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
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
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



bacle
Posts:
838
From:
nyc
Registered:
6/6/10


Re: LOSER!
Posted:
Feb 4, 2013 1:20 AM


> I need to spend some time on
Learning firstgrade 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, restmass, 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 topheavy in hatespew from > searchengine > 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: > > http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986 > > Archimedes Plutonium > http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electrondotcloud are galaxies



