Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, buses arrive regularly every ten minutes, and you arrive at the bus station with between 0 and 10 minutes to wait (average 5 minutes). If you don't care which bus you get, then running won't improve anything, as your waiting is indeed still 5 minutes (you may catch the next bus, but you may overshoot and have to wait longer at the station than if you had walked).The bus I need to catch arrives at the stop every 10 minutes. I am walking there through some side streets, not from a regular time each day but as random time in relation to the regular arival of the bus. I guess that when I arrive my average waiting time will be 5 minutes. But what if I run through the side streets to the bus stop? Will my average waiting time go down, or will it (as I believe) remain at 5 minutes? Anyway, whats the math to this assuming I have it ALL wrong...
Arguably, it's already been done. Everything in physics, including the 'end-user' equations like E = mc[sup]2[/sup], is derived from other, more basic stuff. The mathematics is all built upon the logic of numbers, and so all the physics that is derived from mathematics already has a solid basis in axiomatic logic. However, physics makes fundamental assumptions and then uses mathematics to derive necessary conclusions. For example, Relativity is a necesssary by-product of the assumption that the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames. That assumption can't be derived from logic, it is an observation of reality.Thanks for that!
Ok IIRC Bertran Russel tried to derive math (arithmetic) from logic. This view is called logicism, and I think also that Godel said that it was not possible to derive all of it in such a way. Anyway is there any possibility that physics (e.g. e=mc^2) could be derived from logic or maths? I mean not in theory logically possible, like a turquoise flying pig is merely because it doen not entail a contradiction in terms, but in any way achieveable knowing what we do about maths, physics and logic? Could physics be a branch of maths, and could it (if it is) be derived from basic axioms? If so, are there any theoreticians working on this?
Pretty much. As far as we can tell, the speed of light doesn't have to be constant in all inertial frames - it just so happens that it is. But, perhaps, pure logic can indeed be used to derive physical constants and suchlike, and we just don't know it yet!Abouth the assupmptions (e.g. speed of light being constant). Are they necessary in order to have a working physics? I mean, there might be infinite models with different a priori assumptions about the speed of light, and although we might need data to determine which model is correct in this universe, there must at least be an assumption or two to get the whole thing off the ground and working. So any physical model is not pure math and logic, but needs certain physical principles to be assumed in order for it to be a theoretical physical model in the first place? I mean, there might be a model with different constants etc to the ones in our working model, but all models must have certain non-derivable constants.
So are there any domain specific assumptions needed for physics which distinguish it from maths, or is that a posteriori matter such that our physics is just an arbitrary type of maths, a subset of an infinite potential variety, except it has certain arbitrary constants based on observation and thats what makes it "physical"?
My suspicion is that if we knew more, we would discover that there are many potential ways to build a consistent universe, but only some of those ways would correspond to the universe we observe.Abouth the assupmptions (e.g. speed of light being constant). Are they necessary in order to have a working physics? I mean, there might be infinite models with different a priori assumptions about the speed of light, and although we might need data to determine which model is correct in this universe, there must at least be an assumption or two to get the whole thing off the ground and working. So any physical model is not pure math and logic, but needs certain physical principles to be assumed in order for it to be a theoretical physical model in the first place? I mean, there might be a model with different constants etc to the ones in our working model, but all models must have certain non-derivable constants. ETA Then again I suppose that the same could be argued about math and logic, you need axioms and definitions of operators, geometries etc in order to float the boat. So are there any domain specific assumptions needed for physics which distinguish it from maths, or is that a posteriori matter such that our physics is just an arbitrary type of maths, a subset of an infinite potential variety, except it has certain arbitrary constants based on observation and thats what makes it "physical"?
Logically speaking; if the universe had a single point of beginning then suffice it to say that the universe will be consistent. The constants must apply to the whole else a paradox is created where differing constants cannot occupy the same spacetime. That is why C is constant in any part of the universe!My suspicion is that if we knew more, we would discover that there are many potential ways to build a consistent universe, but only some of those ways would correspond to the universe we observe.
I'm a bit partial to Tegmark's idea here:
The Universes of Max Tegmark
The basic idea, at its core, is that as long as we believe our universe is consistent (which seem to me an obvious assumption), then there exists some mathematical structure which describes our universe. That means that there is a mathematical structure that has real existence. If one kind of mathematical structure exists, why not all of them?
You don't even need to assume that that much. All that consistency demands is that the answer to any sufficiently-specific question about the universe be definitively either true or false.Logically speaking; if the universe had a single point of beginning then suffice it to say that the universe will be consistent.
It is conceivable that the parameters we believe to be constant could potentially vary. But since no deviation from these constants has yet been found, if they vary, they vary very slowly.The constants must apply to the whole else a paradox is created where differing constants cannot occupy the same spacetime. That is why C is constant in any part of the universe!
Nope. It's gone. You will always be able to come back and check to see what time you dropped it in, though.Let's say that I, hypothetically, drop my watch into a black hole. Would there be any way to get it back? If not, could there ever be such a thing, and would it be likely that I could get my watch back at that time?
Assuming I'm immortal, which I like doing.
Say I invented a ghost in a lab, then threw it into a black hole. What heppens?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?