Thought as impirical.

[czimborbryan]

Using mathematical models to help prove a theory is a way to break down the logic of what the brain has already discovered. It is a test for finding errors in thought.

 

I beleive it's possible, although improbable, that somebody out there may be able to use common everyday observations to leap to ground-breaking implications for physics without first doing anything with math (because the brain has already done this as a part of it's innate abilities).

 

Therefore, for a few people math may be more of a hinderance than a tool for making progress (because math is slow and akward).

 

It is also noteworthy to mention that few people with great mathematical proficiencies also have the ability for visualizing abstract models without the use of tools. This makes mathmatical thinkers excellent pescimists and abstract thinkers excellent optimists. Although, this doesn't mean either one group is right or wrong about anything.

[Bignose]

You miss the biggest point -- that math is there to make quantifiable and verifiable predictions. Without being able to make predictions that can be verified as right or wrong, all you have is a story. You don't even have a "hypothesis", much less a "theory". To get your idea beyond being just a collection of words, a story, you have to make quantifiable predictions and that requires math. Period.

[czimborbryan]

These predictions can also be dreamed up without any external tools because the brain is doing the approximate equivilent of math as a part of it's innate abilities.

 

Math in itself is no more than an externalized rendering of a thought process. Thought processes may be less accurate, but the trade off is with processing speed.

[Bignose]

You are neglecting a critical word -- quantifiable. If I use the mathematics of my idea to predict that the particle will be detected 58.9 mm from the detector 13.1 seconds after the experiment starts and it actually isn't detected until 28 seconds after the experiment starts -- then I know I have a problem with my idea.

 

How are you going to make a quantifiable prediction with words? "The particle will be detected after a short amount of time, but it wasn't, it showed up after a moderate amount of time..." What does any of that really mean? Your definition of "short" and "moderate" may be very different than mine. Your definition of 13.3 seconds is exactly the same as mine.

 

Words can create a pretty picture. They can be exceptionally descriptive, they can tell a great story. But, they aren't quantitative. That requires numbers. And, without quantitative predictions, you aren't doing science. You are telling a story. If you want to do science, you need to make quantitative predictions, with in almost every case is going to require math. There is no other way around it.

 

And finally, I think that "but the trade off is with processing speed." is an unfair generalization. There are several people I know who think in math terms faster than they think in "words". If you get very good at the math, you can pull this off too. Math is a perfectly valid thought process in its own right.

[czimborbryan]

You are neglecting a critical word -- quantifiable. If I use the mathematics of my idea to predict that the particle will be detected 58.9 mm from the detector 13.1 seconds after the experiment starts and it actually isn't detected until 28 seconds after the experiment starts -- then I know I have a problem with my idea.

 

How are you going to make a quantifiable prediction with words? "The particle will be detected after a short amount of time, but it wasn't, it showed up after a moderate amount of time..." What does any of that really mean? Your definition of "short" and "moderate" may be very different than mine. Your definition of 13.3 seconds is exactly the same as mine.

 

Words can create a pretty picture. They can be exceptionally descriptive, they can tell a great story. But, they aren't quantitative. That requires numbers. And, without quantitative predictions, you aren't doing science. You are telling a story. If you want to do science, you need to make quantitative predictions, with in almost every case is going to require math. There is no other way around it.

 

And finally, I think that "but the trade off is with processing speed." is an unfair generalization. There are several people I know who think in math terms faster than they think in "words". If you get very good at the math, you can pull this off too. Math is a perfectly valid thought process in its own right.

 

Yeah, I won't really argue with that, but approximation is important as well and some people have the nack to get pretty damn close using just abstract models of thought without utilizing math equations and proofs. I beleive this is how we as a civilization take enormous leaps in science and technology. At the same time, it will always come down to the math and engineering for making the idea usable.

 

I think that there should be a collaboration between those that think in purely abstract models with those that think in purely mathematical models. This may help to spur applicable theories in the same way the great thinkers throughout the ages have done on their own. Most people lack the ability of gifted abstract visualizations and gifted mathematical thought simultaineously.

[Bignose]

I think that there should be a collaboration between those that think in purely abstract models with those that think in purely mathematical models.

 

Not to sound too flip, but this exists already. It's called university. There is a reason the vast majority of scientific papers are co-authored -- because they are bringing together people of different strengths to make the final result stronger all around. This includes "idea" people and "math" people. Most departments (i.e. physics department, chemistry department, mechanical engineering department, etc.) have a whole range of people and most departments intentionally seek out people who are different from each other to (borrow a cliche) "make the whole greater than just the sum of its parts."

[czimborbryan]

The above point makes perfect sense and is probobly the best way to do it. The only problem is that somewhere out there is a complete genious that shovels dirt for a living and has developed a new theory that is a bit off, but has some salvagable elements that change the way we see the universe as we know it. Unfortunately, this dirt shoveling Einstein is mocked and greated with contempt by the established scientific community and ends up writing a science fiction novel instead.

 

Can the scientific community open a skeptical ear or is this too threatening? What happened to "what if"?

 

We must remember that when it comes to theoretical physics, the math gets shady because at times there needs to be an assumption.

[iNow]

Unfortunately, this dirt shoveling Einstein is mocked and greated with contempt by the established scientific community and ends up writing a science fiction novel instead.

 

Can the scientific community open a skeptical ear or is this too threatening? What happened to "what if"?

 

This shows a striking misunderstanding of the nature of science. You suggest that science and scientists are too threatened to open a skeptical ear, yet in reality the entire endevour of science itself is one of skepticism and challenge.

 

Bring your new ideas. Put them forward. If they are well supported and correct, they will be accepted. Until then, you can wave your hands all you want and appeal to what if's, but until your if's become "are's and is's" then you are (as Bignose rightly stated) simply telling stories.

[ajb]

We must remember that when it comes to theoretical physics, the math gets shady because at times there needs to be an assumption.

 

...and that is where mathematical physic comes in.

 

Anyway, a physical theory is a mathematical model. No way can you get round that fact.

 

It may be useful to use visualisations, interpretations and analogies. (All things I have done). However, they are no substitute for hitting the paper with pencil.

[YT2095]

forgive my ignorance, but what does "impirical" mean???

 

perhaps upon it`s definition we can move somewhat towards an explanation.

[iNow]

I think it means that the user couldn't spell "empirical."

[czimborbryan]

...and that is where mathematical physic comes in.

 

Anyway, a physical theory is a mathematical model. No way can you get round that fact.

 

It may be useful to use visualisations, interpretations and analogies. (All things I have done). However, they are no substitute for hitting the paper with pencil.

 

I guess what I'm shooting at is the genesis of a new concept, pre-scientific theory. Some people out there may have an incredible new concept that if worked out with proofs turns out to be valid, but they may not have the technical knowledge to do so. In a way, these concepts have potential energy and the math is the catalyst for releasing this energy. Most concepts have little to no potential energy while others may be explosive. There should be a way to differentiate concepts with little to no potential energy from the concepts with huge potential energy. Mind you, some of these concepts with high potential energy may not fit well with established theories, but such is life. There needs to be a way to reckon with this...scientifically. I'm imagining a social process that mimicks something like one of those giant atom smashers. Most tests result in nothing, but every now and then something big comes along.

[ajb]

Some people out there may have an incredible new concept that if worked out with proofs turns out to be valid, but they may not have the technical knowledge to do so.

 

That statement includes almost all researchers and professional scientists. What they then do is read papers, books, articles etc, talk to the people with the technical knowledge and then attempt to put it all together, either by themselves or as part of a collaboration. (Not necessarily in that order).

 

It is what I have had to do in order to even start to create original work. It is what everyone has to do. No short cut that I know of.

 

I find it hard to believe that someone without some scientific or mathematical background could contribute much to modern science. Asking "basic layman questions" is of course a very stimulating thing to scientist. One thing I wish I could do more effectively is describe my work to the layman.

[czimborbryan]

AJB,

You stated, "One thing I wish I could do more effectively is describe my work to the layman."

What area do you work in?

[ParanoiA]

Can the scientific community open a skeptical ear or is this too threatening? What happened to "what if"?

 

Nothing happened to "what if". You "what if'd" and they answered, respectfully, "no". Why say "if" if you're not prepared to get "no" as an answer? Is it too threatening for you to receive anything other than a "yes"?

 

Sorry, I usually don't jump in on these things but I've seen so many folks come in here and make believe scientists are narrow minded party poopers. Rather, they just follow through where you're not. They "what if" - and then they follow through by testing and confirming "if". And they have the unique ability to scratch the drawing board - no matter how painful - if it turns out "not".

Edited January 10, 2009 by ParanoiA
added czimborbryan name to the quote...

[czimborbryan]

Nothing happened to "what if". You "what if'd" and they answered, respectfully, "no". Why say "if" if you're not prepared to get "no" as an answer? Is it too threatening for you to receive anything other than a "yes"?

 

Sorry, I usually don't jump in on these things but I've seen so many folks come in here and make believe scientists are narrow minded party poopers. Rather, they just follow through where you're not. They "what if" - and then they follow through by testing and confirming "if". And they have the unique ability to scratch the drawing board - no matter how painful - if it turns out "not".

 

Good Point.

[ajb]

AJB,

You stated, "One thing I wish I could do more effectively is describe my work to the layman."

What area do you work in?

 

Mathematical physics from a modern geometry angle mostly. You can find out more via my website.

Edited January 10, 2009 by ajb

[mooeypoo]

The definition of the word "Empirical" will be very helpful here:

1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>

2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>

3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws> 4 : of or relating to empiricism

I bolded the words to emphasize the point here.

 

A thought experiment is very useful in physics, it is the "excercise" that is done out of curiousity, and it often sparks great ideas that turn out to be very good scientific theories, after some work.

 

But it can't - by definition - be empirical. A thought experiment is not an experiment and it's not an observation, and therefore it *cannot* be empirical. Empirical must be something that is completely unbiased and non objective; and that is the absolute opposite of a thought.

 

That's not to say that thoughts are useless. Of course they're not. As ParanoiA (and others) pointed out, they are the 'first step' -- scientists continune that step and run experiments to verify the "IF" in that "what if" thought.

 

~moo

[Baby Astronaut]

Not to sound too flip, but this exists already. It's called university. There is a reason the vast majority of scientific papers are co-authored -- because they are bringing together people of different strengths to make the final result stronger all around. This includes "idea" people and "math" people.

Then I might humbly suggest the forums add a new section to resemble this, where people with innovative deductions or "lightbulb moments" can submit them without being requested to provide the math. If any experts in that area feel it's worth investigating a bit further and it has enticing potential, they can humor it by playing with some math variables and test whether it comes apart immediately.

 

Or they can ignore it altogether. Its OP realizes there's no interest pursuing the avenue.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Baby Astronaut

[czimborbryan]

Then I might humbly suggest the forums add a new section to resemble this, where people with innovative deductions or "lightbulb moments" can submit them without being requested to provide the math. If any experts in that area feel it's worth investigating a bit further and it has enticing potential, they can humor it by playing with some math variables and test whether it comes apart immediately.

 

Or they can ignore it altogether. Its OP realizes there's no interest pursuing the avenue.

 

I second that motion, for reasons previously stated.