Re: SV: Mathematically complex physics

[DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA <narayana@HD1.DOT.NET.IN>]

At 06:01 AM 11/6/99 -0800, J. G. Locke wrote:
> Recently, issues concerning mathematics, science, and technology have become
> of increasing concern as we enter the information age. I believe that
> science involves effort to explain the way the universe works.
>
> Should we say that the progress of science is 'disappointing' (in some way)
> rather than that science has 'failed'?
>
> The terms 'how' and 'why' have degrees of meaning. Scientists struggle to
> find relationships and 'laws' --- the 'how'. Perhaps the answer to 'why'
> should be sought in prayer.

Since the advent of Qm description of natural phenomena in terms physical
models has been replaced by  mathematical models. These models are a far cry
from what we mean by description in the popular sense. If you see how far, far
removed is this mathematical formalism from what we know of the real world,
one will not call it description in the sense we understand it.
Ofcourse QM predicts results of experiments. But are the quantities we
manipulate to get these results always have counterparts in the physical
world.
If they do not what is the fun in calling it as description of nature.

regards,

sarma.