how small is the smallest thing before it's nothing

Originally posted by sonhouse
Then we get to ask, what are the strings made of?

How long is a piece of string?

Originally posted by woodypusher
The smallest thing in the universe is the brain of a creationist

No
You put two creationists together in the same
room and their brains actually get smaller.

Originally posted by mikelom
I'm afraid you're all wrong, and quarks (proven in 1965, by no less than the likes of Murray Gell-Mann) have been proven to be made of super-strings, which are made of glueballs, of whom the spins are accurately measured as predicted.... The maths might be theoretical, as we don't have the current technology to measure them - but so was the maths of quarks i ...[text shortened]... r light, until we could measure them.....

http://pyweb.swan.ac.uk/~pyarmoni/GKP.pdf

-m.

Nonsense. With the exception of propositions that are immediate corollaries of established physical laws, you can't "prove" anything in physics with a purely mathematical argument. (That's a good thing for physicists, too, given their propensity to bandy about mystical "infinitesimals" on account of epsilon-delta arguments being apparently too complicated for them.) The existence of superstrings is not an inevitable consequence of any known physical law. The same goes for quarks and the Higgs boson. That's why we bother spending billions of dollars to smash particles together to observe these things.

All physics is mathematics, but not all mathematics is physics.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Nonsense. With the exception of propositions that are immediate corollaries of established physical laws, you can't "prove" anything in physics with a purely mathematical argument. (That's a good thing for physicists, too, given their propensity to bandy about mystical "infinitesimals" on account of epsilon-delta arguments being apparently too complicate bserve these things.

All physics is mathematics, but not all mathematics is physics.

You wrote, "All physics is mathematics."

I studied both Phsysics and Mathematics in college. Mathematics is used in Physics, however, all Physics is not Mathematics.

Physics is the science of the study of the physical universe by developing theories, laws, theorems and axioms that explain what things are made of and how things move and works. The physicist, in his study, must use experiments, observation, and mathematical reasoning in explaining how the physical universe works.

Mathematics is a language of numbers and symbols of logic created by man to quantify and conceptionalize our ideas of the physical universe.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You wrote, "All physics is mathematics."

I studied both Phsysics and Mathematics in college. Mathematics is used in Physics, however, all Physics is not Mathematics.

Physics is the science of the study of the physical universe by developing theories, laws, theorems and axioms that explain what things are made of and how things move and works. The phy ...[text shortened]... ls of logic created by man to quantify and conceptionalize our ideas of the physical universe.

Hmmm, I think we can see the source of your confusion now. Theorems and axioms belong to mathematics. If physics was a truly axiomatic system, something Hilbert wanted to establish, then physics would just be a branch of mathematics and you could prove things (theorems) within that system.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Then we get to ask, what are the strings made of?

I just had a look at a piece of string. It was made of thinner pieces of string woven together. And they were made of thinner pieces of string! OMG! This could go on forever until we get to an infinitesimal bit of string. No doubt some mathematician will be along in amoment to plonk down some epsilon-delta warning signs and move the eager crowds along. Nothing to see here, no mathematics being bent out of shape people.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

Originally posted by Kepler
I just had a look at a piece of string. It was made of thinner pieces of string woven together. And they were made of thinner pieces of string! OMG! This could go on forever until we get to an infinitesimal bit of string. No doubt some mathematician will be along in amoment to plonk down some epsilon-delta warning signs and move the eager crowds along. Nothin ...[text shortened]... see here, no mathematics being bent out of shape people.

Sorry, I just couldn't help myself.

I find physical models that depend on infinite regression suspect. They're little better than saying "God dunnit."

Originally posted by Soothfast
I find physical models that depend on infinite regression suspect. They're little better than saying "God dunnit."

True, but you have to admit that infinitesimals are much easier for the average physicist to understand than the epsilon-delta malarkey. Personally, I like proper mathematical analysis and can see the reasons for it. Many scientists look on mathematics as a sort of toolkit. Does the tool (calculus) work? Yes. Then why attempt to fix it wit analysis would be their reaction.

Originally posted by Kepler
True, but you have to admit that infinitesimals are much easier for the average physicist to understand than the epsilon-delta malarkey. Personally, I like proper mathematical analysis and can see the reasons for it. Many scientists look on mathematics as a sort of toolkit. Does the tool (calculus) work? Yes. Then why attempt to fix it wit analysis would be their reaction.

Once one fights through the epsilon-delta thickets there is a great reward: topology. With topology far greater things can be proven with nary an epsilon nor a delta. The intermediate and extreme value theorems of calculus, for instance, become almost trivial to prove.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Once one fights through the epsilon-delta thickets there is a great reward: topology. With topology far greater things can be proven with nary an epsilon nor a delta. The intermediate and extreme value theorems of calculus, for instance, become almost trivial to prove.

Topology is just about essential to a cosmologist. Roger Penrose likes the stuff so it must be reasonably good. And it's fun!

Originally posted by Kepler
Hmmm, I think we can see the source of your confusion now. Theorems and axioms belong to mathematics. If physics was a truly axiomatic system, something Hilbert wanted to establish, then physics would just be a branch of mathematics and you could prove things (theorems) within that system.

Why do you try to twist what I say into something else. I did not say that physics was a truly axiomatic system. I said the following:

"Physics is the science of the study of the physical universe by developing theories, laws, theorems and axioms that explain what things are made of and how things move and works."

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why do you try to twist what I say into something else. I did not say that physics was a truly axiomatic system. I said the following:

"Physics is the science of the study of the physical universe [b]by developing theories, laws, theorems and axioms that explain what things are made of and how things move and works."[/b]

Give us an "axiom of physics," then.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why do you try to twist what I say into something else. I did not say that physics was a truly axiomatic system. I said the following:

"Physics is the science of the study of the physical universe [b]by developing theories, laws, theorems and axioms that explain what things are made of and how things move and works."[/b]

I didn't twist it. You said that physics had axioms and theorems. I pointed out that you are wrong. Yet again. I suggest you get in the practice of making sure you know what you are jabbering about before opening mouth or touching keyboard.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Give us an "axiom of physics," then.

Depends what you mean by "axiom".

Without access to the Concise Hinds Dictionary you are on a hinding to nothing.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Give us an "axiom of physics," then.

How about Wightman axioms?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wightman_axioms