whats up with physicists and not understanding what they teach?

[Anonymous No.12616839]

every time ti try to ask these guys for an explanation of some sort from first principles they always resort to shitty false analogies and when pressed on it so they can get a real answer that actually explains what im asking they either give up or chimp out and feel insulted. is this why mathematicians laugh at them all the time?

[Anonymous No.12616862]

>>12616839
Sounds more like you asked a brainlet question and pushed it until a professor got fed up with you holding the rest of the class back.

[Anonymous No.12616867]

>>12616839
What do you mean by first principles?
Do you want them to name what each symbol on an equation means? Or point to experiment results?
I'm a mathematician and I think physicists are ok.

[Anonymous No.12616869]

>>12616839
Gib exampl

[Anonymous No.12616873]

>>12616862
i mean im learning every other subject fine and the analogies are literally always false equivalencies, if you have some magical source where they actually explain how they conclude things without just sperging about how its "just the way it is" then please provide. im talking to these guys right now and they are literally telling me that they dont need to know because some smart guys did the thinking for them when they came up with this shit.

[Anonymous No.12616882]

>>12616873
Why are you posting about a personal conversation with absolutely no specifics apart from some vague "I talked to these guys and they said DUDE FEYNMAN LMAO"?
This thread is already total shit.

[Anonymous No.12616884]

>>12616839
Give an example

[Anonymous No.12616888]

>>12616867
i'll give you an example. back in high school when i was learning mechanics i was confused about contact forces because i didn't understand how they worked and where they came from. i spent about a month trying to get my physics teacher to answer me and going into discord or forums asking where these guys came from and literally all i would ever get told was newtons third law. this never actually answered the question and if i would press they would just start going in circles or calling me stupid. eventually someone finally told me that contact forces are infact not their own force but a result of electro statics and the same thing causes friction and is because of the atomic structure of most objects. this literally took about a month to find out and half of these faggots didn't know it at all and just assumed it to be newtons 3rd law because thats what they were told when a proper solution was so easy to explain. same for most shit in physics i have learned so far

[Anonymous No.12616889]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

look at this brainlet chimp out when asked a simple question about magnets

[Anonymous No.12616892]

>>12616882
because i want to know why they are like this, i assume me asking the same question here will get a mix response of spergy physicists and some mathematicians who could possibly give me a proper answer

[Anonymous No.12616899]

>>12616889
this is exactly what i mean, see how defensive he got the moment he literally just asked why and then the faggot spergs out and turns an easy question into a philosophical debate.

[Anonymous No.12616900]

>>12616888
This isn't an example of anything except for a poorly worded question. If the question is "how do they work" then there's nothing wrong with Newton's third law as an answer since that's a general principle.
If the question was "where do these particular forms of force come from" then you would definitely have received the answer that frictional forces come from electromagnetic interactions.
This story didn't happen or it was embellished to make you look like less of a retard.

[Anonymous No.12616901]

>>12616889
>>12616899
kek, filtered
He explained it perfectly fine if you listen to his full answer

[Anonymous No.12616903]

>>12616888
>Confused about contact forces
>Doesn't know where they come from
Brainlet. They come from contact.
>Newton's 3rd law
Accurate. More accurately, you need Newton's 1st and 2nd laws as well. If the only vertical force acting on an object is gravity, it should fall. But it doesn't fall. Ergo, a counter force must exist. This only exists when an object is in contact with another.
>Electrostatic force
This is because the contact force is proportional to the friction force, which is determined by the atomic structure of objects.

Your teacher explained it fine because he actually got a brainlet like you to understand it. Dude has the patience of a saint.

>t. Physicist

[Anonymous No.12616910]

>>12616888
First I would like to point that you didn't solve the problem, you moved one step down. What explains electro magnetic interactions "from first principles"?

The answer is that what you call "first principles" is actually empiricism. The results of experiments are what all those theories are built upon. Newton didn't know about atoms, he simply observed that the laws of motion were true everywhere and took them as a given.

[Anonymous No.12616911]

>>12616839
STOP POSTING FROGS!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.12616912]

>>12616900
seems like a stupid cope, you and i both know that those are basically the same questions nd in either case just saying newtons 3rd law is a terrible answer as there is so much more to explain for example what aspect of the objects causes the force? what determines the size of the force? how long does it act for? just saying newtons 3rd law is literally a nothing answer and only explains something that was already understand to be applied to any force in any scenario anyway so its useless

[Anonymous No.12616915]

>>12616912
>what aspect of the objects causes the force?
Its mass.
>what determines the size of the force?
Its mass.
>how long does it act for?
For as long as the object is in contact... Because it's a contact force...

What's your IQ? You shouldn't be struggling this much with concepts this fundamental.

[Anonymous No.12616934]

>>12616915
well, its the electro static field created between the surfaces of both the objects, which really means its Columbus law that causes the force and the mass determs then the acceleration. this also means that "contact" in reeality is the very small ammount of time the force will meaningfully be applied which could for simple object be calculated without knowing the time beforehand which your method would require. you are intentionally leaving out that very crucial step and like the rest of the physicists giving me a shitty half answer. no amount of petty insulting will change this fact.

[Anonymous No.12616953]

>>12616839
low effort bait

[Anonymous No.12616959]

>>12616953
it seemed to work pretty well desu, these physicists cant stand it when they are told the truth

[Anonymous No.12616963]

>>12616934
He didn't explain what mass is either.
As I said: "first principles" as you mean it is just the result of experiments.
Mass is a property we can measure and we can also measure how it affects force.

[Anonymous No.12616965]

>>12616959
The low effort part was where you posted such a shit example you got perfectly good explanations from almost every /sci/ poster so far which is a real feat

[Anonymous No.12616967]

>>12616965
lol samefag

[Anonymous No.12616974]

>>12616963
i mean fair enough, but that doesn't deter from my point as the results from experiments trying to understand for example contact forces would just conclude what nobody would actually explain to me and would answer my original questions.

[Anonymous No.12616975]

>>12616839
i mean as jokes go the field is basic as fuck.. kinda hilarious to see the reactions though.
at least mummy is proud of her big boy

[Anonymous No.12616977]

>>12616959
>desu
new and larping
just wow.

[Anonymous No.12616982]

>>12616977
irrelevant to my point.

[Anonymous No.12617008]

>>12616974
Not sure I understand what you mean but:
You can try to explain forces from atomic interactions and you can try to explain atomic interactions from quarks. But none of those things are "first principles" they are results of experiments and the most we know. If we found out tomorrow that atoms were a big pharma conspiracy to sell more vaccines, the laws of motion would still hold.

The "first principles" are the experiments.

[Anonymous No.12617035]

>>12617008
i mean yeah i agree, i guess first principles is the wrong word but i still dont see how that changes my point. lets put it thsi way of we were archaic humans who suddenly started messing with physics and we tested rock collisions together, we would want an explanation for my previous questions. some more would be at what point actually is contact? as you can get infinitely small distances and still have some space so when does the force actually force them apart? how is the force calculated with objects with different types of shape? in general there is a distinct definition of what the contact force really is aside from literally just an unexplained force that makes things repel each other in an unexplained fashion and all we wouldn't really know is that it works untill we look at the stuff that makes up the objects and understand the actual phenomenon of what causes the force. this is the issue with just saying newtons 3rd law as you are not getting a full picture of why. im not saying that its prefect the scientific method works that way and like you said tomorrow it could all be proven wrong but that doesn't justify not bothering to answer the questions to the fullest we can so we can get a whole picture

[Anonymous No.12617054]

>>12617035
I guess we would arrive at the same questions of what matter is. I guess your teacher could have given the atomic explanation, I learned that in school.
As for what point actually is contact: it isn't. Protons, neutrons and electrons only really touch in subatomic process like fusion. Even then, they don't really touch, since they are also waves.
I have to sleep now.

[Anonymous No.12617062]

>>12617054
night bro, thanks for the info there is still a lot i dont know about and non-midwits is a good sight when discussing science or just anything stem related

[Anonymous No.12617132]

>>12616888
Because in high school kinematics you don't need to and you shouldn't worry about quantum field theory. In fact, going that deep will harm your understanding, since you have to build a solid macroscale conceptual groundwork of physics for lower level explanations to have any meaning. It's a lot easier to understand that the force of the ball=-the force of the wall than balancing the vector gradient of the E and B fields over the trillions of electrons at the point of contact, especially if you don't have any multivariable calculus under your belt.
Also, a high school teacher is not a physicist. If they actually had an undergrad physics degree, they likely had 2 classes which dealt with field interaction with any rigor, depending on where and WHEN they went to school.