/sci/ - Science & Math

Physicists fundamentally change the way we understand the universe

>>11384713
I also think this. Most famous scientists made discoveries that had implications reaching far beyond their specific scientific field. And physics is somewhat the most fundamental science upon which everything else is based on.

>>11384729
delusional. math the foundation of all science upon which physics relies on and I would argue most physicists were mathematicians and vice versa. as for why they are well known, it is due to popsci niggers and their fascination with SciFi and star wars. has nothing to do with groundbreaking anything. sure qm and relativity were groundbreaking, but the average Joe doesn't know them for that, they simply heard e=mc^2 and something about particles "knowing when you are looking at them" (which is wrong)

>>11384701
>>11384713
>>11384729
>>11384855
they are all jews

>>11384915
>all jews
>dirac
>lorentz
>de broglie
>compton
>planck
every single one up there that is prominent is not a jew

>>11385773
also shroedinger
everyone else is either a jew or irrelevant

>>11385774
>jew
>irrelevant
pick two

>>11384855
the math that has been studied in the last century will probably never be used in physics

>>11385781
kek true, I was only repeating myself

>>11384701
They discovered and formulated stuff that gets thaugh in school with their names attached because it's fundamental to the understanding of reality, so they're popular because literally everyone heard their names at least once.

>>11384701

Darwin is above many of the physicists you mentioned in terms of famousness.

Einstein is obviously first.
Newton would likely be second.

But after that, you could make a strong argument that Darwin is in third place.

>>11386089
and? that's one example given by the OP himself. still doesn't explain the reason why only darwin is famous.

>>11384701
C'mon everyone knows Linus Pauling

>>11384701
Simply, it is good to be great.
And even if you are not famous it still feels fantastic.

t.Physicist.

>>11384701
Because it is easy to sell, especially mechanics, particle physics and astrophysics. Everybody has an intuitive idea about stars, mass and things being really small or really big. And one can have fancy, easy to visualize experiments. So you have a lot of popsci about that and popsci needs heros. It is easier to teach in school because moving things are cooler than turning a blue liquid into a brown one in chemistry.

Nobody gives a fuck about people in condensed matter physics, nobody gives a fuck about medical research or computer science research, because other fields have a higher bar to get people interested and to sell its main ideas, even in very broad terms.

>>11384701
> everybody knows of Einstein, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Newton, Bohr, Hawking, Feynman and many others

> everyone

I think you've been in a science bubble for too long...

>>11384855
>math the foundation of all science upon which physics relies on
physics doesn’t rely on math, it relies on theories and observation.
Math is “just” a powerful language for physics that makes logical deductions much more accessible.

>>11387159
Physics obviously relies on math, physicists make fundamentally mathematical assumptions in their work all the time.

>>11387150
Couldn't you say the same about biology? Surely DNA building a human is as interesting and relevant to most people as particles building the universe?

>>11387157
>Einstein
smart man
>Schrödinger
cat
>Heisenberg
uncertainly principle
>Newton
gravity apple
>Hawking
wheelchair smart man

>>11384701
For why they don't know mathematicians it's easy: how would the average Joe conceptualize, say, Grothendieck's or Hörmander's work? Physics has some "down to earth" examples it can push, while math is just too abstract for the average man to care. I've seen mathematicians trying to meme shit like coffee mug = donut, but it just sounds way too autistic, you can see this with the reception of that "turn a sphere inside out" video, the comments just ask why anyone would ever think about such a question in the first place, it's actually quite embarassing. No one will ever care about pseudo differential operators or Banach manifolds with a Finsler structure unless there is a direct application of these things, but then it will be associated with physics, not mathematics.

>>11387209
True, but I'm more talking about natural sciences though. Like biology, which is even less abstract than physics, yet the average Joe is completely clueless on major discoveries.

With regards to your comment on conceptualising difficult mathematics, I think some people have successfully done this. Example here, which isn't like the sphere one at all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sD0NjbwqlYw

>>11387258
I think biology is simply not associated with intellectual exercise like physics is. When people think about biology, they think about cute animals and nature documentaries where the animal, not some academic, is at the center of the action. I think it's actually better that way. With regards to that video, yes, it's a step in the right direction. Number theory is sort of the exception to what I was talking about, people can understand some research level questions quite easily, but then it becomes quite autistic in another direction: "You're telling me this guy spent 8 years of his life to show that this random equation has no positive integer solutions?" And then the math evangelist talks about how it's actually got a bunch of potential (this word is here to save face) applications in cryptography or some shit.

>>11385787
Excluding the PL-related material.

>>11387321
Incredibly based post.
> And then the math evangelist talks about how it's actually got a bunch of potential (this word is here to save face) applications in cryptography or some shit.
Some pure mathematicians seem to live with cognitive dissonance, and invest a lot of time reassuring themselves that their work has some utility. The others that need coping do it by making "purity" a desirable characteristic. Pic related.

Your argument is flawed outside einstein newron and hawking. Those three mostly because their names are synonymous with genius.

Darwin is in that tier. Your second tier scientists includes pasteur, watson crick, pauling, dawkins.

>>11384701
physics had the greatest impact on humanity in the 20th century, that's why.
however, they'll soon be replaced by people in CS.

>>11387175
Honestly, both Schrodinger and Heisenberg are already to much.

Only Einstein, Newton and Hawkings would be known by atleast the majority of people.

>>11384701
>Einstein, Newton
because they revolutionized our understanding of the world
>Heisenberg, Bohr, Feynman
no one knows them
>Schrödinger, Hawking
memes

>>11387664
>Honestly, both Schrodinger and Heisenberg are already to much

Nigga everybody knows those two, even Americans.

>>11387163
>physicists make fundamentally mathematical assumptions in their work all the time.
give me one example
every physical law can be stated with words alone.

>>11387672
Bohr atomic model is standard curriculum in every school where I live

>>11387876
Just open up arxiv and select a physics article randomly, it's very likely going to rely on heavy math at some point. I'm not sure what words have to do with it, describing Schröndinger's equation with words alone wouldn't make it any less mathematical.

>>11387915
using something /= relying on it
the standard model doesn’t even have a well defined mathematical foundation.

By writing down the equations describing quantum mechanics, two whole cities were in extent annihilated. These physicists are not men, they are gods

>>11387881
In how many schools do you live?

>>11389294
lmao this fucking guy

because their w ork's not rationa l, but it gets results
i dig the einstein michele besso friendship

because there is a little bit of reddit in every human
we have this need as a species to gobble up the imaginary cock of literally whos we deem "heroic"
this is why you get sport stars, movie celebrities
the proles WANT to worship people they admire to make up for their lack of will to do something significant to themselves

>>11389790
i dont even need to be the einstein-i need the einstein in order to be the einstein

>>11389804
this makes no sense in relation to the question

>>11389818
yes it does, people worship einstein or newton or whatever because it's hip to do so, even if they can't understand one thing from their writings
basically the media told them that these guys are smart as fuck so it's cool and safe to say you love einstein or you fucking love science, or to put some cheesy quote from them in your PPT presentation

OP was asking why are normies worshipping some names in physics. It's because of the same old tired documentaries on tv that really did a number on the minds of normie cattles

>>11384701
Because "the mysteries of the universe" sounds cool to the popsci normies who follow Neil DeGrasse Tyson and post on science reddits. Biology or chemistry doesn't have the same effect.

>>11387159
>physics doesn’t rely on math, it relies on theories and

Those theories rely on math and are also metaphysically influenced.

>Math is “just” a powerful language for physics that makes logical deductions

You're confusing mathematics with mathematical models. There is only one mathematics, there are multiple mathematical models that can operate with different axioms. The mathematical models are the tools that give the logical deductions. Mathematics is the only way to get the logical deductions. Theoretical physics can be identified with those logical deductions starting from physical axioms. The reliance is critical because there is no other way.

There is a trend in reconceptualizing physics into something less and less concrete and physical since Aristotle: impetus -> force/acceleration/momentum -> stress energy tensor -> gauge field. Modern physics was pretty much born out of efforts in geometrizing away gravity and axiomatizing space time, axiomatizing quantum theory, and the result is traditional physical concepts such as gravity, particle, measurement, force-energy etc are pretty much identified with their mathematical abstractions: curvature, field ripple, Hermitian operator, Lagrangian/Hamiltonian. And they are not just `a representation`, they are the only accurate description (particles are ripples of field, physical states are rays in Hilbert space and observables are Hermitian linear operators). Of course many people hate this, those same people are still trying to find some classical theory behind the abstractions of quantum mechanics. However all we have seen is insisting on classical pictures will just lead to misunderstanding and confusion.

>>11387876

Here's what happens when people want to do physics without relying on math, with 'words' alone

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

From the speed-of-light-is-not-constant guy to the photon-has-mass guy to the SR = mono-capitalism guy, they all have one thing in common, the idea that physics has to be independent from mathematics

>Turning this forum into a technical/mathematical debate will divert attention from its main focus and will provide an escape valve for the apologists of the theories of relativity. ...the very reason I abandoned it and opened this new forum focused on very specific and philosophical issues. If you wish for a technical/mathematical discussion, I would request you to move this discussion on to the forum by Dr. Engelhardt. Thanks

There's also a guy who is convinced Special Relativity is not the limit of general relativity because he doesn't understand geometry.

They are all very well versed in 18th century physics btw.

>>11387321
>>11387333
lol people who talk shit about other fields all have some sort of inferiority complex. Number Theory is no more autistic than String theory, at least number theory can be explained to children! the only way you guys dont see this is because you don't understand enough physics.

>you're telling me these guys spent 20 years of his life to find a geometric invariant that count the solutions to some monopole equations on compact smooth oriented 4-manifolds ???

And then we physics evangelist talk about how the mumbo jumbos are all testable in the next 500 years give or take, it's all rewarding in the end!

>>11387876
euler lagrange moron

>>11387685
he didnt mean the meth cooker on at saturday nights

Theoretical physicists are the only people who are able to uncover something novel about our world.

Other than that, there is nothing new under the sun.

>>11387321
>math evangelist talks about how it's actually got a bunch of potential (this word is here to save face) applications in cryptography

No offense but you dont know any real number theorist. If you ask any serious mathematician 'hurr what is the application of number theory in the real world' they might reluctantly give you an example in cryptography but what they truly think is 'you shut your fucking mouth what is the application of the real world in number theory?'.
Real mathematicians are not embarrassed at all that other people haven't figured out how to use their results in `practical applications`, like some tool that primitive humans couldn't make use of.

It's exactly the same situation when you teach math for kids in high school and one of the dumbest loudest kids with rich parents asks you 'what is the point of study algebra I'm never gonna use them :((', and you have to humor them with some applications because their parents are benefactors of your school.

>>11384713
So the planet is Reddit? ''Yo gravity's like well mental lmao, particles n shit''. Wew.

>>11391575
Nah we can all agree that all scientists discover novel things in different parts of the physical world: biologist, chemist, medical scientists, etc you dont want to go back to the time when there was only physicists doing the discovering. Anyway I don't think it has to do with public fame, physicists are more popular among the lay audience simply because of the media.

In fact discovering something novel about our world is a fruit hanging so low that even some mathematician in late 19th century studying functional analysis already discovered something novel about our world as several decades later some other mathematician axiomatized quantum theory and it turned out the only way to get correct physical results is to view physical measurements as Hermitian linear operators acting on vectors on Hilbert space. (The same dude also helped pushed the Copenhagen view into the orthodoxy it enjoys today with his no hidden variable theorem, which is another great discovery of physics done by a mathematician).

And let's not forget that the discovery of computing originated from Entscheidungsproblem, one of Hilbert's problems. The idea of computers was basically discovered during axiomatizing first order logic, by mathematicians. Physicists could never have discovered the P vs NP aspect of the very physical problems that they work with on daily basis.
Similarly biologists could never have discovered the computational complexity aspect of evolution either.

These ideas are all novel aspects of our world, and I would say the computers are essential in modern era.

This unreasonable success of axiomatizing physical theories is exactly what modern physicists try to emulate, as mentioned here >>11389844 , of course some people still have psychological problem against this new trend, because it doesn't provide enough `ontology` behind formulas, they insist that physics has to come back to its classical regime in late 1800s.

>>11384701
Because physicists discover principles and tools with which engineers can build stuff which itself is the backbone of the techno industrial society we live in.
We still make little use of biotechnologies and most of engineering doesn't require very advanced mathematics outside of cutting edge niches.

The greatest biologist is arguably Pasteur by the way, not Darwin.

>>11392659
Evolution was the most important discovery in science.

>>11387136
holy shit dude you're so cool