D&D 5E Scientist background

[mamba]

How did he show there was no limit? Answer: he made measurements involving temperature and time. Which are measured with numbers, which make it maths.

measuring time and temperature involves no math to speak of.

At that point you can just say they are all linguists because they write down words

 

[mamba]

Physics is the only true science, everything else is just stamp collecting

Math is the only true science, Physics is just tinkering around.

My brother switched from Physics to Math because Physics was way too imprecise and could not explain how they ‘got there’ / that the formula worked apart from verifying it with measurements rather than being able to prove it

 

[Garthanos]

Math is in a sense a primary language of other sciences... its the foundation of statistics used in every branch of science. Math in and of itself does very little until brought into a particular context. (but it was developed because of the context too as a description of something in the world and like other sciences it has enabled predictions that go beyond what was directly measured .... see the origin of irrational numbers its crazy cool. )

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Math is the only true science, Physics is just tinkering around.

My brother switched from Physics to Math because Physics was way too imprecise and could not explain how they ‘got there’ / that the formula worked apart from verifying it with measurements rather than being able to prove it

That's the nature of reality - it's messy.

But maths is a tool. On it's own it can't tell us anything about reality, only about more maths.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

measuring time and temperature involves no math to speak of.

At that point you can just say they are all linguists because they write down words

At the start of the experiment the temperature of the fluid is 21 degrees*. At the end it is 39 degrees. What is the change in temperature? What did you use to work it out?

But language is also an essential tool for science. Without it you can't explain what the maths tells us about the universe.



*Why do we say "degrees" anyway? What does that mean? Could it be something to do with maths?

 

[mamba]

That's the nature of reality - it's messy.

But maths is a tool. On it's own it can't tell us anything about reality, only about more maths.

I don’t remember the exact example, but it went along the lines of ‘if you want to calculate X, you use the third iteration of this series, not the 2nd or 4th, as that gets less accurate to the measurement again. Even though math tells you that each iteration gets closer to the actual number / limit of the series. And no one can explain why you have to take the 3rd, except that it matches the measured results’

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I don’t remember the exact example, but it went along the lines of ‘if you want to calculate X, you use the third iteration of this series, not the 2nd or 4th, as that gets less accurate to the measurement again. Even though math tells you that each iteration gets closer to the actual number / limit of the series. And no one can explain why you have to take the 3rd, except that it matches the measured results’

That's kind of irrelevant, like explaining how a hydrospanner works. The mathematicians make the tools and give them to the scientists, who don't have to worry about how the tools work - that's what mathematicians are for.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I you want to know the difference between physics and maths look the rise and fall of string theory.

 

[mamba]

That's kind of irrelevant, like explaining how a hydrospanner works. The mathematicians make the tools and give them to the scientists, who don't have to worry about how the tools work - that's what mathematicians are for.

except that it is the opposite here, because the math tells you that you are building it wrong intentionally (by not following what math is telling you), the tests tell you that it works however

 

[Paul Farquhar]

except that it is the opposite here, because the math tells you that you are building it wrong intentionally (by not following what math is telling you), the tests tell you that it works however

As It happens, I believe I do know what is going on here. As you should know by now the universe is messy, which means that there is no such thing as an "exact" measurement. There are always some variables that are impossible to control. As a consequence, when you plot a graph, the points are scattered randomly about some "true" curve. At the level I teach, I instruct students to draw a "smooth, free hand curve that passes close to the points, but don't force it to pass through the points". The polynomial expansion that I think you are talking about is a mathematical tool for drawing the curve computationally, rather than free hand. If you use the first three terms it generates a smooth curve, which hopefully tells you about the underlying science. Adding additional terms makes the curve "wriggle" so that it passes exactly through the data points. Which is wrong because those data points are wrong, they include experimental error. This particular mathematical tool does not understand experimental error, it lives in a mathematical universe where all values are exact, not the real messy universe. Thus, to calculate more terms when modelling the real universe is using the tool wrong. The good news is there are different mathematical tools you can use that do a better job of modelling reality. But I suspect your brother quit Physics before he learned about them.