I think some people are conflating two of my issues here. I’m not saying we need to understand how this thing works in order to declare that it works. All we need for that i are clear, strong, and consistently reproducible measurements (which we don’t have). I’m saying I need to hear a viable chain of hypotheses reaching back to established theory, given the current lack of strong observatinal evidence, in order to give a shit about this thing. Without either of those, I have no qualms calling this snake oil.
No, it violates one very important physical law. One very, very, very well tested one.
I’m sure most of these experiments are being done “seriously”. Good intentions does not equal good science, though. All we need to do is look at the arsenic eating bacteria, the FTL neutrinos, and the detection of gravitational waves to see this. Science by press release is highly suspect, and this is science by bloody website.
We live in a world governed by statistical processes. It’s possible for Puff The Magic Dragon to materialize out of thin air before your very eyes. Do you choose to want to believe that that will happen, too?
It’s as conjectural as calling it “real”. It’s not an empirical argument but an a priori statistical one. Deductive VS inductive. The reality is no one knows wtf is wrong (or right) with the experiments. It’s no basis for getting excited but it’s no basis for dismissing it yet. Because the data is not conclusive yet.
The “in order to give a shit” quip makes it sound like bar stool smack talk. Not plain empirical assessment. Science isn’t done from armchair. It’s not done for popularity or bragging rights.
Of course 2 + 3! =/= 3 + 2. Did you notice the exclamation point you didn’t have in the first equation that is in the…What is an inequation called? However, 2 + 3! = 3 *2 * 1 + 2 will always be true.
The reason I say it is not worth paying attention to is it has yet to be proven viable theoretically or practically, due to the previous three issues I posted. If you can defeat either #1 or 2&3 together, then you have a viable product. Btw, this experiment would never get us into space. Through space, perhaps, albeit very slowly. The supposedly produced thrust is magnitudes of magnitudes too small.
in fact it’s the negation of equality in a lot of programming languages sorry it’s a “professional deformation”…
the symbol != means not equal… it is not 3! …
and not it is only true in a commutative set where operations order doesn’t count… in a non commutative set or space, it is not the same… note that the universe is non commutative : you haven’t got the same result when in one hand you open a beer and drink it, and in an another hand, you drink a beer and open it…
Ah, okay, I see now. You are saying the! Was part of the !=, not 3!.
About noncommunication, you’re right, there are some things in the universe that must be done in a specific order. I’m not entirely certain what the relevance is here, but even noncommunicable math follows established rules, because that is how we obtain reproducibility.
All of this was to say that there is things in math that we believe just because we don’t know how to prove it, or to prove that is in not provable… there is also conventions that we accept because it is how we defined rules, others are conventions that we accepted because if not some series and equations could not work.
My point is by this argument to say other members here that claim they only believe what is proved (what I felt they were saying, sorry if not), are non-intentionally lying
I actually work for a mathematician, and he enjoys talking to me about such things. Believe me, if it is a math that is accepted by the mathematics community, it is well understood. They even have ways of proving something is unprovable. One of the core tenants of math is that it must be reproducible, and to be reproducible, it must follow known rules.
Nobody just instinctively believes an unproven math. You can tell me that 1 + 1 =3 until you are blue in the face, until you prove it to me I have no interest.
An article in Nature reporting on a CoE-breaking device is as improper as one that falsifies that device as mere instrumental noise without actually identifying what exactly the experimental error is.
Again, there is nothing to believe in math. Math is based on axioms. Axioms are things that are regarded as true within a system. There are rare propositions in math that can’t be proven or disproven within a certain set of axioms. There are axioms that are broken and produce conflicting results (see the paradox of the set that contains all sets that do not contain themselves in the early version of set theory, before they patched it). There are propositions in math that appear to be true or sound like something that is true but have yet to be proven. But you will never see a mathematician basing his work on something that has not been proven. You will never see someone get rewarded because he has a feeling a certain rule exists or someone who demonstrates an example of a rule. In math proof is everything. You need perfect certainty, not assumptions. Because in math you are working within a set of rules that you know to be true. You have perfect knowledge. You have all the building blocks to create anything you want within that set of rules. That’s why QED is such a strong phrase in math. You prove something based on things you know to be true.
When you play chess, you don’t believe the bishop can only move diagonally. You know it. Because it’s a rule you have accepted so that you can play the game. Even though you know that you could just pick the bishop up and place it anywhere you want on the board, you accept that during a game of chess, for that game of chess to be fun and make sense, you can only move it diagonally. Granted, you could create a different game where bishops move differently and it might be just as fun.
Similarly, when you use numbers you accept that 1 is less than 2 and 1+1=2, even though you could choose to define those numbers anyway you want. And in some contexts your new set of rules might even be useful. But no matter what, as long as you follow the rules you’ve set, anything proven in that new mathematical system will always be true.
Aaaaaand here we go again… historically, if I remember well, factorial 0! has been accepted like this only because if not it was breaking some formulas (I don’t remember but that was probably for some Combinatorics theories… I’d have to ask to the teacher that said me that…)…
Even in physics, there’s conventions that are accepted to match reality and help things work, even if it seems not correct… (I think I heard that divide by zero was possible in physics, where in math is forbidden…). This is my point. Please don’t loop again
Factorial is not “accepted”, factorial is defined. And it is defined like that because there’s only one way to order an empty set. Since it is defined, there’s nothing to believe in, nothing to accept. Nobody told us that the factorial is a certain way and we have to take his word for it. Someone created the factorial and defined it that way to create a tool that would be useful to him/her. You don’t accept a hammer. You create it and you use it.
Division by zero is possible if you’re using limits. And there’s proof for that within the definition of limits. I don’t know if you mean that. If that’s what you mean, there’s also nothing to accept. It’s a definition, it’s a rule, it’s a law.
Most of the websites I have found all agree, there is no proof. However, there is ample evidence, so it gets defined as 0! = 1.
The difference here is that one concept has evidence, where the em drive has some results that may indicate something, but fall within the realm of error of the instrumentation and might also be caused by an influence not controlled for.
The em drive has no reproducible, significantly error free evidence. Given the lack of real world evidence, it must rely on a solid theory. It lacks a solid theory, so it is irrelevant to anyone who has not invested money into its success. The day an experiment produces results in the 5 sigma range, the scientific community will believe the project worthy of scruples and peer review. As it stands, it doesn’t have anywhere near that.
evidence on concepts…when did people lose track of reality?
Just a reminder:
Mathematic is not a science, it’s a concept, it’s something intangible, unreal…
And about the OP
All i’ve read about it leads to nothing concrete, or even someting that can match our current physics knowledge, so, untill someone can explain this “new physics theories” it will just go nowhere.
evidences are something related to tangible things, even data is related to a tangible thing (high-low voltage), there’s no evidence on mathematics, all you can do is create them through misconception about maths. Now appliying this to the OP (so i don’t derail this any further) the fact that someone claims to have meassured a phenomena, but not being able to replicate it on a significant scale, and explain it, is the same thing as saying there is evindence on math working, we MADE mathematic to work, as we invented rules to meassure distances, we don’t need evidence for that, we know that rules meassure distances, how can you prove or disprove that they don’t.
Is not the diameter of a circle times pi the circumference? Is not the integral of a function the area under the curve? These are all tangible things that provide evidence of mathematics. Mathematics is still “just” a concept, but it has an overwhelming abundance of physical and theoretical evidence.
Draw y=x^2 on a piece of paper. We agree this is a physical object, yes? Let’s find the area under it from x=0 to x=1.
The integral of x^2 is 1/3(x)^3. f(1) - f(0) = 1/3(1)^3 - 1/3(0)^3 = 1/3 - 0 = 1/3. The physical area under the physical curve is 1/3. It’s a purely mathematical solution to a very physical problem.
Edit: as for the statement math is not a science, you are correct. Science can also (accurately) be called applied mathematics.
