What to do...

[bascule]

So, yeah, I've come out of the woodwork just like all the "I have a theory of the universe!" people pitching my crazy ideas which are totally disconnected random thoughts of my own which really have nothing to do with reality, just the patterns I put together as I see them. Of course, this is all a house of cards built on assumptions, and in pitching them to people with experience in the field, I see they quickly fall apart.

 

And when I ask for explanations, people are reluctant to give them to me, most likely because I lack the background to understand them and therefore such explanations would fill a novel.

 

As I read these forums more it has become painfully clear to me that it's pretty much impossible for those with only a conceptual knowledge of physics to provide any useful contributions to the field, for, as I have found time and time again, what makes sense at a conceptual level thoroughly and completely breaks down when you approach it mathematically (such as my superluminal communication scheme, which I can't take credit for because it seems thousands of other yokels have had the exact same idea.

 

I think the problem is the math and overall conceptual understanding involved with understanding things like quantum field theory/quantum gravity is so damn complicated that those of us who approach physics at only a conceptual level yearn for a more simple underlying system in which the math involved is more our level.

 

I've tried to avoid what seems to be a relatively common trap of translating this frustration into a contempt for modern science (as exhibited by this guy among others), instead trying to develop my own models which do not in any way contradict modern science, but are not mathematically/reality based and thus are, well, fundamentally wrong.

 

So what should I do? Give up any hope of deeper understanding? Learn the math? I work primarily in the business of information sorting (which is why I'm so obsessed with memes, ontologies, discrete-time stochaic sorting algorithms, etc) and what I'd really like to do is find some way to solve the accessibility problem and find some way to help those like me who are working on physics at a purely conceptual level somehow provide useful contributions. But I think the majority of scientists here will feel that's fundamentally impossible...

[Royston]

I kinda have the same problem, and why I'm going to bite the bullet next year and do a diploma in general sciences, and two courses in maths, then hope to study cosmology or physics...I'm still undecided.

 

I think it is possible to have a theory explained in such a way you can layer the model to the environment around you and it starts to fit. Remember 60 or 70 years ago only a handful of people properly understood relativity, now thousands understand many if not all aspects of relativity without having any mathematics to back it up. I'm not saying you'll make a huge impact by expressing your own theories through words, (you'll always need equations to back up models) but it is possible to get that 'revelation' through logic, and then go about using maths to prove your theory.

 

It's purely how you explain your ideas and make your level of knowledge clear. My problem is that I'm constantly going back on myself and checking how factors fit with what I know and keep on coming across gaps in my understanding...so I come across as a bit of a bumbling fool, however it's easier to learn from your mistakes and those gaps will start to close. I think people have a hard time in replying to posts on 'big' subjects because they're unsure how much to cover, so it's a case of asking the right questions, and taking it step-by-step.

 

This is purely from my perspective, a lot of the questions I ask aren't generally what I believe to be true, but I need to clarify that they're not before I can move on...which is roughly 0.09 m/s

[YT2095]

just think of it as a valid question, with ongoing investigation into it.

the frustration is not having the answer when YOU want it, sorry but it could take Eons to find out or maybe Never, or perhaps within the next 30 seconds

it`s a patience game!

 

have a Cookie, by the time you`ve finished eating it, you`ll feel right as rain

[5614]

Maths is obviously a major side of physics, although I would also agree with Snail to an extent when he says, using relativity as an example, that you can understand it (to a certain level) without any mathematical knowledge.

 

As for your 'Superluminal communication through entanglement' thread, whilst mathematics breaks down your idea, so does the conceptual side of physics.

 

If you look at swansont's posts, where are there reference to the mathematics??? Sure your idea would fail if we brought mathematics into it, but it wasn't maths, it was all the idea, the theory, the concept of your idea which was wrong. If you understood the concept properly then you'd also understand why your idea is wrong, and that's an important point.

 

If you fully understood concept of entanglement & the other topics which that thread included then you could answer your question.

 

Another thing to realise is that the people who do have the mathematical skill would realise the potential of something instantaneous because it would stick out in mathematics by a mile. It would either be time=0 or infinite, and 0 or infinite would stick out in an equation.

 

To sumarise I think you can learn more without the maths. Also if you have a 'law of physics' is wrong thread, then people will tell you why, as swansont did a good job of doing in that thread... but at the end of the day saying that part of physics is wrong is a big thing, especially something like being able to go faster than light. That law of physics is entangled with a lot of physics and if it was a wrong several other facts/laws could be wrong. Saying such an important law is wrong without full conceptual and little mathematical backing up is not going to get anyone very far.

[BobbyJoeCool]

just think of it as a valid question' date=' with ongoing investigation into it.

the frustration is not having the answer when YOU want it, sorry but it could take Eons to find out or maybe Never, or perhaps within the next 30 seconds

it`s a patience game!

 

have a Cookie, by the time you`ve finished eating it, you`ll feel right as rain [/quote']

 

I love you YT... Not only are you completely and totally right, you quoted the Matrix... (I of course mean that in the friendly way...)

[YT2095]

Well you could have at least bought me Dinner and got me Drunk on 1 or 4 bottles of good Champagne before telling me!

I love you YT...

 

what kind of of SFN`er do you think I am!?

[Pangloss]

I often feel the same way as Bascule. That was an interesting post. In a sense we can only do what we can do -- no sense losing sleep over it. But it can be painful to be a "fan" of something and know that you can't contribute to it in any meaningful way, except as a "fan".

 

Can I have a cookie too, please?

[5614]

what makes sense at a conceptual level thoroughly and completely breaks down when you approach it mathematically

The true concepts in physics go hand-in-hand with the mathematics, there is no where the concept and the maths disagree, otherwise something would be wrong!

 

the problem is the math and overall conceptual understanding involved with understanding things like quantum field theory/quantum gravity is so damn complicated that those of us who approach physics at only a conceptual level yearn for a more simple underlying system in which the math involved is more our level.

Although I do agree that, when approaching physics from a conceptual side of things simpler maths would be greatly welcomed, the world cannot be simplified down.

 

For some advance things if you can't understand the proof (which is in the maths) then you must just blindly accept the concept as correct. Until you can understand the proof you can't contradict it.

 

What exactly, in one sentence, is your problem?

[Pangloss]

Actually it's not quite that bad. Even advanced scientific theories can be boiled down by skilled writers/analysts into something understandable by less knowledgable readers. You can call that "faith", and there's a certain validity to that, but accepting a scientific analysis that falls shy of mathematical proof is a long way from saying the same words every Sunday because you're afraid a lightning bolt will strike you if you don't.

 

I don't mean to turn this into a science-v-religion thread, I'm just pointing out that we can follow and support science without fully grokking its most detailed inner-workings and without resorting to religion-style faith.

[Mokele]

Perhaps "trust" would be a better word; trust that those who actually *do* understand are conveying the information correctly and as accurately as possible without getting too technical.

[Pangloss]

I like that. "Trust but verify." (hehe)

[john5746]

What exactly' date=' in one sentence, is your problem?[/quote']

 

Just speaking for me, its like watching a magician perform a trick. At first, it is amazing, then you ask how he does it. He then tells you he doesn't know how, but he can perform the trick over and over. After awhile, it gets boring and even frustrating.

 

I think we have enough math geniuses making things fit into equations. Having someone think of ideas without the baggage of math isn't such a bad thing. It might just be the out of box thinking that finally bridges the gap.

[Royston]

It might just be the out of box thinking that finally bridges the gap.

 

Now that could be encouraging. It would be pretty crazy if someone emerged from obscurity, and filled in the gaps to the unification of physics. Not sure how the society of physics would take that though.

[5614]

When QM was being first developed there were many new names that contributed to it. The "new names" came from the most the recent generation of physicists who had been brought up with QM, whereas the "old names" who were all brought up with classical physics couldn't always see things which were obvious the to the generation brought up with QM.

 

The point of saying that being that new names and people who have "emerged from obscurity" can make a difference and they (if their ideas are correct) are fully accepted.

 

At the same time, most people thinking "outside the box" now-a-days seem to be thinking about teleportation, instantenous communication, faster than light & that relativity is wrong... these kind of "outside the box" thinkers are not helping anyone tbh.

[bascule]

As for your 'Superluminal communication through entanglement' thread, whilst mathematics breaks down your idea, so does the conceptual side of physics.

 

It can; but the concepts involved are extremely complex. Several have postulated using entanglement and the wave/particle duality to attain superluminal communication (i.e. using the distinction between waves and particles to send a 1 or 0), and the devil is in the details. The explanation as to why this doesn't work which I found filled two chapeters of a book attempting to present a purely conceptual explanation regarding the inherent causality violation. It can be explained conceptually, but it's rather difficult.

 

What exactly, in one sentence, is your problem?

 

I can't help and that's a kick in the ego

[5614]

By "help" you mean invent your own theory... if you wanted to help then you could learn physics as it is taught (ie. FTL is strictly impossible) then once you knew a sufficient amount of physics you'd be able to not only help others but help yourself.

 

Several have postulated using entanglement and the wave/particle duality to attain superluminal communication (i.e. using the distinction between waves and particles to send a 1 or 0), and the devil is in the details.

The thing is that it's similar details everytime that are the "devil" and at the end of the day it means that entanglement will never lead to faster than light communications.