that is that it is only applicable to linear systems. I suspect that it is the the "superposition" property of linear systems that allows these mathematical tools to be so effective. In reality, systems tend to be nonlinear so we have to simplify by necessity.

At the university, I had a physics teacher who joked that phycisists would look at nonlinear systems and kept looking until it became a bit more linear and continued looking until it became fully linear so that they could start working :).

I completely agree: some maths are beautiful or fascinating!

To add a little of "physics don't know everyting", you have a lot of natural phenomena that are describe in a purely empirical manner, because there's no model for them yet. Or even when you know how to write the mathematical model, you don't know how to solve it. For example the Navier-Stokes equation: it has been there for over a century, it seems to describe correctly the fluid dynamic motions, and yet, no one can provide the general solution for it!
More pertubating, in chaos theory, you have mathematical models describing "simple" systems where you know that the mathematical solution will always diverge, whatever is the precision on the initial conditions.

Unless we are already in a higher dimensional space, and don't yet know it.

I think that's what String Theory says, but I don't know a lot about it (except that for now, they have no idea of any experimental test to verify the theory :x)
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2015
Messages
47
Location
France
I think the biggest strength of humans are that they are able to create models and systems for very complex things and make it possible to work with them.

That things like the golden ratio exist in nature is perhaps perceived as something magical by some people, but evolution is really good at finding optimal shapes and forms. I don't know what the science is called in English, but it is being talked a lot about lately, and that is using the natures evolution to find optimal shapes and formulas. For example spider silk, and some very complicated crystals living on the deep sea-bottom, which has such a perfected shape, that if we were to build a construction with their complex shape it could be 10 times stronger than today's traditional structures using a lot less material.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Our perception of perfection could very well be anything but in objective reality, assuming there is such a thing.
 
Same goes for math, by the way. Math could very well be our desperate attempt to cope with a reality way beyond our understanding.

Just because something fits within our own construction and within our capacity to perceive and understand, does not mean it's objective truth in any way, shape or form.

That's not to say it couldn't be - we just have no way of knowing that I'm aware of.
 
Unless we are already in a higher dimensional space, and don't yet know it.

I was talking to students of mine about higher dimsensional space and our inability to really understand what it means.

Then a male student said, ah so girls exist in higher dimensional space, because I never understand them :)
 
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
267
Location
Beneath the sea
@JDR

You could just PM me about it if you were genuinely curious, instead of bogging the thread down with it.

Anyway, the reason is this:

When people write something - and I read what they write - I very often neglect to "check back" to see if they just might have added something to the original post.

As such, if people had read my original post - they'd have no reason to "go back" and check for any additional points.

Since I find the potential debate quite interesting, I felt it important to add a new post - to make sure people understood my point by reading it all.
 
Now he made a double post again… just to prove his point… he's just BEYOND hopeless!
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
You saying something about not bogging down a thread is somewhat ironic. ;)

Thanks for the explanation, although I still don't see the necessity. You could simply write "*Edit*" if you're worried about people not noticing an additional sentence.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,417
Location
Florida, US
pibbur who may regret posting this and therefore delete it, hopefully without a trace.
 
You saying something about not bogging down a thread is somewhat ironic. ;)

Thanks for the explanation, although I still don't see the necessity. You could simply write "*Edit*" if you're worried about people not noticing an additional sentence.

Since I often don't go back to check for an "edit" once I've already read a post - I assume it's possible that other people might miss an edit, too.
 

I had an embarassing thought a few days ago :

Everybody knows - street lamps.

Why not simply harvesting that light energy emitted from street lamps again by outfitting nearby things with photovoltaic cells ? Or even the things where the street lamps are mounted on themselves ?

I mean, right now that's simply … light energy gone into the drain. We could re-harvest a bit of it, and put it back into the energy cycle (current energy, in this case).

It would be a lot more efficient, imho, and would not be that much … inefficient exploiting of harvested sources of current energy (like coal, for example).
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,964
Location
Old Europe
I had an embarassing thought a few days ago :

Everybody knows - street lamps.

Why not simply harvesting that light energy emitted from street lamps again by outfitting nearby things with photovoltaic cells ? Or even the things where the street lamps are mounted on themselves ?

I mean, right now that's simply … light energy gone into the drain. We could re-harvest a bit of it, and put it back into the energy cycle (current energy, in this case).

It would be a lot more efficient, imho, and would not be that much … inefficient exploiting of harvested sources of current energy (like coal, for example).

Well, the new LED lights are very low emitting so it'd not help much.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
6,292
Back
Top Bottom