bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de
on 14 Jan 05:17
nextcollapse
You can prove a lot of things with math. Doesn’t mean they’re real.
ogmios@sh.itjust.works
on 14 Jan 05:33
nextcollapse
Very first thing my statistics professor taught us was that numbers will tell you anything you want them to, if you torture them enough.
The renowned physicist Richard Feynman is reputed to have once said that “physics is to math what sex is to masturbation”. Exactly what comparison he was making, he didn’t clarify – but if the orgasm gap is anything to go by, he presumably meant that math is often more fun, more effective, and better at getting the desired result in the face of adverse real-world conditions.
I had to tap out after one paragraph to save whatever brain cells haven’t committed suicide yet.
CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
on 14 Jan 18:17
nextcollapse
In statistics and with arbitrarily questionable assumptions that might be true, but there’s other math.
Unfortunately there are many ways one can fool oneself into believing all sorts of asinine things with numbers. That was the point of the lesson: That math is effectively meaningless without an earnest desire to arrive at the correct answer, not just an attempt to confirm what one already believes. This article is actually a great example of that, because it presumes that our mathematical models are definitely correct, which is the farthest thing from the truth. Physics is a really interesting field because it’s constantly discovering odd nuances of our world where our models don’t actually align with reality, giving us the chance to improve them.
On the contrary, fundamental physics has been completely static for half a century. That doesn’t really have much to do with your main point, though.
I mean, you’re right in statistics, and statistics comes up constantly, but there’s no way to directly prove there’s only 100 prime numbers, for example. In number theory, there’s absolute truths, and a correct proof will inevitably align with them.
When you predict a new phenomenon from a current model, either you’ve opened the door to the discovery of this new phenomenon or you’ve demonstrated a shortcoming in the model. Both are useful to science.
Well, it wasn’t my headline. Many communities don’t allow changing an article’s headline from what’s posted. So I just default to using the articles headline.
I’m unsure what you mean by this being my “only warning.”
Are you a mod or admin here and are saying that I’ve stumbled into breaking a rule, and that I have no more chances. Please clarify so I can adapt accordlingly.
threaded - newest
You can prove a lot of things with math. Doesn’t mean they’re real.
Very first thing my statistics professor taught us was that numbers will tell you anything you want them to, if you torture them enough.
I had to tap out after one paragraph to save whatever brain cells haven’t committed suicide yet.
In statistics and with arbitrarily questionable assumptions that might be true, but there’s other math.
Unfortunately there are many ways one can fool oneself into believing all sorts of asinine things with numbers. That was the point of the lesson: That math is effectively meaningless without an earnest desire to arrive at the correct answer, not just an attempt to confirm what one already believes. This article is actually a great example of that, because it presumes that our mathematical models are definitely correct, which is the farthest thing from the truth. Physics is a really interesting field because it’s constantly discovering odd nuances of our world where our models don’t actually align with reality, giving us the chance to improve them.
On the contrary, fundamental physics has been completely static for half a century. That doesn’t really have much to do with your main point, though.
I mean, you’re right in statistics, and statistics comes up constantly, but there’s no way to directly prove there’s only 100 prime numbers, for example. In number theory, there’s absolute truths, and a correct proof will inevitably align with them.
Here’s a better media coverage of the same paper www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00030-5
You rock!
Fair point. And another poster voiced his frustration with the headline. And I guess I am not smart enough to realize that this was a poor article.
I’m not being smarmy, I honestly didn’t realize it was a bad science article.
As a rule of thumb, you can usually assume anything from iflscience is trash tier.
Understood. I’ll note that moving forward. Thanks!
“And math’s just physics unconstrained by precepts of reality ”
Source: xkcd, every major’s terrible, square 2
When you predict a new phenomenon from a current model, either you’ve opened the door to the discovery of this new phenomenon or you’ve demonstrated a shortcoming in the model. Both are useful to science.
.
Well, it wasn’t my headline. Many communities don’t allow changing an article’s headline from what’s posted. So I just default to using the articles headline.
I’m unsure what you mean by this being my “only warning.”
Are you a mod or admin here and are saying that I’ve stumbled into breaking a rule, and that I have no more chances. Please clarify so I can adapt accordlingly.
Thanks!
.
Parastatistics, if you have the required background and are looking for info.
The new thing is just that the ones described are guaranteed non-equivalent to normal fermions or bosons.
Math proves magnetic monopoles can exist. But no evidence and its very possible that it does not exist physically
Oh no. We’ve used math to represent and model the things we’ve observed. Don’t go claiming you’ve observed things just because your math works.
Actually run your darn experiments