Sani5's ideas on maths and physics

[Sani5]

[Moderator Note: this thread was created by splitting out posts in the why math? thread. It contains posts relevant to the OT discussion in that thread, on Sani5's ideas about the relationship between maths and physics.]

without math you are doing philosophy not physics.

In which branch of philosophy would you get away with free variables like Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

Science, BTW, is a philosophical discipline known as empiricism.

Maths is a discipline based 'loosely' on logic. I say loosely has no logical connection has ever been proved, despite the best efforts of mathemeticians and philosophers.

Maths is an important, dare I say, vital tool, but it should be subordinate to physics. General Relativity, for example, puts it in the driving seat. This is a dangerous leap of faith.

Remember the 'Heavier than Air Flight' is impossible argument? They had the Math to 'prove' it. Unfortunately for the naysayers (The leading scientific authorities of the day), the NEW phyics required NEW math. Take note of the sequence there, please.

The lesson is simple, though often ignored. Always start with the physics. Hypothesis (preferably daring), expermient, observation, prediction/measurement, blah. For best results, stir in the math later on, or the cake might look like it was left out in the rain.

[Nereid]

Them thar's fightin' words, Sani5!

In which branch of philosophy would you get away with free variables like Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

I guess any branch of philosophy which comes up with such nonsense as naive falsificationism would have no problems whatsoever with neutrinos (which, in the period from Pauli to Savannah River, were in the same boat as DM).

Besides, DM as a concept fits beautifully (=consistently) with a range of indepedent observations, underlying which are several quite different theories of physics, each well-established in a lab near you.

Science, BTW, is a philosophical discipline known as empiricism.

It is? And what did this empiricism do to contribute to the development of the internet (for example)? How many of the developers of the internet were trained in this 'empiricism' philosophy? How did it help them?

Maths is a discipline based 'loosely' on logic. I say loosely has no logical connection has ever been proved, despite the best efforts of mathemeticians and philosophers.

I'm sure that would be quite a shock to Godel, Russell, Hilbert, Turing, Church, and many others!

Maths is an important, dare I say, vital tool, but it should be subordinate to physics. General Relativity, for example, puts it in the driving seat. This is a dangerous leap of faith.

When you've developed some physics, Sani5, that does not use maths, would you be kind enough to let me know (via a post on BAUT)?

I'm also curious to know how you can describe the relevant physics well enough for anyone reading your post to go about making a better computer chip, without any maths, of course.

Remember the 'Heavier than Air Flight' is impossible argument? They had the Math to 'prove' it. Unfortunately for the naysayers (The leading scientific authorities of the day), the NEW phyics required NEW math. Take note of the sequence there, please.

Noted. What does this have to do with 'physics without maths'?

The lesson is simple, though often ignored. Always start with the physics. Hypothesis (preferably daring), expermient, observation, prediction/measurement, blah. For best results, stir in the math later on, or the cake might look like it was left out in the rain.

Good.

Now please show how you intend to do any 'experiment', 'observation', 'prediction/measurement', in astrophysics, without math. No, I'm not kidding, please show us.

[papageno]

In which branch of philosophy would you get away with free variables like Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

Which branch of philosophy has to face quantitative experimental tests?

Science, BTW, is a philosophical discipline known as empiricism.

It used to be Natural Philosophy.
If Science does not do experiments, how can we tell that the theories are correct?

Maths is a discipline based 'loosely' on logic. I say loosely has no logical connection has ever been proved, despite the best efforts of mathemeticians and philosophers.

You mean, mathematics does not follow rigorously logical rules?

Maths is an important, dare I say, vital tool, but it should be subordinate to physics.

Maths is a discipline of its own.

General Relativity, for example, puts it in the driving seat. This is a dangerous leap of faith.

No faith required: experiments show that GR is quite correct.

Remember the 'Heavier than Air Flight' is impossible argument? They had the Math to 'prove' it. Unfortunately for the naysayers (The leading scientific authorities of the day), the NEW phyics required NEW math. Take note of the sequence there, please.

No new maths nor new physics was required: only new technology to have enough power to lift the plane.

The lesson is simple, though often ignored. Always start with the physics. Hypothesis (preferably daring), expermient, observation, prediction/measurement, blah. For best results, stir in the math later on, or the cake might look like it was left out in the rain.

So, when Maxwell's theory predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves and Dirac's theory predicted the existence of antiparticles, they were doing it the wrong way?

[Sani5]

Them thar's fightin' words, Sani5!I guess any branch of philosophy which comes up with such nonsense as naive falsificationism would have no problems whatsoever with neutrinos (which, in the period from Pauli to Savannah River, were in the same boat as DM).

How about neutrinos changing their flavour on their way from the sun? Spot on, Neried. That concept is very much in the same sinking ship!

Besides, DM as a concept fits beautifully (=consistently) with a range of indepedent observations, underlying which are several quite different theories of physics, each well-established in a lab near you.

Who am I to undermine your faith in mathematical abstraction?

And what did this empiricism do to contribute to the development of the internet (for example)?

What's the englishmen who invented t'internet got to do t'price of beef? Nowt, I supsect!

How did it help them?I'm sure that would be quite a shock to Godel, Russell, Hilbert, Turing, Church, and many others!

Er, no. Russell would not be surprised, given that he openly admitted his failure in this regard! You're fighting a hopeless reargurad!

Now please show how you intend to do ny 'experiment', 'observation', 'prediction/measurement', in astrophysics, without math. No, I'm not kidding, please show us.

You miss the point, yet, again, which is that Math should be subordinate to Physics. No one is undermining the VITAL role of math. It is a question of priorities. Maths is important, but without the physics (FIRST) it is impotent, as history testifies ... and those who are ignorant of history...

Your rhetoric rests and falls on this central premise!

[Sani5]

Maths is a discipline of its own.

Yes, and that is THE PROBLEM!

Thank you for clearing this up so concisely!

[papageno]

Maths is a discipline of its own.

Yes, and that is THE PROBLEM!

Thank you for clearing this up so concisely!

You missed my point, as you did with the rest of my post.

Maths is an intellectual endeavour that has its own worth and should not be subordinate to other disciplines. Its existence and pursuit does not need to be justified by its usefulness to other disciplines.
Natural Philosophy moved finally forwad to become Science when it stopped being subordinate to Religion and Philosophy.

[Sani5]

Well, did I open up a can of worms here?

Aye, top post.

However, rather than getting into the relative merits of the different philosophical disciplines -- empiricism, logic, metaphysics, et al, I will try and stick to the central thrust of my argument.

MATH SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO PHYSICS!

Why? Simple, really: Because history demonstrates that Mathematical truthes do not necessarily reflect physical reality.

For example:

1. Epicycles. Elegant and mathematically correct, but...

2. "Heavier than air flight is not posssible". The mathematical proofs were wrong! The new physics required new math.

3. Kristian Birkeland is regarded as one of the founding fathers of plasma related thought. His approach to science was broad, comprising observation and laboratory experimentation in addition to mathematical modelling. He was not content with a merely theoretical approach, despite having trained as a mathematician.

Sydney Chapman (1888-1970) was regarded as a leader in the field of interplanetary magnetospheric physics for a while after the death of Birkeland. He refused to discuss many of Birkeland's ideas and, by contrast, relied on mathematical models.

Guess what? Chapman's models were wrong. He claimed that The Earth moved through a vacuum!

Math is tool, and a very useful one, but is should be used as a tool, and not for the foundations.

[Sani5]

Maths is an intellectual endeavour that has its own worth and should not be subordinate to other disciplines.

I am arguing that it should be subordinate to Physics. That is the point.

I'm with Herbert Dingle on this one, from Science at the Crossroards:

“... Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory...”

[Sani5]

But all this does not address why ATM proponents are often not willing to give even an OOM estimate of the effects they are describing.

Because there is no guarantee that Math based theory will reflect physical reality! Observation and measurement et al should come first.

Even if OOM estimates are wrong, it doesn't necessarily follow that electrical effects are negligible, as supposed by the 'mainstream' in the EU thread.

Edited to add: Granted, many EU theories, from what I can make out, are lacking in Math, but I do not think that this is necessarily a fatal flaw for all the reasons above.

[Nereid]

Because there is no guarantee that Math based theory will reflect physical reality! Observation and measurement et al should come first.

How do you, the arbiter of all things scientific, determine 'first'?

Think Maxwell and Dirac (see papageno's post), Gravity ProbeB, gravitational lensing, Shapiro time delay, ... (what would there be to test without GR?), the Psi/J particles, the top quark, ... (the theory 'came first', n'est pas?), and so on.

Did I miss something? You have a method that guarantees results? (perhaps it's a philosophy-based method?)

[tusenfem]

For example:

1. Epicycles. Elegant and mathematically correct, but...

Mathematically correct and elegant. However the PHYSICS was wrong, assuming the Earth was at the center of the solar system.

2. "Heavier than air flight is not posssible". The mathematical proofs were wrong! The new physics required new math.

The math was already there, the PHYSICS was wrong, by not considering the right upward forces that can be produced.

3. Kristian Birkeland is regarded as one of the founding fathers of plasma related thought. His approach to science was broad, comprising observation and laboratory experimentation in addition to mathematical modelling. He was not content with a merely theoretical approach, despite having trained as a mathematician.

No good physicist or astronomer is content with just a theoretical approach. It is the cornerstone of astrophysics, as I have been tought in Utrecht, that I can make a model for some phenomenon (in my case pulsar radiation) but I have to use observations to validate my model.

Sydney Chapman (1888-1970) was regarded as a leader in the field of interplanetary magnetospheric physics for a while after the death of Birkeland. He refused to discuss many of Birkeland's ideas and, by contrast, relied on mathematical models.

Guess what? Chapman's models were wrong. He claimed that The Earth moved through a vacuum!

Math is tool, and a very useful one, but is should be used as a tool, and not for the foundations.

MMM I take argument with what you write about Chapman. He and Feraro put up the basics for the interaction of the solar wind with the Earht's magnetosphere starting in the 1930. His and Feraro's approach was to model the interaction of the Earth's magnetosphere with the solar wind by the Earth's dipole being compressed by a mirror dipole. This is an approach that works very very well, not only for the Earth, but also for Ganymede in the Jovian magnetosphere. So he does not claim the Earth moves through a vacuum, but that the compression can be modeled by replacing the solar wind by a mirror dipole (see e.g. Kivelson and Russell, Introduction to Space Physics, Chapter 1). By the way, with his model he also predicted the presence of the ring current.

[Nereid]

I am arguing that it should be subordinate to Physics. That is the point.

I'm with Herbert Dingle on this one, from Science at the Crossroards:

“... Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory...”

Are we talking about the same Dingle (click on the link in the BAUT post)? The one whose understanding of the math that underpins SR was so weak he didn't even understand partial derivatives?

[Sani5]

How do you, the arbiter of all things scientific, determine 'first'?

Is that really necessary?

Think Maxwell and Dirac (see papageno's post), Gravity ProbeB, gravitational lensing, Shapiro time delay, ... (what would there be to test without GR?), the Psi/J particles, the top quark, ... (the theory 'came first', n'est pas?), and so on.

Good points. However, I am not arguing that Math cannot produce good results. Frequently it does. The point is that it does not necessarily always gurantee physical reality.

Did I miss something? You have a method that guarantees results? (perhaps it's a philosophy-based method?)

I wish!

[Sani5]

The math was already there, the PHYSICS was wrong, by not considering the right upward forces that can be produced.

The physcis was wrong, in this instant, because it was based on dodgy math!

A new mathematical consideration was required to take account of the upward forces.

[Nereid]

Aye, top post.

However, rather than getting into the relative merits of the different philosophical disciplines -- empiricism, logic, metaphysics, et al, I will try and stick to the central thrust of my argument.

MATH SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO PHYSICS!

Why? Simple, really: Because history demonstrates that Mathematical truthes do not necessarily reflect physical reality.

For example:

1. Epicycles. Elegant and mathematically correct, but...

2. "Heavier than air flight is not posssible". The mathematical proofs were wrong! The new physics required new math.

3. Kristian Birkeland is regarded as one of the founding fathers of plasma related thought. His approach to science was broad, comprising observation and laboratory experimentation in addition to mathematical modelling. He was not content with a merely theoretical approach, despite having trained as a mathematician.

Sydney Chapman (1888-1970) was regarded as a leader in the field of interplanetary magnetospheric physics for a while after the death of Birkeland. He refused to discuss many of Birkeland's ideas and, by contrast, relied on mathematical models.

Guess what? Chapman's models were wrong. He claimed that The Earth moved through a vacuum!

Math is tool, and a very useful one, but is should be used as a tool, and not for the foundations.

Now that you've put this very firmly on the table, would you please explain what you mean by 'subordinate'? Is it the exact flip-side of 'Observation and measurement et al should come first'?

Would you also be kind enough to describe, in more detail, what you mean by 'observation and measurement et al'? In particular, please show how these things are theory-free.

[Sani5]

Now that you've put this very firmly on the table, would you please explain what you mean by 'subordinate'?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subordinate

[Nereid]

Is that really necessary?

[snip]

Yes.

Here is the sequence:

tusenfem: But all this does not address why ATM proponents are often not willing to give even an OOM estimate of the effects they are describing.
Sani5: Because there is no guarantee that Math based theory will reflect physical reality! Observation and measurement et al should come first.
Nereid: How do you, the arbiter of all things scientific, determine 'first'?

Leaving aside, for now, the strange (logical) connection that the Sani5 statement has to the tusenfem one, the second Sani5 sentence is, on its face, a prescription for judging whether something is, or is not, science (if the ATM work we're looking at has 'observation and measurement et al' first, then it is; if not, then it probably isn't science). So, to judge an ATM work, by the Sani5 shibboleth, we must first establish the 'firstness' of the observational and measurement et al in that work.

How is 'first' determined, in this Sani5 method?

[Nereid]

[snip]

Good points. However, I am not arguing that Math cannot produce good results. Frequently it does. The point is that it does not necessarily always gurantee physical reality.

[snip]

But who, other than a philosopher, is concerned with whether any theory even can 'gurantee physical reality' let alone whether it in fact does? (my bold)

Specifically, which scientist (in the post-Relativity, post-Quantum part of the history of Homo sapiens' life on Earth) would be so foolish as to claim their theories 'gurantee physical reality' (as in, the whole of physical reality, nothing but physical reality, the one and only true physical reality, ...)?

[papageno]

I am arguing that it should be subordinate to Physics. That is the point.

Apparently you do not distinguish between Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.

Mathematics in itself is not a model or explanation of physical reality.

I'm with Herbert Dingle on this one, from Science at the Crossroards:

“... Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory...”

Out of context quotes? Appeals to authority?
Do you realize that EM waves were predicted, on mathematical ground, by Maxwell's theory, and then discovered experimentally by Hertz?
Do you realize that there is no need, mathematically and physically, of an aether, that the formulae describing the properties of EM waves do not require an aether?
If Einstein's theories had not passed experimental tests over and over again, they would not be accepted: the predictions made on mathematical basis have been succesfully tested.

[Nereid]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subordinate

Thanks.

Now, in connection with your statement ("MATH SHOULD BE SUBORDINATE TO PHYSICS!"), what do you mean by 'subordinate'?

For example, in the second definition ("Subject to the authority or control of another"), how does physics control maths? how is the authority of physics over maths established and maintained?

[Sani5]

But who, other than a philosopher, is concerned with whether any theory even can 'gurantee physical reality' let alone whether it in fact does? (my bold)

The claims in question, which you haven't addressed, were not made by philosophers.

[Sani5]

Apparently you do not distinguish between Mathematics and Theoretical Physics.

In which ball park would you put dark matter and dark energy?

[Nereid]

The claims in question, which you haven't addressed, were not made by philosophers.

What claims?

Here is the sequence:

tusenfem: But all this does not address why ATM proponents are often not willing to give even an OOM estimate of the effects they are describing.
Sani5: Because there is no guarantee that Math based theory will reflect physical reality! Observation and measurement et al should come first.
Nereid: Think Maxwell and Dirac (see papageno's post), Gravity ProbeB, gravitational lensing, Shapiro time delay, ... (what would there be to test without GR?), the Psi/J particles, the top quark, ... (the theory 'came first', n'est pas?), and so on.
Sani5: Good points. However, I am not arguing that Math cannot produce good results. Frequently it does. The point is that it does not necessarily always gurantee physical reality.
Nereid: But who, other than a philosopher, is concerned with whether any theory even can 'gurantee physical reality' let alone whether it in fact does? (my bold)
Sani5: The claims in question, which you haven't addressed, were not made by philosophers.

The claim ("it [maths] does not necessarily always gurantee physical reality") was made by Sani5. Are you saying you are not a philosopher?

So, I'm not following your defence here Sani5 - either you've put up a strawman, or I don't 'get' what you're claiming at all.

[clj4]

I am arguing that it should be subordinate to Physics. That is the point.

I'm with Herbert Dingle on this one, from Science at the Crossroards:

“... Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory...”

Dingle is hardly a model of reasoning to follow.
His understanding of mathematics was poor and his understanding of math applied to physics was even worse.

[Sani5]

[Moderator Note: this thread was created by splitting out posts in the why math? thread. It contains posts relevant to the OT discussion in that thread, on Sani5's ideas about the relationship between maths and physics.]

I am not happy with this attempt to marginalise an important issue.

In support of EU ideas, I have argued that math is not the be all and end all of science. These arguments lose their context with this premature split!

[Nereid]

I am not happy with this attempt to marginalise an important issue.

In support of EU ideas, I have argued that math is not the be all and end all of science. These arguments lose their context with this premature split!

If all you wish to do is discuss the use of math (or the non-use of math, or anything in between) in connection with EU ideas, then I'll merge this thread with the EU thread.

If you wish to make a broader claim (along the lines of "math is not the be all and end all of science" perhaps), then here's your chance to do so.

The why math? thread is quite specific in its scope; it is about the lack of use of math by ATM proponents (understood to be those who post to this section of BAUT).

As I understand the content of Sani5's posts, per this new thread, the context is very different - an ATM view of the role of maths and physics (or maths in physics perhaps).

[Tim Thompson]

But all this does not address why ATM proponents are often not willing to give even an OOM estimate of the effects they are describing.

Because there is no guarantee that Math based theory will reflect physical reality! Observation and measurement et al should come first.

Better to say that observation & measurement should take precedence. It is observation that determines which of the many imaginable universes we are actually stuck with. But it does not matter much which one comes first in the sequence of events.

2. "Heavier than air flight is not posssible". The mathematical proofs were wrong! The new physics required new math.

The math was already there, the PHYSICS was wrong, by not considering the right upward forces that can be produced.

The physics was wrong, in this instant, because it was based on dodgy math!

My turn. No, the math was wrong, because it was based on dodgy physics, which was in turn based on "common sense", because there were no relevant observations to use as a basis for judgement.

Mathematics plays the role of the native language of physics. It is not possible to talk physics, except perhaps in a very simple way, without using math as the language of discussion. A typical mainstream scientist might get their original inspiration from anywhere. They might initially express their idea in some inelegant prose, or even elegant prose. But eventually, and probably quite soon, they will express their idea in mathematical statements, in equations. That's when they have begun to do physics.

Good points. However, I am not arguing that Math cannot produce good results. Frequently it does. The point is that it does not necessarily always gurantee physical reality.

This is certainly true. But a mathematical model is no different from any other model, in that it will be no better than what is put into it. Mathematical models are invariably built out of the elements of physical considerations, which might come from the prose, or from some earlier mathematical physics. But the model can't be thoroughly tested until it has been expressed in its native language, in this case mathematics. Only then can one decide which experiments & observations need to be made to verify or falsify the theory.

The bottom line is that every physical hypothesis has to be expressed in mathematical language, if ever it hopes to become a physcal theory. If you have a physical hypothesis, you must make it mathematical, or you lose.

[korjik]

In which ball park would you put dark matter and dark energy?

OBSERVATION!

Dark matter and dark energy are OBSERVED! they were not predicted and most scientists, when they first heared about them thought the observers were nuts. Both had to be added to theory AFTER they were OBSERVED!

[dgruss23]

This is certainly true. But a mathematical model is no different from any other model, in that it will be no better than what is put into it.

A very important point - and certainly relevant in the ATM discussions. A mathematical model will require a certain set of assumptions as a point of reference for the calculations - and those assumptions might need to be revised. An empirical model will be qualitative rather than quantitative in its initial stage but the empirical model is no better than the quality of the interpretations of observations that it is founded upon. Ultimately it must become possible to apply some level of math to an empirical model if it is to be useful.

[Disinfo Agent]

Because there is no guarantee that Math based theory will reflect physical reality! Observation and measurement et al should come first.

There are no guarantees in science, either with math or without it, with observation or without it. You demand the impossible.

In which branch of philosophy would you get away with free variables like Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

Science, BTW, is a philosophical discipline known as empiricism.

Maths is a discipline based 'loosely' on logic. I say loosely has no logical connection has ever been proved, despite the best efforts of mathemeticians and philosophers.

Maths is an important, dare I say, vital tool, but it should be subordinate to physics. General Relativity, for example, puts it in the driving seat. This is a dangerous leap of faith.

Remember the 'Heavier than Air Flight' is impossible argument? They had the Math to 'prove' it. Unfortunately for the naysayers (The leading scientific authorities of the day), the NEW phyics required NEW math. Take note of the sequence there, please.

The lesson is simple, though often ignored. Always start with the physics. Hypothesis (preferably daring), expermient, observation, prediction/measurement, blah. For best results, stir in the math later on, or the cake might look like it was left out in the rain.

Sani5, the bolded paragraph above suggests to me that you have a misconceived idea of what science is all about. I urge you to read this interesting discussion, and the links in it.