41
   

What insight have you gained from you profession/education that the layman doesn't understand?

 
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 04:44 am
@Brandon9000,
I'm struggling here with the concept of "a layman" being interested in "equations" at all ! Smile

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 05:12 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

I'm struggling here with the concept of "a layman" being interested in "equations" at all ! Smile

I'm not saying they are. I'm saying that they don't know how to approach scientific questions.
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 05:45 am
@dlowan,
Quote:
God I wish we had been able to get an A2k Book Club off the ground...because those discussions that Soz references are ones I miss enormously in real life.

Of course, an online book cluh that was working would have people in it with no interest in that kind of analysis...but they can just scroll past.


I thought of starting one of those once. That would be something I'd be really up for, but again, come september it's pretty unlikely i'll have any time to read anything apart from course books.
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 05:46 am
@talk72000,
Quote:
knew a fellow whose dad was a Professor of Physics at a university and he mentioned that his dad consistently converted many equations to simple multiplication by conversion factors thus creating dimensionless constants.


Explain this to the layman! What do you mean?
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 06:14 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
I'm an engineer. I studied Aerospace Engineering, but I currently work as a Systems Engineer.

I am fairly fresh out of college, so I can speak to the nature of what college gave me and what it did not give me. It is difficult for me to calibrate my language on what I "know" vice the layman's knowledge on the topics I studied.

To be blunt, there is nothing that I'm the best at, and when compared to other individuals who have much more experience than myself, I feel the gap between me and them is equivalent or greater than me and the layman.

It may be premature for me to answer this question. The things I feel I'm best at, are not things I learned in school or in my profession. I'm talented in public speaking, mediation, and problem solving. I don't fully understand or clearly vision what the layman's understanding of those topics are, so it's hard for me to distinguish what others might not know.

I think my math and science proficiency is higher than the layman's if that counts...

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 07:29 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
When I first learned computer programming I learned Fortran. But that didn't help me understand how computers worked, and I had a hard time learning new languages. Then in the early 80's someone finally showed me assembly language and suddenly everything became clear. I understood how the registers interacted with the CPU and memory, and how electrical connections translated into logical comparisons which resulted in alternate paths in the algorithm. The true mechanistic nature of computers was laid bare and undeniable. All programming languages become easy for me after that because they are all just variations on a theme.

Most Laymen don't understand computers. Even many high level programmers don't really understand what is happening below the compilers. The high level languages and GUI level interface are sufficiently removed from the raw mechanics that many many people have invalid perceptions of the true (deeply) mechanistic nature of the technology. People anthropomorphise things at such an instinctive level that it's almost impossible to not lose sight of the machine behind the interface.

joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:01 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
If Kipling had been a jurist, he would have titled his most famous poem "In The Event That".

I will be using that line in the future, and I will not give you any credit for it.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:20 am
@joefromchicago,
That's fine, I picked it up somewhere else, too. Don't remember where.
The Pentacle Queen
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:28 am
@joefromchicago,
I'd not heard that poem before.
I like it, but its a shame about the last line.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:32 am
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
Most Laymen don't understand computers. Even many high level programmers don't really understand what is happening below the compilers. The high level languages and GUI level interface are sufficiently removed from the raw mechanics that many many people have invalid perceptions of the true (deeply) mechanistic nature of the technology.

Out of curiosity: Do you consider C a low-enough level language for purposes of exposing the mechanistic nature of the technology? I always thought its abstractions of the bare metal layer are quite apt. And I don't really want to bother with every arcane command in my processor's instruction set.
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:42 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
I'm sure you'll be enough of a man to forgive him, my son. Smile
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 08:45 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
Out of curiosity: Do you consider C a low-enough level language for purposes of exposing the mechanistic nature of the technology? I always thought its abstractions of the bare metal layer are quite apt. And I don't really want to bother with every arcane command in my processor's instruction set.

"C" is close, and some people may "get it" in a different way that I did. But for me, nothing was as illuminating as the assembly language.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 09:30 am
Another thing I learned from watching my wife go through graduate school: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." I never really understood that quote until I understood statistics better.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 10:12 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

That's fine, I picked it up somewhere else, too. Don't remember where.


Shocking.


0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 12:22 pm
@rosborne979,
If "People anthropomorphize things at such an instinctive level that it's almost impossible to not lose sight of the machine behind the interface" then the same could be said for my dog, my wife or myself.

Organic machines all!
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 12:32 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:
Organic machines all!

Speak for yourself, meatpuppet.
0 Replies
 
The Pentacle Queen
 
  2  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 06:16 pm
@Thomas,
Haha, I sure will.

Thomas i found it very interesting what you said about the way the arts and sciences synthesise at a certain level.
I do always feel like my degree is a bit superfluous in comparison to someone doing science and that.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Aug, 2009 11:25 pm
@The Pentacle Queen,
At present I haven't my technical books with me. But I will give a simple example. F = G(m1 x m2)/g where F=lbf , m1=lbm, m2=lbm, g=ft/sec squared

lbf=pound force
lbm=pound mass
ft=feet length
sec=second time
G in units is (lbf x ft/sec squared)/(lbm squared)
G = (lbf x ft)/(lbm squared x sec squared) is a constant composed of those units.
The value of G has an empirical value that has been measured by experiment.

Many formulas are proportionals i.e. if chart them onto a graph it is a straight line at an angle. That angle is the constant. This is all algebra.

Maybe you get one of your university buddies go over dimensional analysis step by step with you.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 01:03 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia about Dimensional Analysis. (It is beginning to dawn on me that maybe I don't need textbooks as long as I know what I want I can simply get it from the Internet.)

Dimensional analysis is a conceptual tool often applied in physics, chemistry, and engineering to understand physical situations involving certain physical quantities. It is routinely used by mathematicians, statisticians, physical scientists and engineers to check the plausibility of derived equations and computations. It is also used to form reasonable hypotheses about complex physical situations that can be tested by experiment or by more developed theories of the phenomena, and to categorise types of physical quantities and units based on their relations to or dependence on other units, or their "dimensions", or their lack thereof.

Dimensional analysis was developed by the 19th century French mathematician Joseph Fourier.[1], based on the idea that the physical laws like F = ma should be independent of the units employed to measure the physical variables. This led to the conclusion that meaningful laws must be homogeneous equations in their various units of measurement, a result which was eventually formalized in the Buckingham π theorem. This theorem describes how every physically meaningful equation involving n variables can be equivalently rewritten as an equation of n ??' m dimensionless parameters, where m is the number of fundamental dimensions used. Furthermore, and most importantly, it provides a method for computing these dimensionless parameters from the given variables.

A dimensional equation can have the dimensions reduced or eliminated through nondimensionalization, which begins with dimensional analysis, and involves scaling quantities by characteristic units of a system or natural units of nature. This gives insight into the fundamental properties of the system, as illustrated in the examples below.

Definition

The dimensions of a physical quantity are associated with combinations of mass, length, time, electric charge, and temperature, represented by symbols M, L, T, Q, and Θ, respectively, each raised to rational powers.

Note that dimension is more abstract than scale unit: mass is a dimension, while kilograms are a scale unit (choice of standard) in the mass dimension.

As examples, the dimension of the physical quantity speed is "distance/time" (L/T or LT ??'1), and the dimension of the physical quantity force is "mass ?- acceleration" or "mass?-(distance/time)/time" (ML/T 2 or MLT ??'2). In principle, other dimensions of physical quantity could be defined as "fundamental" (such as momentum or energy or electric current) in lieu of some of those shown above. Most physicists do not recognize temperature, Θ, as a fundamental dimension of physical quantity since it essentially expresses the energy per particle per degree of freedom, which can be expressed in terms of energy (or mass, length, and time). Still others do not recognize electric charge, Q, as a separate fundamental dimension of physical quantity, since it has been expressed in terms of mass, length, and time in unit systems such as the electrostatic cgs system. There are also physicists that have cast doubt on the very existence of incompatible fundamental dimensions of physical quantity.[2]

The unit of a physical quantity and its dimension are related, but not precisely identical concepts. The units of a physical quantity are defined by convention and related to some standard; e.g., length may have units of metres, feet, inches, miles or micrometres; but any length always has a dimension of L, independent of what units are arbitrarily chosen to measure it. Two different units of the same physical quantity have conversion factors between them. For example: 1 in = 2.54 cm; then (2.54 cm/in) is called a conversion factor (between two representations expressed in different units of a common quantity) and is itself dimensionless and equal to one. There are no conversion factors between dimensional symbols.

[edit] Mathematical properties

Dimensional symbols, such as L, form a group: There is an identity, L0 = 1; there is an inverse to L, which is 1/L or L??'1, and L raised to any rational power p is a member of the group, having an inverse of L??'p or 1/Lp. The operation of the group is multiplication, with the usual rules for handling exponents (Ln ?- Lm = Ln+m).

Indeed, dimensional symbols can be seen as a vector space over the rational numbers, with the coordinates of the vector being the powers of the exponents " expressing a dimensional symbol as MiLjTk corresponds to the vector (i,j,k). A basis for a given space of dimensional symbols is called a set of fundamental quantities or fundamental dimensions.

When quantities (be they like-dimensioned or unlike-dimensioned) are multiplied or divided by each other, their dimensional symbols are likewise multiplied or divided; this corresponds to vector addition or subtraction (on the exponents). When dimensioned quantities are raised to a rational power, the same is done to the dimensional symbols attached to those quantities; this corresponds to scalar multiplication on the exponents.

As in any vector space, one may choose different bases, which yield different physical interpretations.

[edit] Mechanics

In mechanics, the dimension of any physical quantity can be expressed in terms of the fundamental dimensions (or base dimensions) M, L and T " these form a 3-dimensional vector space. This is not the only possible choice, but it is the one most commonly used. For example, one might choose force, length and mass as the base dimensions (as some have done), with associated dimensions F, L, M; this corresponds to a different basis, and one may convert between these representations by a change of basis. The choice of the base set of dimensions is, thus, partly a convention, resulting in increased utility and familiarity. It is, however, important to note that the choice of the set of dimensions cannot be chosen arbitrarily " it is not just a convention " because the dimensions must form a basis: they must span the space, and be linearly independent.

For example, F, L, M form a set of fundamental dimensions because they form an equivalent basis to M, L, T: the former can be expressed as [F = ML / T2],L,M, while the latter can be expressed as M,L,[T = (ML / F)1 / 2].

On the other hand, using length, velocity and time (L, V, T) as base dimensions will not work well (they do not form a set of fundamental dimensions), for two reasons:

* Firstly, because there is no way to obtain mass " or anything derived from it, such as force " without introducing another base dimension (thus these do not span the space).
* Secondly, because velocity, being derived from length and time (V = L / T), is redundant (the set is not linearly independent).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 Aug, 2009 01:07 am
@The Pentacle Queen,
Univ. of Guelph:
http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/tutorials/dimanaly/

Math Skills:
http://www.chem.tamu.edu/class/fyp/mathrev/mr-da.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/01/2026 at 07:54:48