No Big Bang

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ned
Studies have shown that physicists are the most arrogant of all professions.

Duh.

The most baselessly arrogant, however, are philosophers

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

A perfect storm of arrogance is the inevitable melding of Physicists and Philosophers.

[KrazyHorse]

Blech. We have no need for their kind.

[MrFun]

So unless I'm mistakenend, Ogie and KH encourage ignorance among lay people in regard to physics because Ogie and KH have explained to us why lay people can never learn the basics of physics without advanced knowledge of mathematics.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MrFun
So unless I'm mistakenend, Ogie and KH encourage ignorance among lay people in regard to physics because Ogie and KH have explained to us why lay people can never learn the basics of physics without advanced knowledge of mathematics.

they say a self acknowledged ignorance is better than false assumptions of knowledge if I'm not mistaken.

With false assumptions of possession of understanding being the consequence of relying on dumbed down sources for physics knowledge.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Its not a matter of encouraging anything. Its merely a statement of how things currently are. If people want to learn about physics have at it. Be advised the learning curve is measured in terms of years though not in terms of ability to read and digest a pop sci or wiki article.

No one says that one needs to be a researcher per se but understanding the math is part and parcel of the science. Without it, it's like describing sight to a person who was born blind.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Blech. We have no need for their kind.

Physicists and their purges.

[MrFun]

Well I have always done poorly in mathematics so I guess in spite of my interest in such issues as reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics, or the uncertainty of the true dimensions and size of our universe, I must suppress my desire to learn because I am not interested in the mathematical forumalaic aspect of physics.

I guess I'm more interested in the area of physics where philosophy could potentially merge with this science -- how reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics, for example, could dramatically reshape our current understanding of our universe.

[Impaler[WrG]]

It sounds to me me that we can identify 4 levels of publications from highest to lowest with some rough gestimations on how wide of an audiance would find the material "Inteligable" aka they would be able to follow it and atleast repeat the idea beyond just quoting the text, this is different from KH's standard of drawing non-obvious conclusions which is would probably be restricted to the next level up.

Elite peer reviewed journals in narrow fields. Inteligable to <1% of population

More generalized journals like Science and Nature. Inteligable to 3% of population

Scientific American, un-reviwed articles writen by scientist for the upper crust lay readers. Inteligable to 10% of population

Purely lay publications like PopularScience writen by and for average lay persons. Inteligable to 50% of population

[KrazyHorse]

You can learn part of the basics of physics without calculus (which I would not consider "advanced" mathematics in the very least), but nothing beyond that (in other words you can learn parts of that first set of topics I listed).

But is it really surprising to you that you can't learn anything which comes after?

Why do you think physics really got started with Newton? Do you think that the development of mathematics and the development of physics were in lockstep by chance? History, for instance, is a very broad, flat subject. You pick what you want to learn and you learn everything about that area. You don't need to understand the details of Asian history in order to study the American Civil War. At most you might need some general knowledge about it. Physics is built, as I said, like a pyramid. You need virtually every piece, or else the apex will not hold. Many of those pieces are mathematical.

[KrazyHorse]

Elite peer reviewed journals in narrow fields. Inteligable to <1% of population

Make that < 0.0001 % in many cases

There are articles published every day in Physical Review that I could not understand without some months or weeks of learning, and I'm a physicist.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by MrFun
Well I have always done poorly in mathematics so I guess in spite of my interest in such issues as reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics, or the uncertainty of the true dimensions and size of our universe, I must suppress my desire to learn because I am not interested in the mathematical forumalaic aspect of physics.

I guess I'm more interested in the area of physics where philosophy could potentially merge with this science -- how reconciling relativity with quantum mechanics, for example, could dramatically reshape our current understanding of our universe.

Instead of suppressing your desire to learn why not leverage your interests in these other areas into finding a way to appreciate the mathmatical side of them?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You can learn part of the basics of physics without calculus (which I would not consider "advanced" mathematics in the very least), but nothing beyond that (in other words you can learn parts of that first set of topics I listed).

But is it really surprising to you that you can't learn anything which comes after?

Why do you think physics really got started with Newton? Do you think that the development of mathematics and the development of physics were in lockstep by chance? History, for instance, is a very broad, flat subject. You pick what you want to learn and you learn everything about that area. You don't need to understand the details of Asian history in order to study the American Civil War. At most you might need some general knowledge about it. Physics is built, as I said, like a pyramid. You need virtually every piece, or else the apex will not hold. Many of those pieces are mathematical.

I understand what you're saying about the necessity of mathematics in order to know physics inside and out. I guess this means I cannot satisfy my intellectual curiosity of the issues (relativity with quantum mechanics) because I have no proficiency in mathematics.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You can learn part of the basics of physics without calculus (which I would not consider "advanced" mathematics in the very least), but nothing beyond that (in other words you can learn parts of that first set of topics I listed).

But is it really surprising to you that you can't learn anything which comes after?

Why do you think physics really got started with Newton? Do you think that the development of mathematics and the development of physics were in lockstep by chance? History, for instance, is a very broad, flat subject. You pick what you want to learn and you learn everything about that area. You don't need to understand the details of Asian history in order to study the American Civil War. At most you might need some general knowledge about it. Physics is built, as I said, like a pyramid. You need virtually every piece, or else the apex will not hold. Many of those pieces are mathematical.

Perhaps a better analogy is a tree, come to think of it.

Everything I wrote down up to quantum field theory is part of the trunk. Current research areas are the branches. Over time, what were the branches become part of the trunk. The techniques learned in their study become fundamental techniques which other physicists apply to their own research. Physicists in the early twentieth century did not study linear algebra in any depth. Over time, however, that became an essential tool for understanding. First with quantum mechanics, and then suddenly everybody used the language of linear algebra. Now it's one of the first things taught to all physicists (and scientists in general actually).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MrFun



I understand what you're saying about the necessity of mathematics in order to know physics inside and out. I guess this means I cannot satisfy my intellectual curiosity of the issues (relativity with quantum mechanics) because I have no proficiency in mathematics.

Fundamentally, yes.