| Author |
Message
|
| theQuestIsNotOver |
 Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 4:14 am Post subject: the psychology of physics |
 |
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 136
Location: grail search
|
One clear feature I have noticed about physics is that it requires great mental effort to study the latest theories.
Now, I know not many people understand my posts, but in saying "One clear feature I have noticed about physics is that it requires great mental effort to study the latest theories" don't look into that statement for anything more than what it is. It is a statement about the probability that the more "involved" physics becomes, the "more" we have to use our mind to grasp how "involved" physics becomes, and thus the more involved our perception and our ability to reason with our perception must become.
I guess we take that for granted, namely the work we put our mind through to understand physics.
I am now going to propose something: if we exert more mental effort in trying to understand space-time, is there any merit in understanding how we think, how our mind optimally works, before we try our minds at understanding space-time? I know when I was at school I bought a book, and this is years ago, about "how to study", a book about tips on optimal study techniques, and my grades imrpoved out of sight. I also know that learning scales for the Piano helped my playing ability. But, with physics, is there any merit studying human psychology to better get one's mind around all the top ideas of today? Are there any books around about psychology that physicists can claim helps their reasoning/theorising of space-time?
(apologies if any of that sounded too confusing). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:21 am Post subject: Re: the psychology of physics |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 352
|
| theQuestIsNotOver wrote: |
One clear feature I have noticed about physics is that it requires great mental effort to study the latest theories.
Now, I know not many people understand my posts, but in saying "One clear feature I have noticed about physics is that it requires great mental effort to study the latest theories" don't look into that statement for anything more than what it is. It is a statement about the probability that the more "involved" physics becomes, the "more" we have to use our mind to grasp how "involved" physics becomes, and thus the more involved our perception and our ability to reason with our perception must become.
I guess we take that for granted, namely the work we put our mind through to understand physics.
I am now going to propose something: if we exert more mental effort in trying to understand space-time, is there any merit in understanding how we think, how our mind optimally works, before we try our minds at understanding space-time? I know when I was at school I bought a book, and this is years ago, about "how to study", a book about tips on optimal study techniques, and my grades imrpoved out of sight. I also know that learning scales for the Piano helped my playing ability. But, with physics, is there any merit studying human psychology to better get one's mind around all the top ideas of today? Are there any books around about psychology that physicists can claim helps their reasoning/theorising of space-time?
(apologies if any of that sounded too confusing). |
Space is nothing - therefore time is nothing.
So spacetime is nothing.
And that is what the BBT started from!. CosmoGONY?
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 213
Location: UK
|
I think the complexity of modern physics has to do mainly with the mathematics involved. The more “involved” physics becomes, the “more” sophisticated the level mathematics is demanded to sort out the intricacies of the theory. Just understand the maths – and you’ll understand the theory.
_________________
“A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.” – Piet Hein
Why can’t a bull see red – literally can’t? Did You Know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cosmo |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 352
|
| JaneBennet wrote: |
| I think the complexity of modern physics has to do mainly with the mathematics involved. The more “involved” physics becomes, the “more” sophisticated the level mathematics is demanded to sort out the intricacies of the theory. Just understand the maths – and you’ll understand the theory. |
Math is 'sub' physics that requires some observations or experiments for its introduction.
All the great mathemitions based their math on observations (Kepler), experiments (Newton and Planck) and Bohrs 'planetary' model of the HA that the basic particles (electron and proton) had already been thoroughly explored.
What preliminary science was 'spacetime' based on?
Cosmo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Junior
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 213
Location: UK
|
| Cosmo wrote: |
Math is 'sub' physics that requires some observations or experiments for its introduction.
All the great mathemitions based their math on observations (Kepler), experiments (Newton and Planck) and Bohrs 'planetary' model of the HA that the basic particles (electron and proton) had already been thoroughly explored.
What preliminary science was 'spacetime' based on?
Cosmo |
You’re talking about applied mathematics. There is also pure mathematics, which can be developed for its own sake, without having to be “applied” anywhere (except maybe another area of maths). 
_________________
“A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.” – Piet Hein
Why can’t a bull see red – literally can’t? Did You Know? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 528
|
| The human brain is a tool evolved for hunting and gathering, which we have succeeded in applying to numerous other activities. So now we try to use it to understand 11 dimensional membranes. I doubt that understanding of physics is truly possible with the current evolved condition of our brains. Understanding the maths (which I don't) is one thing, but translating equations into an ontology of space time is quite another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| theQuestIsNotOver |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 136
Location: grail search
|
When one says that all they need to do is to understand the maths, well, you are suggesting that mathematics is a type of self-directed scheme of thought devoid of any creative input. I don't see any evidence that physics is built on mathematics, else pure mathematics would have derived a G.U.T or similar (whatever the term is). If we could though find a mathematics that is consistent and holistic in its description of space-time using axes that describes what we perceive of space-time, sure, but I see no evidence of that (officially). What I am then asking is what part of our brain, our cerebral membrane, what layers, do we use to make the necessary unseen steps ahead, and can psychology make predicting/anticipating/finding those steps of theory ahead any easier.
I also think that the whole hunting and gathering thing of our survival, in time, has been a result of our being able to read the signs of nature, on a primitive level, and more to the point today how we can read the signs of space-time "to our better survival advantage". I think any community or people will put themselves higher on the food chain in the possession of a "theory of all things" in being able to presumably then master space-time; something for the primitive man in all of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 194
Location: Canada
|
physics without mathematics is called philosophy.
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| theQuestIsNotOver |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 136
Location: grail search
|
Quite the cocksure statement, no?
I think physics without mathematics is pure hypothesis. Mathematics is how we explain the results of our experiments that are based on hypotheses. Physics without mathematics is speculation, hypothetical speculation. Philosophy is really poetry that is certain of itself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| BumFluff |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 06 Mar 2008
Posts: 194
Location: Canada
|
| theQuestIsNotOver wrote: |
Quite the cocksure statement, no?
I think physics without mathematics is pure hypothesis. Mathematics is how we explain the results of our experiments that are based on hypotheses. Physics without mathematics is speculation, hypothetical speculation. Philosophy is really poetry that is certain of itself. |
I view philosophy as ideas without proof. I'm not desecrating it, I mean we would be nowehere near where we are today without philosophers. What exactly do you mean by 'certain of itself'? Philosphy is just a way of thinking. Sure, often times we can view it as an artistic one and a philospher needs much more creativity than a physicist does but it is still merely a way of thinking of new things or arguing about different situations. (Such as: Is the glass half empty or half full?)
_________________
"The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| theQuestIsNotOver |
| Posted: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 136
Location: grail search
|
Philosophy is a verbal form of art, a window of a time, a certain look at the behavior of a people of a certain time.......certain of itself in that time frame.
Some philosophies move on, evolve, develop. Others don't owing to their speculative and suspicious relation of that people.
Hypothesis takes a look at space-time in a direct and non-personal manner. We form a hypothesis, then we experiment with it, and then we try to come up with the mathematics. Can we "hypothesise" in a fashion as true as possible to the "logical" part of our brain? Is there a purely logical part of our brain? Is there a fundamental logic of thought that represents "pure hypothesis"? I'm just asking questions. Is there an algorithm, a code, of our thinking that allows us to better understand space-time? Can we use this in partnership with being hypothetical to then develop the mathematics? Can we employ a distinct scientific-based psychology for us to better arrive at "quality" hypothetical constructions, starting points for research, of space-time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Bunbury |
| Posted: Mon Apr 14, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 528
|
| Quote: |
| When one says that all they need to do is to understand the maths, well, you are suggesting that mathematics is a type of self-directed scheme of thought devoid of any creative input. |
I’m not saying that at all. I’m suggesting a mathematician can get wrapped up in the beauty of a theory that may be mathematically consistent, but beauty doesn’t always mean correctness, and so we should beware.
| Quote: |
| But, with physics, is there any merit studying human psychology to better get one's mind around all the top ideas of today? |
I don’t see how psychology would help. That would be like asking your car mechanic to make your car fly to the Moon. It’s not built for that, and the brain isn’t built for understanding 11 dimensions. There might be 11 dimensions, and M-theory might be correct, but even its authors won’t claim to really have their minds around the universe it describes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| theQuestIsNotOver |
| Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 25 Aug 2007
Posts: 136
Location: grail search
|
So, why don;t we use what we have, the levels of mental ability, and back our soul with it, like we know we won't lose it while playing this big game of monopoly?
I have realised why I have been such a bastard. I have sought a theory of all "things", and not a thoery of all that can be perceived......as a communication process.
A "theory of all "things""......well, people are not "things".........we are Gods, are we not, we are accountable for what we do to this planet, right? People judge our failures, that's why we have historians............everything is like Jesus (you just let it run until the party is over).
I want to apologise to everyone: "I apologise".
I apologise for thinking that we are "things". We are not "things". We are independently perceiving beings. I should be looking for the "theory of all perceiving beings"......like, "what do of not should we all logically see without killing one another".........like, if "perception" was an ingredient to a science, a sucessful one, should we trust it, you know, as a code opf our survival, like its not some ingredient we are going to throw away? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
