| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"M.T." |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2003 03:42:07 PM |
| Object: |
general question about rigor and physics |
is there a subfield of physics which requires more rigor than others? thanks to
anyone who considers the question.
.
|
|
| User: "Pmb" |
|
| Title: Re: general question about rigor and physics |
19 Jul 2003 04:47:51 PM |
|
|
"M.T." <whyiswhy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:531d626d.0307191242.756f00e3@posting.google.com...
is there a subfield of physics which requires more rigor than others?
thanks to
anyone who considers the question.
I'd say it'd have to be mathematical physics since one usualy means rigor in
this sense. Some of the axiomatic treatments of mechanics can be fairly
hairy!
Pmb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "M.T." |
|
| Title: Re: general question about rigor and physics |
20 Jul 2003 07:09:20 AM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bfcovj$fnl$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <531d626d.0307191242.756f00e3@posting.google.com>,
M.T. <whyiswhy@hotmail.com> wrote:
is there a subfield of physics which requires more rigor than others? thanks to
anyone who considers the question.
What do you mean by rigor? It's common in experimental physics to spend
far more time on error checking than on taking actual data.
i meant mathematical rigor.
M.T.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Jastrzebski" |
|
| Title: Re: general question about rigor and physics |
20 Jul 2003 07:27:21 AM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<bfcovj$fnl$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
is there a subfield of physics which requires more rigor than others?
There is no such thing as "more rigor" (as one can't be
"more pregnant"). The things are either rigorous or not.
Physics without rigor is called "science fiction".
E.g. "big bang" "theory". A very nice piece of human
activity but since it lacks rigor (e.g. conservation of
energy) it is not physics, and editors of scientific
journals dedicated to physics (e.g. Physics Review
Letters) don't even want to read any papers about it.
They return them with a note that the _subject_ is
not proper for their journals (is it good enough a
proof? :-).
-- Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry Conover" |
|
| Title: Re: general question about rigor and physics |
20 Jul 2003 12:46:03 PM |
|
|
(Jim Jastrzebski) wrote in message news:<20030720082721.14658.00000380@mb-m04.aol.com>...
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<bfcovj$fnl$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
is there a subfield of physics which requires more rigor than others?
There is no such thing as "more rigor" (as one can't be
"more pregnant"). The things are either rigorous or not.
Physics without rigor is called "science fiction".
E.g. "big bang" "theory". A very nice piece of human
activity but since it lacks rigor (e.g. conservation of
energy) it is not physics, and editors of scientific
journals dedicated to physics (e.g. Physics Review
Letters) don't even want to read any papers about it.
They return them with a note that the _subject_ is
not proper for their journals (is it good enough a
proof? :-).
-- Jim
The "Big Bang", like "Black Holes" are not experimentally verifiable,
hence merely speculative theory rather than established physics. They
may be real, but maybe not.
This is not to say that they are scientifically unimportant. For
example, both nuclear transmutation and fission were both speculative
theories UNTIL they were both experimentally shown to exist nearly
exactly as predicted by theoretical speculartion.
Harry C.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: general question about rigor and physics |
20 Jul 2003 01:06:31 PM |
|
|
In article <531d626d.0307200956.7cd25e0a@posting.google.com>,
M.T. <whyiswhy@hotmail.com> wrote:
jimjast@aol.com (Jim Jastrzebski) wrote in message
news:<20030720082721.14658.00000380@mb-m04.aol.com>...
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<bfcovj$fnl$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
is there a subfield of physics which requires more rigor than others?
There is no such thing as "more rigor" (as one can't be
"more pregnant"). The things are either rigorous or not.
Physics without rigor is called "science fiction".
E.g. "big bang" "theory". A very nice piece of human
activity but since it lacks rigor (e.g. conservation of
energy) it is not physics, and editors of scientific
journals dedicated to physics (e.g. Physics Review
Letters) don't even want to read any papers about it.
They return them with a note that the _subject_ is
not proper for their journals (is it good enough a
proof? :-).
-- Jim
thanks for all the replies, folks. i have background in mathematics
and am considering pursuing physics, so by rigor i meant mathematical
rigor. i don't know much about physcis except elementary mechanics and
electromagnetism. however, in a few books in mathematical physics i've
browsed through, it seems to me that a lot of the symbolic
manipulation is done without rigorous justification (e.g. existence,
convergence, etc). as i am quite interested in rigor, i thought i
would ask folks well versed in physics whether this impression is
wrong in general.
You're not the first to have noticed that. Most of the math that
physicist do is actually rigorously justifiable, even if it's presented in
a pretty sloppy way. But that's a good thing for people like me that have
such a hard time reading mathematics written by mathematicians for
mathematicians. If it seems plausible to me and I get the right answers,
I'm not particularly interested in all of the rigor. But then I've never
had the mind for theory, I spin wrenches and turn valves.
And then there's things like path integrals and Dirac delta functions that
were eventually given a rigorous foundation, but were put to a lot of good
use before that happened. Sometimes progress comes faster when you boldly
charge ahead and hope it comes out all right.
--
"When fighting with sharpened Bronze, or harder Metals from the Heavens,
it is Wise to kick thy Opponent, be he a Chaldean or a man of Uruk, in his
Man Sack, that thou mayst defeat him more handily than by Arms. So sayeth
INNAMURUTUSHIMMILODEK, who hath slain threescore Ammelekites."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: general question about rigor and physics |
21 Jul 2003 01:16:25 AM |
|
|
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bfeln7$5r4$2@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <531d626d.0307200956.7cd25e0a@posting.google.com>,
M.T. <whyiswhy@hotmail.com> wrote:
jimjast@aol.com (Jim Jastrzebski) wrote in message
news:<20030720082721.14658.00000380@mb-m04.aol.com>...
(Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<bfcovj$fnl$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
is there a subfield of physics which requires more rigor than others?
There is no such thing as "more rigor" (as one can't be
"more pregnant"). The things are either rigorous or not.
Physics without rigor is called "science fiction".
E.g. "big bang" "theory". A very nice piece of human
activity but since it lacks rigor (e.g. conservation of
energy) it is not physics, and editors of scientific
journals dedicated to physics (e.g. Physics Review
Letters) don't even want to read any papers about it.
They return them with a note that the _subject_ is
not proper for their journals (is it good enough a
proof? :-).
-- Jim
thanks for all the replies, folks. i have background in mathematics
and am considering pursuing physics, so by rigor i meant mathematical
rigor. i don't know much about physcis except elementary mechanics and
electromagnetism. however, in a few books in mathematical physics i've
browsed through, it seems to me that a lot of the symbolic
manipulation is done without rigorous justification (e.g. existence,
convergence, etc). as i am quite interested in rigor, i thought i
would ask folks well versed in physics whether this impression is
wrong in general.
You're not the first to have noticed that. Most of the math that
physicist do is actually rigorously justifiable, even if it's presented in
a pretty sloppy way. But that's a good thing for people like me that have
such a hard time reading mathematics written by mathematicians for
mathematicians. If it seems plausible to me and I get the right answers,
I'm not particularly interested in all of the rigor. But then I've never
had the mind for theory, I spin wrenches and turn valves.
And then there's things like path integrals and Dirac delta functions that
were eventually given a rigorous foundation, but were put to a lot of good
use before that happened. Sometimes progress comes faster when you boldly
charge ahead and hope it comes out all right.
Also, there may be a kind of intuitive maximization of effective
effort involved: physics is anyway built upon supposition and
conjecture and the weight of the available evidence -- in a good sense
-- so why waste effort trying to put the mathematics on a better
footing than the physics?
How shall one say this -- it might be like passing the blueprints of a
house through ten reviews, when you are not even certain yet if you
may have to relocate the dining room.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: general question about rigor and physics |
20 Jul 2003 12:57:19 PM |
|
|
In article <531d626d.0307200409.4029f706@posting.google.com>,
M.T. <whyiswhy@hotmail.com> wrote:
glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
news:<bfcovj$fnl$3@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
In article <531d626d.0307191242.756f00e3@posting.google.com>,
M.T. <whyiswhy@hotmail.com> wrote:
is there a subfield of physics which requires more rigor than others?
thanks to
anyone who considers the question.
What do you mean by rigor? It's common in experimental physics to spend
far more time on error checking than on taking actual data.
i meant mathematical rigor.
M.T.
Well, physicists sometimes play loose with the math because they can get
away with it for most of what they do, like infinite-dimensional Hilbert
spaces. At some point, someone really does need to rigorously show that
the problem-solving methods used actually work. I'd imagine rigor is most
important on the frontiers of field theories.
--
"When fighting with sharpened Bronze, or harder Metals from the Heavens,
it is Wise to kick thy Opponent, be he a Chaldean or a man of Uruk, in his
Man Sack, that thou mayst defeat him more handily than by Arms. So sayeth
INNAMURUTUSHIMMILODEK, who hath slain threescore Ammelekites."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
