Newsgroups: comp.object.logic,sci.logic,sci.misc,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.physics,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!darwin.sura.net!ua1ix!news
From: mbehrens@physics.as.ua.edu (Mark Joseph Behrens)
Subject: Re: Is time continuous?
Message-ID: <1995Feb28.174017.149723@ua1ix.ua.edu>
Sender: news@ua1ix.ua.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: st09.ph.ua.edu
Organization: University of Alabama
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.92.6+
References: <1995Feb20.144659.9334@vax.sbu.ac.uk> <3iikm3INN9j7@duncan.cs.utk.edu> <3ik8u0$o2r@btr0x1.hrz.uni-bayreuth.de> <3im1m8INNd2v@duncan.cs.utk.edu>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 17:40:17 GMT
Lines: 40
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.object.logic:364 sci.logic:9881 sci.misc:12257 sci.philosophy.tech:16944 sci.physics:111818

In article <3im1m8INNd2v@duncan.cs.utk.edu>, ma@cs.utk.edu (Norman Ma) says:

>I wish quantum physics can be taught through more of an engineering
>approach, that way we may be able to make more progress in
>the utilization of that theory.

I strongly disagree.  It is the very essense of the engineering approach
that has hindered physics from its full potential.  Mathematics is more
than likely the attribute that both of the diciplines of
physics and engineering lag so much in.  Engineers dispise the lack of
application that abstract algebra and matrix theory have, and physisicsts,
since just beyond einstien, have alienated thamselves from mathematicians.
	Historically, however, it has been mathematics that has been the
decicive catalyst in revolutions of physical notions.  Look at the science
of quantum mechanics.  Hiesenberg, a priori, more or less, was able to
PROVE mathematically the indeterminancey of momentum AND position.  The
very same (unrecognized) man developed an abstract mathematical model
utilizing abstract matrix theory of quantum mechanics, which while
developed previous to Shrodinger's more "visual" wave equation, proved
to surpass the latter, which failed at certain high energies.
	Now, look at the emergence of Chaos mathematics...is physics
going to reunite with her old partner, mathematics?
	By the way, I don't think we can conclude that time is a particle
yet...  in fact, particle physics may very well be the prelude to a 
more abstract, yet more unified theory.  The distinction of which we make
from dimensions (time, space, etc, superstring theory, after all, calls
for 10 or 26 dimensions) and properties MUST be understood.  We cannot
show that any of these (dimensions) are discrete, and in fact have no
reason to do so.  Sure, as far as I have no proof to the contrary,
it is POSSIBLE, but without any mathematical inquiry, we are foolish to
speak qualitatively (i.e. "Hey, wouldn't it be neat if...")about such 
inherently mathematical subjects as the discreteness of a dimension.
I might substitute LOGICAL for MATHEMATICAL, for what is mathematics 
but a series of abstract qualities logically determined a priori, 
as a pose to the neccessitive a postiori nature of physics and 
engineering.

OK, I'm through...

--Mark Joseph Behrens.
