I agree that Math, and more specifically Mathematical Physics Equations must be coupled with real world explanations. Not only to provide evidence that the math is valid and applicable to reality, but to grasp the deeper conceptual understanding of the functions of nature, of which to build from to further theoretical methods, accuracy, and understanding.
Take for example
kinetic energy. How well do we really understand it?
A Fact to consider: You can formulate an equation that calculates Kinetic Energy, prior to having the knowledge of any other existing equation. But what would you need to understand before you were able to accomplish that?
Some time ago, I posed the question on these forums to explain in words and real world explanations why kinetic energy is expressed this way mathematically. It took nearly two pages of several members before that was accomplished. What began was 'explanations of the math' and derivations[?] of the equation to show its source. Very able people participating in that discussion were very limited in their ability to elaborate on it without math being conceived. This gives the expectation that understanding of physics even in the very basic was sliding into the mathematical only world.
During that discussion, I produced this equation to help elaborate mathematically what is happening ontologically.
This equation works to calculate the kinetic energy of a moving object. But why? What does two groups of mass have to do with ONE moving object?
So does:
and:
where
is momentum.
Essentially we can show the mathematical relationships that exist within these equations, and prove that certain methods can provide the same results. However, the language that each equation is communicating and expressing is quite different amongst each equations. So we should ask, which one should we depend on to describe ontological conceptual evidence? Not to mention in other areas of physics.
Lets take a look at this one.
In words it appears to be expressing two reference frames. For example; if we treat
m as the same value. We could say the following from this equation:
Kinetic energy is a construct that expresses the measurements found between the interaction of two frames of reference, of which contain mass. If for example, we have two objects in space, that each have the same mass, and the relative velocity between them is
v, either object can be considered the one in motion(as expressed in the equation). In their interaction and in the totality of the situation we could say that each object does work. However, one object must do positive work and one object must do negative work. That is, we must choose which one is doing positive work. The energy exists as a concept, applicable to job choice.
We must acknowledge the fact that where work exists is in the job that is expected. If we consider the deceleration of an object a process of work, then we could call that the positive work while the partner of the relationship is considered negative; while if we consider the movement or acceleration of an object work, then we could call
that positive work. A moving object has energy only if it is able to crash into another object which will infact produce the same force as the considered moving object. The totality of Energy can not be put into work unless there is a sufficient mass to allow to interact with.
Kinetic energy and energy in general can be considered as the observers focus of where (positive) work has been applied.
The conclusion we arrived to in that discussion mentioned earlier was that motion can only be non zero, and that a value exists somewhere between zero, and motion. Each step upwards from this minimum value, adds on top of the previous value, stacking the value on top of itself. Such the energy in motion can only be determined through a square of its velocity. That is, if you determine a specific speed of which to "refer" to, and you double your speed you acquire 4 times the energy, tripple your speed to acquire 9 times the energy; likewise, if you half your speed, you lose energy by a factor of 4.
If we don't have standardized units, such as; a
Meter, and a
Kilogram, then we can't produce any meaningful values. We could produce our own stanard units and provide our own meaningful results. The reason they are meaningful values is because the represent themselves. For example, when using units of meters and kilograms, and I calculate 500joules of energy in an object, that gives an impression on what it can do to a non zero kilogram object, at a non zero velocity. The idea of a standard unit is to create a non zero value, essentially, a value of 1, so that meaning can be applicable, and physics and relativity can birth forth.
Example of energy, using kilogram/meter standard units.
Mass = 10kg
Velocity = 10m/s
Quote:
|
However, one object must do positive work and one object must do negative work. That is, we must choose which one is doing positive work. The energy exists as a concept, applicable to job choice.
|
This causes me to ask a question. Should we consider negative work and/or energy real? For example: an object at rest can be considered negative energy. That is, if a moving object impacts that object at rest, the object at rest will decelerate the moving object. Essentially the relationship is such that they trade states.
If energy can be considered as the observers focus of where (
positive) work has been applied. Then, the source of where that energy came from could suggest it as being a source or state of
negative energy.
For example, if I see waves in a lake, I can consider in my relative observation that the water is a place where work has been applied. Let's say the source of that work was a large water balloon that was dropped into the lake and exploded on impact.
The water that was dropped became part of the medium, that the energy is traveling through. Such as, that, mass is and energy can be considered as sort of negative positive relationships.
What are your thoughts?
I ask this because math can't necessarily provide insight into these conceptual relationships, since math considers zeros as (nothing/infinite's, correct?).
Re: Bang/Crunch Revisited
All the better.
Re: Discussion of math’s place in physics from a thread on cyclic cosmology
