Math

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle is probably one of the most beautiful results in science , yet when stated in its usual form , it sounds so boring. Normally, it is stated us the product of uncertainties in positions and momentum always exceeds h/2*pi . Of course, it does imply that if you try to increase the precision of one of the two the other gets affected. Even though this seems quite easy to be mathematically understood, maybe the extent to which it could affect normal life can never be understood unless its stated differently. The form that appealed most to me was "The closer you try to observe something, the more likely you are to disturb it, hence not be able to observe it in its natural state ! " . This was in a tv show called numbers, which i find awesome cause its how to use math to solve crimes ! Sounds cool ! Anyway, like i was saying, this form of the law makes a lot of sense. In the show, the guy is trying to analyse data of how the robber is robbing banks, then just before they are apprehend the guy, he realises because he has been observing them so closely and because of the law they should be aware that he is observing them ! Of course when he tells the guy in charge, he uses the information that the robber knows that the police know to his advantage ! Anyway, if the law is thought of in this form, it seems to affect more things than just some dumb electrons flying around. For example, observation of animal behaviour in their "natural" habitat. Obviously because of the law, the more closer we observe animals, the more they are affected by us, and hence the purpose is no longer served. Hence we have to find an optimum as to how much we observe and how much we disturb. If we could somehow measure the quantities , maybe we can find a different constant like Planck's for animal behaviour. Giant panda's constant anyone?
Anyway , this kind of gets me thinking on why people insist on making mathematical statements of all these laws of "nature" ( Of course , they need not be actual laws. Again Feynman. He said that all the laws that we know off, are like some guy who doesn't know chess observing people play it. He makes up rules, until they're broken, after which he makes up new rules . ) The non-mathematical statement to me anyway seems to make a lot more sense. Another example would be newton's third law. "In an interaction between two objects, the force applied by one on the other is equal and opposite to the force applied by the second on the first". I prefer "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction" . This is true for so many things and sounds as a better law than the first did . Abstraction is a beautiful thing, though I've grown to hate it thanks to MA 203 . Of course there are subjects like topology which have abstraction at their core , which i still find amazing. KSR (Great mathematician, taught me math for jee . This guy takes geometry using just his hands ! Without a board. ) spoke about topology and I've been amazed by it ever since. Imagine trying to define a point. I have always wondered how to do it. Turns out everything can be defined working downwards. A point is the intersection of two lines, and a line of two planes and so on. But since we can't imagine the 4th spatial dimension, it could be difficult, though mathematically its quite easy. That is probably the greatness of math. When we can't even imagine the question properly, math seems to have an answer for us . Of course , it poses a lot of problems, but then thats another thing.