114 reputation
7
bio website hr.linkedin.com/in/ipavlic
location
age 28
visits member for 2 years, 6 months
seen Apr 23 '13 at 14:59

profile for ipavlic on Stack Exchange, a network of free, community-driven Q&A sites


Sep
24
awarded  Autobiographer
Nov
16
awarded  Student
Apr
16
awarded  Organizer
Apr
15
comment Age of universe estimates
@Sklivvz Sure, you can. But you do not have to. Algebra and analysis don't have to do anything with points. As for counterexamples, if there were some, you would have a "domino effect" (I'd be perfectly happy with one in physics as well).
Apr
15
comment Age of universe estimates
@RonMaimon For your example, I'd say "oh well, then geometry wouldn't work. But we'd still have combinatorics, algebra and analysis because they don't rely on geometrical points, and geometry is just a subset of all mathematics." I don't see why that doesn't work for physics and at the same time, one cannot make the mentioned domino effect. This commenting has taken us a full cycle back to the original problem which I apparently cannot comprehend. But thank you for trying!
Apr
14
comment Age of universe estimates
@RonMaimon That seems like a circular argument to me. As for impossibility, perhaps I'm more used to mathematics which doesn't relate to real world as directly as physics. As an example, the assumption that parallel postulate is not valid leads to non-Euclidean geometries. Absolute (or neutral) geometry also exists and its results are true for both Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometries. Another example might be various definitions of integrals (Riemann, Lebesgue, Henstock–Kurzweil, ...) which all have something in common. It's quite normal to consider "what-ifs" in mathematics.
Apr
13
comment Age of universe estimates
@RonMaimon That's exactly what I asked - whether all of physics is so tightly knit together that a young earth would make everything wrong in a domino effect and why/how. Best case scenario would be if I could have a hierarchy of some sort, from foundations upwards showing how the various branches would be wrong because they rely on the previous branch which relies on the previous branch...
Apr
13
awarded  Commentator
Apr
13
comment Age of universe estimates
@Sklivvz I was not positing some form of YEC. I'm asking about a much weaker statement which is not religiously-motivated: whether there is anything notable in 20th century physics that does not rely on old Earth and doesn't predict an old Earth.
Apr
13
comment Age of universe estimates
@RonMaimon I'm not considering whether the failure of QM, GR and radioactive decay are reasonable. I'm asking whether there is anything notable in 20th century physics that does not rely on old Earth and doesn't predict an old Earth. It really is a simple question. It seems like you're making a straw man out of it.
Apr
11
comment Age of universe estimates
The first part of your answer answer the 1), the second part (cutoff) is great for 2), but I would like to keep it to Physics (everything from "But one must remember that..." seems superfluous to me).
Apr
11
comment Age of universe estimates
Thank you for your clarification. So young earth would imply YE→ ¬GR ∧ ¬QM, making it easier to search for such hypotheses (if they exist). I most note that it seems that in the current formulation you are addressing a bit weaker claim of major theoretical physics hypotheses. I was curious if there were any notable physics hypotheses.
Apr
10
awarded  Scholar
Apr
10
accepted Age of universe estimates
Apr
10
comment Age of universe estimates
The distinction for me is that you actually use equations from QM to work in the field of colloid science. If you graft nerves together in surgery, you don't really need to rely on any statements from QM.
Apr
10
comment Age of universe estimates
Thank you for your clarifications. It seems to me that I understand the issue a little better now. If I may be so bold, it also seems that we are approximately on the same page on this issue.
Apr
10
comment Age of universe estimates
I was also the OP on the Skeptics, motivated by a claim that "[were Earth 6000 years old] all 20th century physics would be very wrong". I accept that all things taken together, evidence for Earth and Universe being billions of years old is overwhelming. But I am not comfortable with a statement that says if that was not the case, then all modern physics would be wrong. I am not after denialism - I just don't like blanket statements which don't seem truthful.
Apr
10
comment Age of universe estimates
While surgery could be reduced to QM and GR, that is not ever done. I'm guessing we could say that surgery is independent on the age of the Earth because: 1) it doesn't rely on the age of the Earth for predictions 2) it doesn't predict the age of the Earth. The same would probably hold for mathematics, non-molecular biology, and some parts of chemistry. If nothing better comes up, I'll accept your answer.
Apr
10
awarded  Supporter
Apr
10
comment Age of universe estimates
Yes, by my definition, I would say that colloid science is linked to the age of Earth for precisely the same reasons that you stated (QM background). Is there any field of modern physics that does not rely on either QM or GR (or QM+GR = modern physics)?