Is Mathematics Alone a safe medium for exploring the frontiers of Science. Or should Observation and Hypothesis lead in front ?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. !

 

 

Post script. P.S.

 

. hypothesis : " a suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or

. as likely to be true. [ Greek hupotithenai to propose, literally: to put under ]"

 

. hypothesize or hypothesise "to put forward an hypothesis "

 

.

. h .................. " a man/woman who puts forward an hypothesis is called an h................ ( not sure )

 

 

. hypothetical : " based on assumption rather than fact or reality "

 

.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue) which it is in string theory and other maths orientated research.

Until experiment catches up with theory I am not sure what else we can do!

 

The only hopes of examining quantum gravity, as far as I can tell, is to look for the "shadow" in observational cosmology. For example, could one see the fingerprint of quantum gravity in the CMBR?

 

Black hole production in collider experiments could also shed light on quantum gravity.

 

Another possibility, astrophysical this time, could be the details of black hole astronomy. Black holes represent the strongest gravitational fields in the Universe.

Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothersisors , to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. !

Indeed, Einstein was a theoretical physicists, and as far as I know, conducted no experiments himself.

 

Physics provides much motivation for ideas in mathematics. Any radical break through with quantum gravity will be chased up by mathematicians; just as quantum mechanics spurred on developments in functional analysis and general relativity the study of Riemannian geometry.

[michel123456]

 

 

Indeed, Einstein was a theoretical physicists, and as far as I know, conducted no experiments himself.

 

 

 

You'll have to wait for 10 seconds:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=einsteins-only-known-expe

Edited February 9, 2013 by michel123456

[SamBridge]

Recent comments by an Astronomy orientated Researcher Dr Paul J Abel (Patrick Moore Sky at Night Fame ) (see ajb blogg), has posed questions as to whether maths should be leading the resolution of the ( Quantum Gravity issue), which it is, in string theory and other maths orientated research., Yet ( he indicates ) what is really required is a New Einstein ! Observers, Thinkers , and Hypothesis, to lead the field and then the mathematicians can follow and tidy up the details. !

 

 

Post script. P.S.

 

. hypothesis : " a suggested explanation for a group of facts, accepted either as a basis for further verification or

. as likely to be true. [ Greek hupotithenai to propose, literally: to put under ]"

 

. hypothesize or hypothesise "to put forward an hypothesis "

 

.

. h .................. " a man/woman who puts forward an hypothesis is called an h................ ( not sure )

 

 

. hypothetical : " based on assumption rather than fact or reality "

 

.

Mathematics itself can only take you so far before you actually need to test something. Einstein didn't automatically know every single detial of what he came up with, he started with a general idea, worked out some mathematics over time, and the rest of the scientific community tested it for him and made adjustments to his equations to fit the results.

Edited February 10, 2013 by SamBridge

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Mathematics itself can only take you so far before you actually need to test something. Einstein didn't automatically know every single detial of what he came up with, he started with a general idea, worked out some mathematics over time, and the rest of the scientific community tested it for him and made adjustments to his equations to fit the results.

 

Yes, you are right to some extent. Except his life story shows he did not start with maths, he was in fact not the best of students. However he was a great thinker, and did many many thought experiments. As you correctly said maths experts assisted him in getting the maths right, as others have done since. No doubt reading all the ideas coming into the patent office which he was clerk in fired his mind. BUT he did do the EINSTEIN bit and hypothesized (?) produce an hypothesis , for many things including the Brownian motion explanation of Atoms, The photon in photoelectric effect, brothers going off in space ships at very high speed, traveling at the speed of light on a beam and observing another beam near you, men blowing trumpets on railway trucks, shining a light from the track side into a train truck with an open door, RELATIVITY, people in elevator rockets by equivalents felt GRAVITY as an acceleration but not feeling velocity, and countless more. The Maths came afterwards assisted by others with experiments and tidied it all up.

 

What , was distinctive on his part was that he did a lot of observation, then thinking, then thought experiments, then thinking about other peoples experiments , then hypothesizing , THEN the MATHS , then go again. And we all know what he produced. Enough work to keep many an experimenter and many a mathematician going for years , including Heisenberg, Shroeniger, Dirac, etc and many today.

The maths itself can ( and indeed did with Shroeniger and Dirac and others reveal new RELATED things like anti-matter (Dirac).

However that is NOT to say it will be a path to ALL new descoveries, because the new discoveries may not lay in the path of that particular sphere of maths. NEW conceptual ideas may be required to FUEL a whole different area of (whatever) which in turn will need the Observations, Hypotheses , Experiments (possibly thought experiments), Maths , maybe even New Maths to take this whole new area of discovery into existence and development.

 

What is needed is a new Einstein type of person/s who can do the initial SPARK . Archemedese did it in the Bath looking at the water flowing over the top. Galileo did it I believe , looking at the Chandeliers swinging in the church all with the same time period, Newton did it with apples and goodness knows what. And of course Einstein did it . and others in this 20th/21st century have done it . What we need is scientists like them who can do similar SPARKS.

 

Then the Theoreticians , experimenters, Mathematicians, can try to tear it all apart, or develop it. But we must look for scientists with those initial SPARKS.

 

.

 

You'll have to wait for 10 seconds:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=einsteins-only-known-expe

 

The comments above are a response to your post also michel

Edited February 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[michel123456]

You can call me Michel

[swansont]

Yes, you are right to some extent. Except his life story shows he did not start with maths, he was in fact not the best of students. However he was a great thinker, and did many many thought experiments. As you correctly said maths experts assisted him in getting the maths right, as others have done since. No doubt reading all the ideas coming into the patent office which he was clerk in fired his mind. BUT he did do the EINSTEIN bit and hypothesized (?) produce an hypothesis , for many things including the Brownian motion explanation of Atoms, The photon in photoelectric effect, brothers going off in space ships at very high speed, traveling at the speed of light on a beam and observing another beam near you, men blowing trumpets on railway trucks, shining a light from the track side into a train truck with an open door, RELATIVITY, people in elevator rockets by equivalents felt GRAVITY as an acceleration but not feeling velocity, and countless more. The Maths came afterwards assisted by others with experiments and tidied it all up.

 

Um, no. The portrayal of Einstein as a poor student is a myth, and if you read his "miracle year" papers you will see that there is plenty of math contained in them. The math did not come afterward.

 

 

The maths itself can ( and indeed did with Shroeniger and Dirac and others reveal new RELATED things like anti-matter (Dirac).

However that is NOT to say it will be a path to ALL new descoveries, because the new discoveries may not lay in the path of that particular sphere of maths. NEW conceptual ideas may be required to FUEL a whole different area of (whatever) which in turn will need the Observations, Hypotheses , Experiments (possibly thought experiments), Maths , maybe even New Maths to take this whole new area of discovery into existence and development.

 

Sometimes theory pushes experiment. Sometimes experiment pushes theory.

 

What is needed is a new Einstein type of person/s who can do the initial SPARK . Archemedese did it in the Bath looking at the water flowing over the top. Galileo did it I believe , looking at the Chandeliers swinging in the church all with the same time period, Newton did it with apples and goodness knows what. And of course Einstein did it . and others in this 20th/21st century have done it . What we need is scientists like them who can do similar SPARKS.

 

We have scientists today who do these things. What is required is some awareness of what research is taking place, and by whom.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We have scientists today who do these things. What is required is some awareness of what research is taking place, and by whom.

 

That's what I keep asking. Who are these Scientists, so I can follow them , and get a really clear picture of what is going on in Quantum Theory. Give me the Top best three. Please. then the top ONE. Thanks.

 

Sorry, I hope that does not sound blunt, but I am desperate to locate a modern day Feynman or whoever !

Edited February 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

Quantum theory is a HUGE tent, incorporating probably a majority of physics investigation, so this needs to be narrowed down. The application of QM to very different problems makes an apples-to-apples comparison difficult if not impossible. I have no idea if the top people in e.g. condensed matter physics are better than the top people in atomic physics. But they both apply quantum theory in their research. How do you identify the top people in particle/high energy physics which have large collaborations?

 

Further, I rather doubt following the top researchers in any field is going to help, because reading and comprehending their journal articles pretty much demands that you be in the field.

[SamBridge]

Yes, you are right to some extent. Except his life story shows he did not start with maths, he was in fact not the best of students. However he was a great thinker, and did many many thought experiments. As you correctly said maths experts assisted him in getting the maths right, as others have done since. No doubt reading all the ideas coming into the patent office which he was clerk in fired his mind. BUT he did do the EINSTEIN bit and hypothesized (?) produce an hypothesis , for many things including the Brownian motion explanation of Atoms, The photon in photoelectric effect, brothers going off in space ships at very high speed, traveling at the speed of light on a beam and observing another beam near you, men blowing trumpets on railway trucks, shining a light from the track side into a train truck with an open door, RELATIVITY, people in elevator rockets by equivalents felt GRAVITY as an acceleration but not feeling velocity, and countless more. The Maths came afterwards assisted by others with experiments and tidied it all up.

 

What , was distinctive on his part was that he did a lot of observation, then thinking, then thought experiments, then thinking about other peoples experiments , then hypothesizing , THEN the MATHS , then go again. And we all know what he produced. Enough work to keep many an experimenter and many a mathematician going for years , including Heisenberg, Shroeniger, Dirac, etc and many today.

The maths itself can ( and indeed did with Shroeniger and Dirac and others reveal new RELATED things like anti-matter (Dirac).

However that is NOT to say it will be a path to ALL new descoveries, because the new discoveries may not lay in the path of that particular sphere of maths. NEW conceptual ideas may be required to FUEL a whole different area of (whatever) which in turn will need the Observations, Hypotheses , Experiments (possibly thought experiments), Maths , maybe even New Maths to take this whole new area of discovery into existence and development.

 

What is needed is a new Einstein type of person/s who can do the initial SPARK . Archemedese did it in the Bath looking at the water flowing over the top. Galileo did it I believe , looking at the Chandeliers swinging in the church all with the same time period, Newton did it with apples and goodness knows what. And of course Einstein did it . and others in this 20th/21st century have done it . What we need is scientists like them who can do similar SPARKS.

 

Then the Theoreticians , experimenters, Mathematicians, can try to tear it all apart, or develop it. But we must look for scientists with those initial SPARKS.

 

.

 

 

The comments above are a response to your post also michel

This "spark" you are referring to is nothing, if you've noticed there's many so called "theories" on this site that are complete garbage. Einstein did use math and he quit school by his own will, in fact Einstein was nearly prodigal when it came to using mathematics and thinking.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Quantum theory is a HUGE tent, incorporating probably a majority of physics investigation, so this needs to be narrowed down. The application of QM to very different problems makes an apples-to-apples comparison difficult if not impossible. I have no idea if the top people in e.g. condensed matter physics are better than the top people in atomic physics. But they both apply quantum theory in their research. How do you identify the top people in particle/high energy physics which have large collaborations?

 

Further, I rather doubt following the top researchers in any field is going to help, because reading and comprehending their journal articles pretty much demands that you be in the field.

 

I don't in a way disagree with what you say. I keep getting shudders, thinking about how the middle ages was rank by keeping the population at bay , in ignorance by keeping the sacred truths in Latin , saying " you are not able to read the sacred text , come to us and we will interpret the sacred truths for you "

 

Echos of " only if you are in the field can you understand" , " this can only be understood by maths " Common people want to understand, The scientific priests are saying " you can't understand, because you don;t know the maths, you are not in the field" It seems symptomatic of specialisms like for example computer software.

 

Despite comments made, I take my hat off to Prof Brian Cox , and his model Karl Sagan who popularised what was and is clearly a passion to them - Their Love of the COSMOS

 

.

 

This "spark" you are referring to is nothing, if you've noticed there's many so called "theories" on this site that are complete garbage. Einstein did use math and he quit school by his own will, in fact Einstein was nearly prodigal when it came to using mathematics and thinking.

Don,'t get me wrong . I am not knocking Einstein, he was a prodigy , by heck he got it right, even his brain when examined had his spacial lobe joined to his time perception lobe. Perhaps he left school because he was ahead of his teachers.. I am attempting to tease out of his life, what made his life so scientifically enlightening . But despite triple integrals appearing on his notes he still came up with easy to understand models, even though he was a great thinker..

Edited February 10, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I don't in a way disagree with what you say. I keep getting shudders, thinking about how the middle ages was rank by keeping the population at bay , in ignorance by keeping the sacred truths in Latin , saying " you are not able to read the sacred text , come to us and we will interpret the sacred truths for you "

 

Echos of " only if you are in the field can you understand" , " this can only be understood by maths " Common people want to understand, The scientific priests are saying " you can't understand, because you don;t know the maths, you are not in the field" It seems symptomatic of specialisms like for example computer software.

 

Unlike the middle ages, it is possible — even easy — to gain access to the materials you need to learn the basic math and science. What's stopping you?

 

I love that people want to learn about science. But my enthusiasm wanes when I get blamed (and that's what "scientific priests" feels like) for not being able to take many years of school and compressing it down to a level where someone else can understand, because they are not even scientifically literate. It's like demanding to be spoon fed some baby food because they are too lazy to chew.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Unlike the middle ages, it is possible — even easy — to gain access to the materials you need to learn the basic math and science. What's stopping you?

 

I love that people want to learn about science. But my enthusiasm wanes when I get blamed (and that's what "scientific priests" feels like) for not being able to take many years of school and compressing it down to a level where someone else can understand, because they are not even scientifically literate. It's like demanding to be spoon fed some baby food because they are too lazy to chew.

 

I have obviously hit a nerve. Go and look at "discussion" I have actually praised you there !

.

. Look I have had Maths coming out of my ears , ( six years in University with Physics with Maths ) but it still does my head in !

I am obviously not a born Maths person or i would love it , and I don'T , it hurts !

 

I can OBSERVE, THINK, EXPERIMENT and HYPOTHESIZE all day forever But maths does not do it for me ! I can do it , if I am forced and probably get a temporary sense of achievement ! But do it forever NO WAY HOSAY

Edited February 11, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[ajb]

I am obviously not a born Maths person or i would love it , and I don'T , it hurts !

 

 

In life the most rewarding experience come from doing things that are hard. As the old adage goes, no pain no gain.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

In life the most rewarding experience come from doing things that are hard. As the old adage goes, no pain no gain.

Ha HA !

[swansont]

I have obviously hit a nerve.

 

Insults tend to do that. Isn't that the point of using them?

[ajb]

Ha HA !

 

 

Okay, I just re-read what I posted. Please do not take what I said in the wrong context. I must also thank my wife for pointing this out to me.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Okay, I just re-read what I posted. Please do not take what I said in the wrong context. I must also thank my wife for pointing this out to me.

 

I am taking ALL in good humor and taste.

 

Insults tend to do that. Isn't that the point of using them?

 

No. It is not meant as an insult. I am quite convinced that leaning on maths as a pioneer of new ideas is a "wrong turn" , This has currently strangled major creative thinking by the 'establishment' giving too much elevation to mathematical prowess , at the expense of scorn being heaped on creative thinking.. Be it that such creative thinking does not sit 'center stage' with current established theory.

[swansont]

No. It is not meant as an insult.

 

I'm afraid that I can't take being called a scientific priest as compliment.

 

I am quite convinced that leaning on maths as a pioneer of new ideas is a "wrong turn" , This has currently strangled major creative thinking by the 'establishment' giving too much elevation to mathematical prowess , at the expense of scorn being heaped on creative thinking.. Be it that such creative thinking does not sit 'center stage' with current established theory.

 

Scorn isn't being placed, much less heaped, on creative thinking. Rigor and testing is being applied to hypotheses. But the language scientists use is mathematics. There is no other way to express ideas at the resolution necessary to do experiments.

 

If you're talking about here at the forums, scorn may have been applied to the defenses of ideas that had been shown to be incorrect.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I'm afraid that I can't take being called a scientific priest as compliment.

Unless I am loosing my marbles, I do not believe I have leveled such an Idea at you personally Swansot, In fact I keep saying that I personally have been treated well by your good self. Twice now , if not thrice. I was describing a very widespread attitude amongst academia , and other established professions, often in areas of technical specialism, of superiority and protectionism about their position. If you feel you are in that class, I have certainly not leveled it at you as an individual. As I have said and now yet again ,I have been treated by you in the way I feel comfortable with. Now enough of the compliments.

But the language scientists use is mathematics. There is no other way to express ideas at the resolution necessary to do experiments.

This is the point I am trying to make in my thread " should Maths pioneer .........or observation, hypothesis...etc"

Maths is one of the tools, a very precise tool such as a micrometer to an engineer, but if what is required is to blast a hole through a mountainside , a well placed set of dynamite would be a more suitable tool than a micrometer, which in these circumstances would be useless.

 

Such might be the case with breaking new ground in science when 90% of the universe is not understood what with dark matter and dark energy. We may need to dynamite our way through scientific dogma to get to the other side of these mountainous 'ignorance ' of understanding. , break new ground, find new concepts , then hand the framework of ideas to the mathematicians with their micrometers to put some detailed flesh on the NEW yes CRUDE THESIS. Stand aside for a moment and let the roughneck dynamite scientists in for a moment . Stand back a little and give them room.

 

 

 

I am here proposing a clearly marked BLUE section Identified as a discussion and debate forum for NEW, Blue sky style ideas, which may be freely discussed , yet able to be challenged by others who have difficulties with coming to terms with these ideas. It can be noted that these ideas are as yet unproven and only of "work in progress" status.

 

I think to demand that only 'papers to be quoted' and only Maths to be used as a test. would be to cramp the style of ambitious thinking. The style you say is necessary for PHD style research.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

I think one needs to actually be familiar with the scientific research process in order to validly criticize the scientific research process.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think one needs to actually be familiar with the scientific research process in order to validly criticize the scientific research process.

Fine. I accept your comment. But surely this Science Forum is not set up as a sorting house for main stream research . is it. I thought it was a welcome for all science orientated individuals who respectfully may have contact with colleagues and individuals. with more expertise .

[swansont]

Fine. I accept your comment. But surely this Science Forum is not set up as a sorting house for main stream research . is it. I thought it was a welcome for all science orientated individuals who respectfully may have contact with colleagues and individuals. with more expertise .

 

Certainly. I see no conflict in that, regarding my prior statements.

 

IOW, if you are not a scientist, there is a difference between asking a scientist about something, and telling them the way it is. That, in a nutshell, is the difference between the mainstream forums and speculations.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

I think one needs to actually be familiar with the scientific research process in order to validly criticize the scientific research process.

 

The aspect of EXPLORATION that I am discussing in this thread is: -

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That if there is an area of science ( as yet undiscovered) sitting in a sea of scientific existence , out there somewhere. We exist on our island of known scientific understanding , together with all our current maths, used as you say as a mechanism of science, well spread across our isolated island of experience. Here we all sit with scientific understanding and mathematical rigor right up to the shore line all the way round the island.

 

Now what . How do we get to have a go at that NEW island of Scientific knowledge ready to be developed, possibly with a new set of maths.

 

Maths is just like a mat of underground roots. covering our island. But it needs a medium to exist in like land. Can not get to the new island of knowledge.!

 

Now , as opposed to this island confinement, our Conceptual thinking scientists can go anywhere, fly across the water, Concepts don't need any medium like maths does. Maths is like a living cell, ,bacteria, or virus, it needs a host to live in, infect ,or perhaps even kill its host.

 

Having gained access to this new island area of as yet undiscovered scientific knowledge , The maths can either be shipped across or new maths invented to explore this new island of knowledge.

 

All maths can do at the moment is continue to explore our CURRENT ISLAND of knowledge and reality. It is trapped. And if we let maths call the tune, saying to science " you can't go anywhere without me " we will remain trapped ! We need to make a flight to a whole new island of reality, science and its obedient faithful good old maths will ALL benefit . ( as we both sniff and take a breath of fresh new discovered air ) .

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I know this sounds like I have gone completely off my trolley. But I was just trying to paint a rather emphatic picture as to why it would be good to let some concept based science thinkers loose to ( Fly the waters to the next Island.)

Edited February 13, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[swansont]

You speak as if people aren't already trying to think of new things.