sci.physics.electromag

"Benj" wrote in message
news:0ecff7e6-335e-4974-ba91-a39fcfe12e27@y77g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...

> > Physics isn't very good at answering philosophical questions.
> > It puts real things on one axis, imaginary things on another
> > axis and that assures total rejection by any philosopher worth
> > his salt.
>
> Yes, you've put your finger on it. You know physics used to be called
> "natural philosophy" but the philosophical part seems to have vanished
> and been replaced with mathematics. Let me rephrase the "do fields
> exist" questions in a different "branch". Tell me. Do Imaginary
> numbers exist? Is the square root of -1 a "real" thing? Can I go
> look at a some sinusoidal signal or electromagnetic wave and start
> proclaiming (as Fred has) LOOK I can SEE the phase shifts! I can
> MEASURE the reactive components here in these signals! The imaginary
> axis is every bit as "real" as the flow of electrons in a wire or the
> energy of waves in space!!! Do you guys (and Sue) agree with that?
I do, for what it's worth.
I would think that if the effect of something (some-thing?) can be observed,
even if "it" cannot be, then that qualifies it as "real". Perhaps that is
philoshophy rather than physics but I can't see a real need to sepperate
them in such cases, and that could also be the manifestation of my
ignorance.
The universe is teeming (so to speak) with nuclear furnaces.
The processes we observe around us are almost exlusively exothermic, and yet
the universe is not getting hotter. In fact it's cooling. Some would argue
that it's continual expansion takes care of this, but I'd be very surprised
if a rigorous analysis would support that conclusion.
> Is the square root of minus one a "real" thing? Does it exist in
> space, in reality? Or, (think carefully now) have we taken a
> mathematical sytem which has NO basis in reality and APPLIED it to
> problems of sinusoids and reactive impedances as a MODEL? The fact
> that this model or analogy if you will produces valid, physical
> answers that agree with experiment in NO way "proves" that the square
> root of minus one is a real physical thing. The accuracy of the
> calculations only proves that there is some kind of analogy between
> the mathematics of complex numbers and certain electromagnetic
> questions. There is NO basis to assume that the analogy some how
> establishes that these two systems are identical!
>
> I rest my case.
>
Having no real math skills, I have had to use visual analysis throughout my
life, and what few skills I do have are largely derived from that. Perhaps
consequently I see math as a way to visualize (so to speak) what cannot be
seen otherwise. As a means to impart accuracy on an otherwise unstructured
imaginative process.
Kepler's discoveries were my first appreciation of the power of mathematics.
How could one ever "see" these things without them. Actually, if one were
able to position oneself in space far above the solar system and lived for
an extraordinarily long time, and had an attention span of similar
proportions, then that one "could" actually "see" what he observed
mathematically.
A surgeon cares little about the fact that the tissue he slices, and the
scalpel he uses, are 99.99999% quantum foam. To him this is little more
than a curiosity with little or no relevance to the skills that he is
required to have. Are his perceptions of tissue less "real" that those of a
physicist in this regard?
Perhaps "real" is what needs more definition here. Perhaps contextual
reality is , if accurate and correctly applied, perfectly valid. What a
blind mans sees is not what sighted people see, but if his skills are well
developed are his visualizations (so to speak) any less valid? Is one
method of seeing "what is" less valid than another? Perhaps the ultimate
reality is the overlaying of all these "images", as long as all those
"images" are derived accurately.
Perhaps I have said too much. Stage right.
Vince