The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: caution about primitive axiom terms borrowed from math #1198 New
Physics #1318 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 1   Last Post: Feb 4, 2013 1:20 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 838
From: nyc
Registered: 6/6/10
Posted: Feb 4, 2013 1:20 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

> I need to spend some time on

Learning first-grade Mathematics. But not knowing something has never stopped you from talking about it. In fact, the less you know, the more you blabber.

primitive axiom terms.
> In mathematics these are terms that we agree upon to
> use, but which
> have no further explanation, such as a point is
> without length width
> or depth. Or a line has length only. Equality and
> equivalence are also
> primitive terms.
> In physics, when we have the Maxwell Equations with
> the facts of
> Chemistry as the axioms, there are primitive axiom
> terms involved,
> such as duality, rest-mass, electricity, magnetism,
> energy, time,
> space, momentum, charge, spin.
> I need to spend a little bit of time

Getting yourself to know what you're talking about.

discussing the
> primitive term
> equality and equivalence of mathematics and its
> misuse and
> understanding in mathematics and then its horrible
> flagrant misuse in
> physics.
> In mathematics, equality is sameness. So to say that
> 2 = 2 means one
> is the same as the other. But what about 2 = 1 + 1?
> Well, in
> mathematics, since math is abstraction and not
> physical objects, that
> 2 = 1 + 1, is just as acceptable as 2 = 2. So what
> about equivalence?
> In math, equivalence is something like 1/2 equivalent
> to 3/6. Now in
> physics, if we have a pie cut in 2 parts and a pie
> cut in 6 parts,
> that 1 part of the one pie is the 3 parts of the
> other pie. Which is
> not exactly sameness of math but similarity of math,
> but for physics,
> equality and equivalence are used when there is no
> equality nor
> equivalence.
> Now I am not here to straighten out math and physics
> as concerns
> equality and equivalence. I am here to draw attention
> to this thorny
> troubling problem that is in both mathematics and
> physics. There is no
> clear way of dismissing as to what is equal and what
> is equivalent,
> because 1/2 = 3/6 and
> 1/2 equivalent to 3/6.
> But major problems do occur in physics when we think
> that equality is
> everywhere in physics. The equality or equivalence in
> E = mc^2. It is
> not really equality at all, nor is it equivalence.
> In physics, often the concept of "proportional" is
> used. Now let us
> try that on mathematics. Is it better to say 1/2 is
> proportional to
> 3/6, rather than say it is equal or equivalent. It is
> safe to say that
> 2 = 2, because equality is identity. But in physics
> is it safe to say
> the Coulomb force is a equality? Or is there equality
> in the Maxwell
> Equations?
> When physicists use "proportional" they still have
> some linear factor
> to include before they can put in a equal sign. So
> that in Faraday law
> emf is proportional to -dB/dt. Once we include the N
> windings do we
> have equality, emf = -N dB/dt.
> But do we really have equality in physics as in
> mathematics? I would
> say no, because mathematics is not physical objects
> and physical
> structure but rather abstraction divorced of physical
> objects and
> structure, whereas physics is all about objects and
> structure. An
> electron at point A in space is different from
> electron at point B in
> space, simply because they are at different
> locations. The share the
> same charge of -1 and other attributes but they are
> not the same and
> identical.
> So that in physics we just borrow the concept of
> equality from
> mathematics to allow us to make deductions.
> So I guess I can help a little bit, by saying there
> are terms better
> suited than equality or equivalence for physics.
> Terms such as
> "transforms" or "proportional" or "becomes" or
> "changes" or "dual".
> So that in the formula E = mc^2 we can say energy
> changes to mc^2 or
> the neutron in this formula:
> Neutron = proton + electron + neutrino
> we can say Neutron tranforms into proton + electron +
> neutrino
> In the formula E = mc^2, perhaps the best term for
> that is that Energy
> is the dual of mc^2. So if we symbolize duality with
> a O symbol and a
> arrow in that O such as the arrow in -->, that the
> equation looks like
> this E Q mc^2, (sorry the keyboard cannot do the
> symbol, but the
> letter Q imagine that slash bar as a arrow in the
> circle), meaning
> that energy is the dual of mass * c^2.
> And so the four Maxwell Equations have no equal sign
> but a sign of
> duality.
> I do not want to spend much time on this because
> someone can devote
> their entire life on just this topic with no
> guarantee of success or
> improvement.
> I do want to point out the gray and prickly area of
> logic of
> "primitive axiom terms".
> And it should be obvious to all who master physics
> that although we
> should not use equality symbol in physics, we do so
> anyway, since it
> is the most practical means of going forward. So as
> long as we keep it
> back in our minds that equality is a symbol for
> mathematics, but not
> really for physics.
> --
> Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from
> search-engine-
> bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a
> excellent, simple and
> fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as
> seen here:
> Archimedes Plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2017. All Rights Reserved.