Re: SV: Mathematically complex physics

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

I beg the indulgence of the Phys-l list members for wrongly posting the below,
which was actually meant for Physhare list.

regards,

sarma.
> Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 07:36:05 +0500
> To: physl
> From: DEVARAKONDA VENKATA NARAYANA SARMA <narayana@hd1.dot.net.in>
> Subject: Re: SV: Mathematically complex physics
> In-Reply-To: <000001bf285f$617dc5e0$8930c8d8@daddys-machine>
> References: <3.0.6.32.19991104061856.007f8a30@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models has been replaced by  mathematical models.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.