Mixing
How does a particle know how to behave?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
How does a particle know it should behave in such and such manner?
As a person, I can set mass is so and so, charge is so and so - then set up equation to solve its equation of motion but who computes that equation of motion for a particle in real life?
I, as a person, employ smart 'tricks' such as principle of superposition to avoid having to calculate super complicated situation (calculating electrical force by a shape where large circle is hollowed out in the off-center) but if I were to calculate this in a brute force manner, this would take long time for me to calculate. However, nature doesn't seem to face these types of problems.
Given a school of fish, the ones at the edge will sense threat and gives signal to those near them and so on but this analogy doesn't seem to make sense for physical objects generally considered in general physics problems. Am I asking the wrong type of question? Would appreciate input on this.
computational-physics time-evolution models
edited 9 secs ago
Qmechanic♦
97k121631029
asked 1 hour ago
Young Ha Kim
112
New contributor
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
How does a particle know it should behave in such and such manner?
As a person, I can set mass is so and so, charge is so and so - then set up equation to solve its equation of motion but who computes that equation of motion for a particle in real life?
I, as a person, employ smart 'tricks' such as principle of superposition to avoid having to calculate super complicated situation (calculating electrical force by a shape where large circle is hollowed out in the off-center) but if I were to calculate this in a brute force manner, this would take long time for me to calculate. However, nature doesn't seem to face these types of problems.
Given a school of fish, the ones at the edge will sense threat and gives signal to those near them and so on but this analogy doesn't seem to make sense for physical objects generally considered in general physics problems. Am I asking the wrong type of question? Would appreciate input on this.
computational-physics time-evolution models
edited 9 secs ago
Qmechanic♦
97k121631029
asked 1 hour ago
Young Ha Kim
112
New contributor
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Good question, but I think it's more of a philosophy question than a physics question.
– PM 2Ring
19 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
How does a particle know it should behave in such and such manner?
As a person, I can set mass is so and so, charge is so and so - then set up equation to solve its equation of motion but who computes that equation of motion for a particle in real life?
I, as a person, employ smart 'tricks' such as principle of superposition to avoid having to calculate super complicated situation (calculating electrical force by a shape where large circle is hollowed out in the off-center) but if I were to calculate this in a brute force manner, this would take long time for me to calculate. However, nature doesn't seem to face these types of problems.
Given a school of fish, the ones at the edge will sense threat and gives signal to those near them and so on but this analogy doesn't seem to make sense for physical objects generally considered in general physics problems. Am I asking the wrong type of question? Would appreciate input on this.
computational-physics time-evolution models
edited 9 secs ago
Qmechanic♦
97k121631029
asked 1 hour ago
Young Ha Kim
112
New contributor
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
How does a particle know it should behave in such and such manner?
As a person, I can set mass is so and so, charge is so and so - then set up equation to solve its equation of motion but who computes that equation of motion for a particle in real life?
I, as a person, employ smart 'tricks' such as principle of superposition to avoid having to calculate super complicated situation (calculating electrical force by a shape where large circle is hollowed out in the off-center) but if I were to calculate this in a brute force manner, this would take long time for me to calculate. However, nature doesn't seem to face these types of problems.
Given a school of fish, the ones at the edge will sense threat and gives signal to those near them and so on but this analogy doesn't seem to make sense for physical objects generally considered in general physics problems. Am I asking the wrong type of question? Would appreciate input on this.
computational-physics time-evolution models
computational-physics time-evolution models
edited 9 secs ago
Qmechanic♦
97k121631029
asked 1 hour ago
Young Ha Kim
112
New contributor
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 9 secs ago
Qmechanic♦
97k121631029
asked 1 hour ago
Young Ha Kim
112
New contributor
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 9 secs ago
Qmechanic♦
97k121631029
edited 9 secs ago
Qmechanic♦
97k121631029
edited 9 secs ago
Qmechanic♦
97k121631029
97k121631029
asked 1 hour ago
Young Ha Kim
112
New contributor
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 1 hour ago
Young Ha Kim
112
asked 1 hour ago
Young Ha Kim
112
112
New contributor
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
Good question, but I think it's more of a philosophy question than a physics question.
– PM 2Ring
19 mins ago
add a comment |Â
1
Good question, but I think it's more of a philosophy question than a physics question.
– PM 2Ring
19 mins ago
1
1
Good question, but I think it's more of a philosophy question than a physics question.
– PM 2Ring
19 mins ago
Good question, but I think it's more of a philosophy question than a physics question.
– PM 2Ring
19 mins ago
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I think this question makes hidden, inarticulated assumptions about reality. In physics, we make observations and then try to find models that match them. The models, though, belong only to us and exist in our heads and textbooks.
We perform the calculations required to make our predictions in our models. We cannot say whether nature makes similar calculations, and asking 'how' nature or particles perform calculations seems wrongheaded, to me. Jaynes called this the mind projection fallacy; you are projecting things that exist in your mind - calculations and models - to reality.
answered 59 mins ago
innisfree
10.5k32354
I tend to agree. This is closely related to the idea that the universe is a simulation. The problem is that it's impossible in principle to distinguish between a sufficiently good simulation and "the real thing".
– PM 2Ring
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
One way to think about it is that a particle "sniffs out" its immediate surroundings and reacts to gradient: a trend like a declining potential in one direction.
Single-celled organisms do this. Plant orient toward the sun. A rock on an incline "senses" that it's center-of-mass is slight off from the point of contact with the ground. This is all loosely speaking, of course.
In physics, differential equation capture the same idea. $F=fracdVdx=m fracd^2xdt^2.$ Tiny differentials give marching orders to particles and charges and spacetime.
There is another mathematical formulation, with Lagrangians and actions, where a particle chooses the path that minimizes the action, as if the particle knows which path to take. Or Fermat's theorem where light takes the path of least time, as if the photon is intelligent enough to compare a lot of paths. This may look like particles "know how to behave." However, mathematically these theorems are equivalent to differential equations. After all, you can divide a path into many tiny segments, and then you're back to the differentials of differential equations.
So it's all a very local computation that a particle needs perform. We find similar ideas all over science. For example, in (artificial) intelligence, there's the Hebb rule: many neurons are connected in a big network, but when the network "learns" each neuron makes small adjustments to how strong its connection is to nearest neighbors only. But as a result, the entire network can learn to perform a complex computation.
Hope this makes it feel a little more clear.
answered 37 mins ago
bernander
87018
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
I think this question makes hidden, inarticulated assumptions about reality. In physics, we make observations and then try to find models that match them. The models, though, belong only to us and exist in our heads and textbooks.
We perform the calculations required to make our predictions in our models. We cannot say whether nature makes similar calculations, and asking 'how' nature or particles perform calculations seems wrongheaded, to me. Jaynes called this the mind projection fallacy; you are projecting things that exist in your mind - calculations and models - to reality.
answered 59 mins ago
innisfree
10.5k32354
I tend to agree. This is closely related to the idea that the universe is a simulation. The problem is that it's impossible in principle to distinguish between a sufficiently good simulation and "the real thing".
– PM 2Ring
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
I think this question makes hidden, inarticulated assumptions about reality. In physics, we make observations and then try to find models that match them. The models, though, belong only to us and exist in our heads and textbooks.
We perform the calculations required to make our predictions in our models. We cannot say whether nature makes similar calculations, and asking 'how' nature or particles perform calculations seems wrongheaded, to me. Jaynes called this the mind projection fallacy; you are projecting things that exist in your mind - calculations and models - to reality.
answered 59 mins ago
innisfree
10.5k32354
I tend to agree. This is closely related to the idea that the universe is a simulation. The problem is that it's impossible in principle to distinguish between a sufficiently good simulation and "the real thing".
– PM 2Ring
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I think this question makes hidden, inarticulated assumptions about reality. In physics, we make observations and then try to find models that match them. The models, though, belong only to us and exist in our heads and textbooks.
We perform the calculations required to make our predictions in our models. We cannot say whether nature makes similar calculations, and asking 'how' nature or particles perform calculations seems wrongheaded, to me. Jaynes called this the mind projection fallacy; you are projecting things that exist in your mind - calculations and models - to reality.
answered 59 mins ago
innisfree
10.5k32354
I think this question makes hidden, inarticulated assumptions about reality. In physics, we make observations and then try to find models that match them. The models, though, belong only to us and exist in our heads and textbooks.
We perform the calculations required to make our predictions in our models. We cannot say whether nature makes similar calculations, and asking 'how' nature or particles perform calculations seems wrongheaded, to me. Jaynes called this the mind projection fallacy; you are projecting things that exist in your mind - calculations and models - to reality.
answered 59 mins ago
innisfree
10.5k32354
edited 29 mins ago
answered 59 mins ago
innisfree
10.5k32354
answered 59 mins ago
innisfree
10.5k32354
answered 59 mins ago
innisfree
10.5k32354
10.5k32354
I tend to agree. This is closely related to the idea that the universe is a simulation. The problem is that it's impossible in principle to distinguish between a sufficiently good simulation and "the real thing".
– PM 2Ring
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
I tend to agree. This is closely related to the idea that the universe is a simulation. The problem is that it's impossible in principle to distinguish between a sufficiently good simulation and "the real thing".
– PM 2Ring
16 mins ago
I tend to agree. This is closely related to the idea that the universe is a simulation. The problem is that it's impossible in principle to distinguish between a sufficiently good simulation and "the real thing".
– PM 2Ring
16 mins ago
I tend to agree. This is closely related to the idea that the universe is a simulation. The problem is that it's impossible in principle to distinguish between a sufficiently good simulation and "the real thing".
– PM 2Ring
16 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
One way to think about it is that a particle "sniffs out" its immediate surroundings and reacts to gradient: a trend like a declining potential in one direction.
Single-celled organisms do this. Plant orient toward the sun. A rock on an incline "senses" that it's center-of-mass is slight off from the point of contact with the ground. This is all loosely speaking, of course.
In physics, differential equation capture the same idea. $F=fracdVdx=m fracd^2xdt^2.$ Tiny differentials give marching orders to particles and charges and spacetime.
There is another mathematical formulation, with Lagrangians and actions, where a particle chooses the path that minimizes the action, as if the particle knows which path to take. Or Fermat's theorem where light takes the path of least time, as if the photon is intelligent enough to compare a lot of paths. This may look like particles "know how to behave." However, mathematically these theorems are equivalent to differential equations. After all, you can divide a path into many tiny segments, and then you're back to the differentials of differential equations.
So it's all a very local computation that a particle needs perform. We find similar ideas all over science. For example, in (artificial) intelligence, there's the Hebb rule: many neurons are connected in a big network, but when the network "learns" each neuron makes small adjustments to how strong its connection is to nearest neighbors only. But as a result, the entire network can learn to perform a complex computation.
Hope this makes it feel a little more clear.
answered 37 mins ago
bernander
87018
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
One way to think about it is that a particle "sniffs out" its immediate surroundings and reacts to gradient: a trend like a declining potential in one direction.
Single-celled organisms do this. Plant orient toward the sun. A rock on an incline "senses" that it's center-of-mass is slight off from the point of contact with the ground. This is all loosely speaking, of course.
In physics, differential equation capture the same idea. $F=fracdVdx=m fracd^2xdt^2.$ Tiny differentials give marching orders to particles and charges and spacetime.
There is another mathematical formulation, with Lagrangians and actions, where a particle chooses the path that minimizes the action, as if the particle knows which path to take. Or Fermat's theorem where light takes the path of least time, as if the photon is intelligent enough to compare a lot of paths. This may look like particles "know how to behave." However, mathematically these theorems are equivalent to differential equations. After all, you can divide a path into many tiny segments, and then you're back to the differentials of differential equations.
So it's all a very local computation that a particle needs perform. We find similar ideas all over science. For example, in (artificial) intelligence, there's the Hebb rule: many neurons are connected in a big network, but when the network "learns" each neuron makes small adjustments to how strong its connection is to nearest neighbors only. But as a result, the entire network can learn to perform a complex computation.
Hope this makes it feel a little more clear.
answered 37 mins ago
bernander
87018
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
One way to think about it is that a particle "sniffs out" its immediate surroundings and reacts to gradient: a trend like a declining potential in one direction.
Single-celled organisms do this. Plant orient toward the sun. A rock on an incline "senses" that it's center-of-mass is slight off from the point of contact with the ground. This is all loosely speaking, of course.
In physics, differential equation capture the same idea. $F=fracdVdx=m fracd^2xdt^2.$ Tiny differentials give marching orders to particles and charges and spacetime.
There is another mathematical formulation, with Lagrangians and actions, where a particle chooses the path that minimizes the action, as if the particle knows which path to take. Or Fermat's theorem where light takes the path of least time, as if the photon is intelligent enough to compare a lot of paths. This may look like particles "know how to behave." However, mathematically these theorems are equivalent to differential equations. After all, you can divide a path into many tiny segments, and then you're back to the differentials of differential equations.
So it's all a very local computation that a particle needs perform. We find similar ideas all over science. For example, in (artificial) intelligence, there's the Hebb rule: many neurons are connected in a big network, but when the network "learns" each neuron makes small adjustments to how strong its connection is to nearest neighbors only. But as a result, the entire network can learn to perform a complex computation.
Hope this makes it feel a little more clear.
answered 37 mins ago
bernander
87018
One way to think about it is that a particle "sniffs out" its immediate surroundings and reacts to gradient: a trend like a declining potential in one direction.
Single-celled organisms do this. Plant orient toward the sun. A rock on an incline "senses" that it's center-of-mass is slight off from the point of contact with the ground. This is all loosely speaking, of course.
In physics, differential equation capture the same idea. $F=fracdVdx=m fracd^2xdt^2.$ Tiny differentials give marching orders to particles and charges and spacetime.
There is another mathematical formulation, with Lagrangians and actions, where a particle chooses the path that minimizes the action, as if the particle knows which path to take. Or Fermat's theorem where light takes the path of least time, as if the photon is intelligent enough to compare a lot of paths. This may look like particles "know how to behave." However, mathematically these theorems are equivalent to differential equations. After all, you can divide a path into many tiny segments, and then you're back to the differentials of differential equations.
So it's all a very local computation that a particle needs perform. We find similar ideas all over science. For example, in (artificial) intelligence, there's the Hebb rule: many neurons are connected in a big network, but when the network "learns" each neuron makes small adjustments to how strong its connection is to nearest neighbors only. But as a result, the entire network can learn to perform a complex computation.
Hope this makes it feel a little more clear.
answered 37 mins ago
bernander
87018
edited 32 mins ago
answered 37 mins ago
bernander
87018
answered 37 mins ago
bernander
87018
answered 37 mins ago
bernander
87018
87018
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Young Ha Kim is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f429213%2fhow-does-a-particle-know-how-to-behave%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
Good question, but I think it's more of a philosophy question than a physics question.
– PM 2Ring
19 mins ago