[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 82 KB, 303x446, 1458038412725.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8117089 No.8117089 [Reply] [Original]

Does it make any sense to develop theories in physics that use mathematically "unphysical" concepts?

Is intuitionistic physics a thing? (or constructivist physics or whatever you call it)

>> No.8117090

gimme an example

>> No.8117094

>>8117090
say I don't accept physics that rely on things such as renormalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization
Or physics based on mathematics using the axiom of choice.
Mathematics that require an infinite amount of work to be consistent don't cut it for me (ex testing if two arbitrary cauchy sequences are equivalent). So as someone who does not do pure mathematics but focuses on real life physical situations, I want to use mathematics that are consistent with what I can study.
Does that exist already? Are there any theories developped using such mathematics?

>> No.8117293
File: 296 KB, 500x375, 1419955984626.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8117293

>>8117094

>> No.8117504

modest bump, I hope someone has some insight for me

>> No.8117517

Physicists will argue that the physics is independent on the mathematics used to describe it. Physicists are also known to make up voodoo mathematics to simplify physical models. (see Dirac Delta Function)

>> No.8117520
File: 17 KB, 400x366, platonic-world.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
8117520

It's called idealism. Retards unironically believe that reality obeys the ideas.

>> No.8117539

>>8117089
No, physicists generally don't care about the mathematical details of what they're studying.
They want to make models that can predict experimental results, and will use whatever they can to do that. There is no reason to impose arbitrary restrictions on yourself.