Go Back   Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Physics Software

Physics Software Physics Software Forum - Physics software for computers and calculators

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Aug 22nd 2016, 09:39 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5
Terminology and "looking like physics"

A long-standing issue with this work, which I've also discussed in real life with a few people of opposite opinion :-), is whether or not adopting physics-like terminology is a good idea. After all, the nature of software does not have to match the nature of matter. So while on one side using terms like gravity, compression, and up to a point even entanglement can be helpful to provide a frame of reference and also leverage some basic knowledge shared between all the technical-scientific disciplines, on the other these analogies always break when you expect an exact 1:1 match (I can easily provide examples). This is one of the factors behind the harsh critiques that this work has occasionally attracted.
Alternatives (feel free to suggest more):
- use a new, made up terminology; would be interesting to use the paper on compressive strength as an exercise / test bed. latest ringtones
- reframe as much as possible in term of math. I'm not very fond of this idea. A mathematical model is useful and would be welcome at some point, but I want to support intuition and exploration and generally speaking I think that a proper language of forces and properties would be better suited than just a projection into discrete math.
- or ?
As this work is moving forward, I'm really interested in exploring / discussing alternatives before committing too much time / energy in the current direction. zedge ringtones and popular ringtones

Last edited by NicoleJS; Dec 15th 2016 at 12:01 AM.
NicoleJS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 23rd 2016, 12:10 AM   #2
Forum Admin
 
topsquark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On the dance floor, baby!
Posts: 2,152
Originally Posted by NicoleJS View Post
A long-standing issue with this work, which I've also discussed in real life with a few people of opposite opinion :-), is whether or not adopting physics-like terminology is a good idea. After all, the nature of software does not have to match the nature of matter. So while on one side using terms like gravity, compression, and up to a point even entanglement can be helpful to provide a frame of reference and also leverage some basic knowledge shared between all the technical-scientific disciplines, on the other these analogies always break when you expect an exact 1:1 match (I can easily provide examples). This is one of the factors behind the harsh critiques that this work has occasionally attracted.
Alternatives (feel free to suggest more):
- use a new, made up terminology; would be interesting to use the paper on compressive strength as an exercise / test bed.
- reframe as much as possible in term of math. I'm not very fond of this idea. A mathematical model is useful and would be welcome at some point, but I want to support intuition and exploration and generally speaking I think that a proper language of forces and properties would be better suited than just a projection into discrete math.
- or ?
As this work is moving forward, I'm really interested in exploring / discussing alternatives before committing too much time / energy in the current direction.
What do you mean by "this work?"

-Dan
__________________
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.

See the forum rules here.
topsquark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24th 2016, 11:24 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 321
As Topsquark indicated, we seem to be joining the middle of a conversation here.
However, I'll add my thoughts for what they are worth.

I would suggest that probably the majority of terminology in most fields of expertise is (ultimately) based on analogy to everyday common parlance.
One might think that this need not be an issue as long as the context (and thus by implication the limits of the analogy) is made clear.

However a brief look through this forum will reveal a multitude of posts where common terms, clearly used in a physics context, have caused a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding.

An obvious example is "sub-atomic particle"
These are clearly not, in any way shape or form, things that one would recognise as the particles of common parlance.

Should we invent new, unique, words for everything?

Last edited by Woody; Aug 25th 2016 at 02:01 AM.
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 24th 2016, 10:49 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5
Naming is hard
IMHO, you should focus on getting "best fit" names for the concepts, sometimes borrowing, sometimes coining.

One can't give a thoroughly descriptive name to something until one understands it thoroughly. As such, there is value in "placeholder names." See Greg Young's nice discussion of this here:

goodenoughsoftware.net/2012/02/28/the-gibberish-game/

It also may help to differentiate between convincing an audience to be interested in your work and discussing concepts with people who are already interested.With the former, you can spend more time explaining what you mean by Physics (Inner Nature, that was a great tweet) and that you only intend the physical terms to be interpreted as analogies. With the latter, you can use the analogies more in a brainstorming sense, as inspiration and an opportunity to compare and contrast to gain a deeper understanding.

Tags: http://ringtonedownloads.mobi/bollyw...ones-download/, http://ringtonedownloads.mobi/country-ringtones/

Last edited by adamjohnson; Mar 14th 2017 at 01:05 AM.
adamjohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > Physics Forums > Physics Software

Tags
looking like physics, terminology



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Common Misconceptions in Physics" page Pmb Philosophy of Physics 13 Jan 15th 2014 07:15 PM
Urgent! Project for Physics Class! "Air Train" of sorts. Crystal0513 Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Sep 13th 2013 05:36 AM
Thought experiment "small box and only one body inside the universe " tesla2 Theoretical Physics 2 Jun 11th 2013 07:52 AM
Friction physics problems.. understanding "mi"? abcmj Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Nov 12th 2009 01:34 AM
Does "attitude" mean "orientation"? s3a Light and Optics 1 May 31st 2009 12:27 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed