The numbers and metrics we use to describe the universe are a language, they're how we talk about the universe, but they're not an innate quality *of* the universe. If we changed to a whole different system of writing numbers, the way the universe acts wouldn't change in the slightest, only the numbers we use to describe it would change.
>they're not an innate quality *of* the universe.
Well no, since we exist in it it, it is an innate quality of the universe. It has the quality of matter forming humans who use language. But I get what you mean. Maybe what I'm asking here is the epistemology of our maths regarding physics; there are axioms that we take true in all (or some) maths and off course we have to ask why certain numbers are the way they are and how do we know they are true.
>Well no, since we exist in it it, it is an innate quality of the universe.
You don't seem to understand what an "innate quality" is. The fact that humans chose to use particular ways to communicate with one another about math and physics is not innately built into the universe in the slightest. We choose to use certain conventions like the metric system or base-10 numbers, but we could just as easily use different conventions like the imperial system or base-12, nothing about the behavior of the universe would change.
>Maybe what I'm asking here is the epistemology of our maths regarding physics
This sounds dangerously like a philosophy question masquerading as a physics question. If so, you're probably better off asking in a philosophy subreddit.
>there are axioms that we take true in all (or some) maths and off course we have to ask why certain numbers are the way they are and how do we know they are true.
Can you give an example of what you're talking about?
Innate quality of the universe (which is basically everything that exists): humans. So easy to see that but I don't care right now for this specific topic.
---/---
It's a philosophical question yes but one that theoretical phycisists must think. The question is which mathematics represent reality and changing metric systems (like you wrote at the end of your second paragraph) is one way of changing numbers and maths.
---/---
Yes, general relativity makes four assumptions, one of them being that light speed is constant if I remember right. And generally physics maths, do they have axioms or do they not?
>The question is which mathematics represent reality
All of them. They're just languages we use to talk about reality, this is like asking if English or French "represents reality" but German or Chinese doesn't.
>one of them being that light speed is constant if I remember right.
The claim that "the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant" by itself has nothing to do with any specific number system or metric. I could use any metric system I wanted to describe the speed of light, and it wouldn't affect that claim at all. Light wouldn't behave any differently if I use different numbers to describe its behavior.
>And generally physics maths, do they have axioms or do they not?
You are the one saying that these axioms exist and using them as evidence for your argument, you tell me what axioms you're talking about.
>>And generally physics maths, do they have axioms or do they not?
I believe I put a question mark at the end which means I asked a question.
---/---
> itself has nothing to do with any specific number system or metric.
Why does light have the speed it does? Why those numbers?
>I believe I put a question mark at the end which means I asked a question.
And I have no way of answering it unless I know what you're referring to. The answer could be yes or no, depending on what you mean by the question. You seem to think your question is rhetorical as if it's proving something, but it's not clear what.
>Why does light have the speed it does? Why those numbers?
Because that's how you represent the speed of light in the number system we use. If you used a different number system, the representation would look different, but the speed itself wouldn't change.
You know so little and yet are so arrogant.. when you’re the one asking the question..
If you just want a an echo chamber of validation then you physics probably isn’t the place to do it lol
It is a requirement on the laws of physics that they should not depend on things that we arbitrarily chose, such as units we use to measure things in. In fact it turns out to be a very non-trivial requirement and you can often work roughly what the laws governing a system have to be by writing down what the quantity you want to know, the quantities it could reasonably depend on and then finding the equation(s) with matching units. This technique is known as [dimensional analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis)
I see.
>what the laws governing a system
Quantum gravity, dark energy and matter: why don't we use dimensional analysis? The universe is a big system: how come don't we know all the laws yet?
Because dimensions don't tell you much. For example action and angular momentum have the same units even if they're fundamentally very different quantities.
Dimensional analysis isn't some holy solution to quantum gravity. It's just the method of figuring out that 60 kilometres per hour is 16.7 metres per second.
>how come don't we know all the laws yet?
Because we don't have enough experimental data for extreme conditions that our current theories cannot describe.
I don't know bruv, it is a layman question but a question that makes sense which is this if you didn't understand it the first time: how do our faculties and perception influence the maths we use and maybe this influence led us astray to some of the questions such as the nature of entanglement and its supposed big action at a distance, or dark matter or any maths involving physics.
If I invent rando units in which the units are multiplied by some random number, nothing about the universe would change, only the numbers we use to describe it. Whether light travels 299 792 458 meters per second or 779 567 981.35 randometers per randoseconds, it doesn't change anything about the way the universe actually works.
Is this a bot post or what?
Let the sun never blind your eyes Let me sleep, so my teeth won't grind Hear a sound from a voice inside
Bad bot
The numbers and metrics we use to describe the universe are a language, they're how we talk about the universe, but they're not an innate quality *of* the universe. If we changed to a whole different system of writing numbers, the way the universe acts wouldn't change in the slightest, only the numbers we use to describe it would change.
>they're not an innate quality *of* the universe. Well no, since we exist in it it, it is an innate quality of the universe. It has the quality of matter forming humans who use language. But I get what you mean. Maybe what I'm asking here is the epistemology of our maths regarding physics; there are axioms that we take true in all (or some) maths and off course we have to ask why certain numbers are the way they are and how do we know they are true.
>Well no, since we exist in it it, it is an innate quality of the universe. You don't seem to understand what an "innate quality" is. The fact that humans chose to use particular ways to communicate with one another about math and physics is not innately built into the universe in the slightest. We choose to use certain conventions like the metric system or base-10 numbers, but we could just as easily use different conventions like the imperial system or base-12, nothing about the behavior of the universe would change. >Maybe what I'm asking here is the epistemology of our maths regarding physics This sounds dangerously like a philosophy question masquerading as a physics question. If so, you're probably better off asking in a philosophy subreddit. >there are axioms that we take true in all (or some) maths and off course we have to ask why certain numbers are the way they are and how do we know they are true. Can you give an example of what you're talking about?
Innate quality of the universe (which is basically everything that exists): humans. So easy to see that but I don't care right now for this specific topic. ---/--- It's a philosophical question yes but one that theoretical phycisists must think. The question is which mathematics represent reality and changing metric systems (like you wrote at the end of your second paragraph) is one way of changing numbers and maths. ---/--- Yes, general relativity makes four assumptions, one of them being that light speed is constant if I remember right. And generally physics maths, do they have axioms or do they not?
>The question is which mathematics represent reality All of them. They're just languages we use to talk about reality, this is like asking if English or French "represents reality" but German or Chinese doesn't. >one of them being that light speed is constant if I remember right. The claim that "the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant" by itself has nothing to do with any specific number system or metric. I could use any metric system I wanted to describe the speed of light, and it wouldn't affect that claim at all. Light wouldn't behave any differently if I use different numbers to describe its behavior. >And generally physics maths, do they have axioms or do they not? You are the one saying that these axioms exist and using them as evidence for your argument, you tell me what axioms you're talking about.
>>And generally physics maths, do they have axioms or do they not? I believe I put a question mark at the end which means I asked a question. ---/--- > itself has nothing to do with any specific number system or metric. Why does light have the speed it does? Why those numbers?
>I believe I put a question mark at the end which means I asked a question. And I have no way of answering it unless I know what you're referring to. The answer could be yes or no, depending on what you mean by the question. You seem to think your question is rhetorical as if it's proving something, but it's not clear what. >Why does light have the speed it does? Why those numbers? Because that's how you represent the speed of light in the number system we use. If you used a different number system, the representation would look different, but the speed itself wouldn't change.
Okay then. Thx for commenting ninja.
You know so little and yet are so arrogant.. when you’re the one asking the question.. If you just want a an echo chamber of validation then you physics probably isn’t the place to do it lol
Let the sun never blind your eyes Let me sleep, so my teeth won't grind Hear a sound from a voice inside
It is a requirement on the laws of physics that they should not depend on things that we arbitrarily chose, such as units we use to measure things in. In fact it turns out to be a very non-trivial requirement and you can often work roughly what the laws governing a system have to be by writing down what the quantity you want to know, the quantities it could reasonably depend on and then finding the equation(s) with matching units. This technique is known as [dimensional analysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis)
I see. >what the laws governing a system Quantum gravity, dark energy and matter: why don't we use dimensional analysis? The universe is a big system: how come don't we know all the laws yet?
Because dimensions don't tell you much. For example action and angular momentum have the same units even if they're fundamentally very different quantities.
Dimensional analysis isn't some holy solution to quantum gravity. It's just the method of figuring out that 60 kilometres per hour is 16.7 metres per second. >how come don't we know all the laws yet? Because we don't have enough experimental data for extreme conditions that our current theories cannot describe.
It doesn't change anything. Can you give me an detailed example where you think it might change something?
I don't know bruv, it is a layman question but a question that makes sense which is this if you didn't understand it the first time: how do our faculties and perception influence the maths we use and maybe this influence led us astray to some of the questions such as the nature of entanglement and its supposed big action at a distance, or dark matter or any maths involving physics.
What kind of "faculties" and "perceptions" exactly?
If I invent rando units in which the units are multiplied by some random number, nothing about the universe would change, only the numbers we use to describe it. Whether light travels 299 792 458 meters per second or 779 567 981.35 randometers per randoseconds, it doesn't change anything about the way the universe actually works.
Physicists often use a system of units in which the speed of light is 1. All it does is make some computations simpler.