If energy is real and not merely an abstract accounting system: It is a constraint in physical phenomena in order to limit how it occurs. Thus when it gets too low, the less readily it will occur
Now its relation with entropy is intuitively obvious
@AaronStevens yeah, but that is technically a wrong analogy. Demonstrating a counterexample to this is very difficult because you need some kind of system with many degeneracies to show it "anti spreads" (I once read about that in a PSE which I forgot where I have bookmarked it now)
@SirCumference I guess the loose definition of "real" is it is empirically testable. So like, I can say electric fields are consistent with observations because when an electron is placed near a negatively charged source, it get accelerated away in a specific pattern dependent on where it is
Likewise, I can say energy is somewhat indirectly testable because the system behave in a way as if it is bounded above and below by some parameters, so something like how intense that phenomena is is proportional to how much relevant parameters are tuned or something
if you ask me, i'd say the terms "position" and "acceleration" (as physicists use them) are also mathematical, defined as elements in $\mathbb{R}^3$. it happens that $\mathbb{R}^3$ can be used very intuitively to represent what we see everyday
but if i were developing physics hundreds of years ago, it might not have occurred to me how good R^3 is at this
Yeah, I think it is only set theory that started to go really abstract. Even category theory, as abstract it is, is made to capture interrelation and commonalities between mathematical objects
Most of mathematics is really abstraction of intuitions
like fields are defined based on the intuitive observation on how numbers combined together, and numbers are first made to formalise counting
Humans have a hollow space inside our brain where cerebrospinal fluid is produced and circulated.
A disease exists called "normal pressure hydrocephalus" in which this space is enlarged, but pressure remains the same. I recall reading a paper in which they describe that as $P=F/A$, even though ...
@NovaliumCompany So how can programmers do programming? Computers is just a mathematical machine run by electronics and you have told me that both are not mandatory for programming.
@Knight In simplest of the simple words, IC Chips (just work like computers, have processors) to use in electronic devices involving binary signal processing module.
@Knight because of abstraction. The whole goal of high-level programming languages is to allow the programmer to work without knowing exactly how the 'guts' of the computer work. The idea is that there are layers of abstraction to make less and less computer-specific knowledge necessary as you go up. So you start with hand manipulating the logic gates, which no one wants to do, and then you get farther up and there's assembly language, and farther up and there's C (and then Python and such).
And the amount of math you need to know depends strongly on application. Writing a text-based game is very different from simulating some physical system, or doing something with graphics.
It's stupid to write it because it would mean that I have to waste time and I don't want to because I'm busy doing other stuff and you should also be because it's not good to waste your time.
User Jmac claims this site is about mainstream physics. Perhaps it should join religion SE then, because there are an infinite set of lines that can go through any finite set of points or observations. Does physics presume that after 500 years of empiricism and many upturnings of the field, that NOW it's finally "figured it out"?
@theDoctor the site is made for mainstream physics because it fits q and a format deviating from this leads to discussion which we don't want to produce.
@JMac By wires I mean the way AM Turing was working with his Christopher . Once I saw an image of a supercomputer and all I could I see was big big wires and something like bank locker and a man working on it
@theDoctor Religion SE is about religion, not physics. That suggestion doesn't make any sense. There's nothing in physics that suggests the current mainstream is everything "figured out". It just suggests that it conforms with the current best understanding that has been verified in the mainstream. If you don't want to talk about mainstream physics, you are better off finding a site that wants to handle non-mainstream physics.
Humans have a hollow space inside our brain where cerebrospinal fluid is produced and circulated.
A disease exists called "normal pressure hydrocephalus" in which this space is enlarged, but pressure remains the same. I recall reading a paper in which they describe that as $P=F/A$, even though ...
