Without math, you are not doing physics - you are merely making up stories

[Nereid]

"As long as you don't have math (and hence can't make quantitative descriptions and predictions), you are not doing physics - you are merely making up stories." - Bjoern (source).

Astronomy is quantitative.

I'm sure we've all read about some of the earliest astronomers, and their quantitative calculations - the Caldeans and the Saros cycle, and Maya astronomy, to take just two examples.

In the history of (western) science, the detailed quantitative observations made by Brahe enabled Copernicus and Kepler to do the detailed quantitative calculations that lead to the quantitative description of heliocentric (elliptical) planetary orbits.

Newton not only developed a quantitative (physics) theory that accounted for those orbits (and much more besides), but also a whole new branch of mathematics, the better to work with this new theory.

In modern times, the vast majority of astronomical data is quantitative, and observations made in wavebands other than the optical (and often enough there too) are based on the application of quantitative (physics) theory - from TeV gammas 'imaged' using the air Cherenkov technique, to 'radio images' of M87 jets obtained by very long baseline interferometry (VLBI).

The theory of General Relativity (GR) superceded Newton's theory of gravity ... based on the quantitative results of experiments and observations designed to test the quantitative predictions of that theory. Cosmology today is based on GR, and some of the most stringent tests of GR are astronomical.

And so on.

Yet it seems many proponents of ATM ideas have little or no regard for this quintessentially quantitative aspect of astronomy, let alone astrophysics or cosmology ... at least, that is my conclusion from reading a great many of these ideas.

How can this be?

Do the proponents of non-quantitative ATM ideas feel that these ideas are exempt, somehow, from the kind of scrutiny which the rest of astronomy is subject to? That a re-writing of all of astronomy is possible, to put it on a purely qualitative basis? That vague, qualitative ideas are somehow superior to detailed numerical models built from quantitative physics theories?

I am puzzled.

So I started this thread to give those who disagree with Bjoern the opportunity to present their case.

What is the realm - within astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - within which an insistence on maths, numbers, equations and stuff is misplaced, or even downright antithetical to science?

How can ATM ideas - in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - be tested, other than by quantitative means?

FYI, here, here, and here are much earlier threads on closely related topics.

[hhEb09'1]

How can ATM ideas - in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - be tested, other than by quantitative means?

We've talked about this before, but I'll be d*nged if I can find where.

The example I brought up before was Arago's test of Poisson's objection to the wave theory of light, that a bright spot would be found in the middle of the shadow of a circular obstacle. The observation of the spot is not a quantitative measurement.

[Sticks]

I would like to take the opportunity to point out that here in the UK this year's Royal Institution Christmas Lectures for young people is on the subject of Maths

(UK Channel 5)



So just to be charitable, some of these people may have had problems with maths, if they could get copies of the lecture notes it might help. Maybey you could all reccomend some math books.

The only one I can think of is Engineering Maths by K A Stroud

[brodix]

I suppose I'm one of those lumped in the catagory of disdaining math, but I don't feel it is math I'm disagreeing with but those who use its form to concoct propositions which seem logical every step of the way, yet end up with a final result that seems preposterous, such as the Big Bang Theory of expanding space, which then uses a stable speed of light as the metric to measure it. It is like the drawing of the waterfall going around in a circle.

Nature is extremely complicated and sometimes we make small navigational errors that may have made sense in their particular circumstance and then become imbedded in the logical structure, but only draw one further off course the longer they remain undiscovered.

This habit of proposing massive additions to reality, such as Inflation Theory, or dark energy, in order to save the model, remind me of the cartoon of the person painting themselves into a corner and then painting a doorway to escape.

But I'm the one accused of being illogical because I don't have the facilities to go back and check every detail. Water doesn't flow uphill and you can't say space expands, if your most basic measure of it doesn't.

[captain swoop]

so an idea with no maths is better? hhm! explain please? is it because you don't understand the maths so discount it?

[Tensor]

We've talked about this before, but I'll be d*nged if I can find where.

In the dim mists of my memory, I seem to remember that.

The example I brought up before was Arago's test of Poisson's objection to the wave theory of light, that a bright spot would be found in the middle of the shadow of a circular obstacle. The observation of the spot is not a quantitative measurement.

While that's true, wouldn't Poisson's objection be the result of a quantitative analysis?

[Sticks]

I am still inclined to think that part of the problem is that people freeze up when it comes to Math

If you are in the UK and are affected by this click here

[Nereid]

We've talked about this before, but I'll be d*nged if I can find where.

The example I brought up before was Arago's test of Poisson's objection to the wave theory of light, that a bright spot would be found in the middle of the shadow of a circular obstacle. The observation of the spot is not a quantitative measurement.

I think you may be referring to the Would the 'real' ATM threads please stand up? thread (the third "here" in the footnote of the OP), and some of your posts on the first page of that thread.

If so, it's similar, but not the same (and in any case, to modern eyes the test has OOM bounds built into it - the spot had to be within a fairly narrow range of brightness - and what it tests is a thoroughly quantitative theory).

BTW, there's another (old) thread on a similar topic: why math?

[Nereid]

I suppose I'm one of those lumped in the catagory of disdaining math, but I don't feel it is math I'm disagreeing with but those who use its form to concoct propositions which seem logical every step of the way, yet end up with a final result that seems preposterous, such as the Big Bang Theory of expanding space, which then uses a stable speed of light as the metric to measure it. It is like the drawing of the waterfall going around in a circle.

Nature is extremely complicated and sometimes we make small navigational errors that may have made sense in their particular circumstance and then become imbedded in the logical structure, but only draw one further off course the longer they remain undiscovered.

This habit of proposing massive additions to reality, such as Inflation Theory, or dark energy, in order to save the model, remind me of the cartoon of the person painting themselves into a corner and then painting a doorway to escape.

But I'm the one accused of being illogical because I don't have the facilities to go back and check every detail. Water doesn't flow uphill and you can't say space expands, if your most basic measure of it doesn't.

I guess the 'good news' here is that we are getting close to understanding this 'logical inconsistency'* (in another thread), and it is (to me) looking increasingly likely that it is (simply) a misunderstanding of GR.

The other part ("[t]his habit of proposing massive additions to reality") is more worrying - if you're doing astrophysics or cosmology, what do you do with observations that don't fit the current theories? Ignore them? or develop a (quantitative) extension to the theory (or a new theory), and then go test it? However, I think we should explore this in another thread, perhaps "ATM Science" - is there such a thing?

*"the Big Bang Theory of expanding space, which then uses a stable speed of light as the metric to measure it"

[galacsi]

Is Astronomy quantitative ? Is Biology and its diverse branches Quantitative ? Is Geology Quantitative ? Is History quantitative ?

These different sciences are for some part quantitative but for an other part they are observation sciences. And this part is not the less important because it is what links these science to reality.

Mathematics is usefull to order reality and to make some predictions giving us the possibility or the dream to dominate the world.

But observation is the more important.

And luckily we did not wait for quantitative science to invent agriculture , sail boats , metallurgy , ceramics , electricity , steam engine , internal combustion motor , diesel , telephone ..... the quasi totality of the technical world.

I am not against mathematics , far from it. As said above Astronomy without mathematics is just a story , but without the story there is no Astronomy either.

[Nereid]

Is Astronomy quantitative ? Is Biology and its diverse branches Quantitative ? Is Geology Quantitative ? Is History quantitative ?

These different sciences are for some part quantitative but for an other part they are observation sciences. And this part is not the less important because it is what links these science to reality.

Mathematics is usefull to order reality and to make some predictions giving us the possibility or the dream to dominate the world.

But observation is the more important.

[snip]

(my bold)

Here's one thing I just do not get (maybe you can help me understand) ... in modern astronomy, ALL observations are quantitative!

In the examples I gave in the OP, and for EVERY observation outside the visible waveband, you need great gobs of (quantitative) theory (physics) to build the instruments, and to make sense of what comes out of them.

Or, if you prefer, you cannot even begin to make observations without a very great deal of maths!

For electromagnetic radiation in the 'visible' range (approx 300 to 700 nm), it used to be that astronomers made observations using photographic plates, and perhaps a few still do. However, AFAIK, almost all modern astronomy in this waveband is done using CCDs or PMTs (photomultiplier tubes), or other gadgets which can only work by virtue of good physics and much math.

Then we also have adaptive optics, and laser guide stars.

Do all these astronomical observations become junk because so much math was used to make them? because without math they would not exist?

[A.DIM]

Numerical models work well in some cases and not so well in others.
They're good for astronomy and physics, but not so for biological systems.
I want to say something about Godel and Chaitin? and incompleteness theorem but I'd likely misapply the idea.
However, it appears one must continually add axioms to any mathematical model in order to expand or work out a "proof," and so to know more, one must assume more.

[ISflotsam]

I think a number of ATM proponents simply feel that all great theories began with a QUALitative inspirational spark. In all honesty, that may actually be true (though it's legend, Newton clearly didn't measure or calculate anything the instant the apple dropped on his head). And, in lurking through these ATM theories, I get the (qualitative) impression that many of them feel they're still in that "inspirational" stage -- gather enough circumstantial impressions and, one day, the math will come.

The Internet makes vastly more referential data available to the average joe than ever before. That data (though originally collected via quantitative means) is free to be qualitatively analyzed and interpreted upon any whim, without any specialized training required. Thus, the great rise in the "it looks like X to me, therefore it can only be X" statements. This actually applies equally to many ATMers as well as Conspiracy Theorists.

Also, the Internet gives a venue for these interpretations to be broadcast. Like-minded (and equally untrained) individuals are widely available to hop on the bandwagon, fueling the theory (not with data, but with popularity). And, for well-meaning ATMers, this provides them a further hope that, the "right" people will review the theory and support it with whatever quantitative legs are missing. How many times have we heard "I can't supply you with those calculations, yet."

So, I'm not so sure if ALL ATM proponents are completely eschewing maths in favor of observation (though, clearly there are some who do). I think that many of them are simply "postponing" the calculation until they (or, more likely, someone else) can provide it. And, for them, the fact that they don't have the calculation "yet" is no reason to stop their perceived momentum now. I picture them grumbling, "they may just be 'stories' today, but just you wait, one day, it'll revolutionize physics!"


--ISF

[gravitino]

I am still inclined to think that part of the problem is that people freeze up when it comes to Math

1. Are you sure that our math is quite enough to describe/model the universe ?

2. How about a universe that is not mathematizable ??

[galacsi]

(my bold)

Here's one thing I just do not get (maybe you can help me understand) ... in modern astronomy, ALL observations are quantitative!

I am not sure you are right , but i am no astronomer so ....

In the examples I gave in the OP, and for EVERY observation outside the visible waveband, you need great gobs of (quantitative) theory (physics) to build the instruments, and to make sense of what comes out of them.

Or, if you prefer, you cannot even begin to make observations without a very great deal of maths!

So maths are a great tool . we can agree on that . But the way you use a tool is rather important too.

For electromagnetic radiation in the 'visible' range (approx 300 to 700 nm), it used to be that astronomers made observations using photographic plates, and perhaps a few still do. However, AFAIK, almost all modern astronomy in this waveband is done using CCDs or PMTs (photomultiplier tubes), or other gadgets which can only work by virtue of good physics and much math.

Are you sure you dont overestimate the role of math ? The guy who invent the PMT was an empirist , i suppose , he did not deduct the systeme from pure math ?

Then we also have adaptive optics, and laser guide stars.

Do all these astronomical observations become junk because so much math was used to make them? because without math they would not exist?

Of course not ! You are overshooting here .

[Nereid]

I am still inclined to think that part of the problem is that people freeze up when it comes to Math

1. Are you sure that our math is quite enough to describe/model the universe ?

2. How about a universe that is not mathematizable ??

Great questions!

However, they are not relevant to this thread :surprised

.... unless, of course, you can show that it is possible to do astronomy, cosmology, etc without the use of even arithmetic*!

*This thread is about astronomy being quantitative; the contrast being drawn is with ideas (about astronomy etc) that are purely qualitative. Of course, a purist could argue that all of the mathematics used in modern physics can be reduced to, or derived from, arithmetic ...

[Nereid]

Numerical models work well in some cases and not so well in others.
They're good for astronomy and physics, but not so for biological systems.
I want to say something about Godel and Chaitin? and incompleteness theorem but I'd likely misapply the idea.
However, it appears one must continually add axioms to any mathematical model in order to expand or work out a "proof," and so to know more, one must assume more.

Excellent observations!

However, they are not relevant to this thread! :surprised

To repeat, this thread's scope is how one can do astronomy, today, without being quantitative*.

Let me repeat, and number, the questions I asked in the OP:

1) Do the proponents of non-quantitative ATM ideas feel that these ideas are exempt, somehow, from the kind of scrutiny which the rest of astronomy is subject to?

2) That a re-writing of all of astronomy is possible, to put it on a purely qualitative basis?

3) That vague, qualitative ideas are somehow superior to detailed numerical models built from quantitative physics theories?

4) What is the realm - within astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - within which an insistence on maths, numbers, equations and stuff is misplaced, or even downright antithetical to science?

5) How can ATM ideas - in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - be tested, other than by quantitative means?

Would you like to attempt to answer any of these five questions?

*or, if you prefer, without using even arithmetic

[Nereid]

[snip]

For electromagnetic radiation in the 'visible' range (approx 300 to 700 nm), it used to be that astronomers made observations using photographic plates, and perhaps a few still do. However, AFAIK, almost all modern astronomy in this waveband is done using CCDs or PMTs (photomultiplier tubes), or other gadgets which can only work by virtue of good physics and much math.

Are you sure you dont overestimate the role of math ? The guy who invent the PMT was an empirist , i suppose , he did not deduct the systeme from pure math ?

[snip]

It seems I'm not making myself clear; let me try again ....

The explicit scope of this thread is the five questions I just posted; my response to your earlier post was in relation to an apparent inconsistency - observations are math-free (my paraphrase), or perhaps observations are theory-free; that there is a clear, clean line between "observations" and "theory".

It seems that you have accepted, at least implicitly, that this distinction is not, in fact, plausible (wrt today's astronomical observations), but have replaced your original dichotomy with a strawman.

Here's what I said (I added some bold): "CCDs or PMTs (photomultiplier tubes), or other gadgets which can only work by virtue of good physics and much math".

At a practical level, you don't need any 'math' to use any of these gadgets - simply dust off the instruction manual, point the telescope, turn on the power, and at the end of your 'run', remove the USB key containing all the observations.

However, if you want to make one of these gadgets, or calibrate one, or fix one, then you will need to at least assume some powerful physics ... and your work will involve at least arithmetic.

The (historical) path which lead to the manufacture of the PMT you used surely includes inspiration and ideas expressed in purely qualitative terms .... however, without the physics and the math, you won't have a PMT with which to make astronomical observations.

[A.DIM]

Excellent observations!

However, they are not relevant to this thread! :surprised

To repeat, this thread's scope is how one can do astronomy, today, without being quantitative*.

Let me repeat, and number, the questions I asked in the OP:

1) Do the proponents of non-quantitative ATM ideas feel that these ideas are exempt, somehow, from the kind of scrutiny which the rest of astronomy is subject to?

2) That a re-writing of all of astronomy is possible, to put it on a purely qualitative basis?

3) That vague, qualitative ideas are somehow superior to detailed numerical models built from quantitative physics theories?

4) What is the realm - within astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - within which an insistence on maths, numbers, equations and stuff is misplaced, or even downright antithetical to science?

5) How can ATM ideas - in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - be tested, other than by quantitative means?

Would you like to attempt to answer any of these five questions?

*or, if you prefer, without using even arithmetic

Sure, here's my take:

1. Some do, some don't. Not me.
2. No.
3. No.
4. Quarks are merely mathematical constrcuts, no? (though this probably isn't an answer)
5. They can't, both quantitative and qualitative analyses, IMO, are needed to formulate an accurate theory.

It seems to me that mathematical aestheticism and symmetry are more qualitative than quantitative.

[iantresman]

"As long as you don't have math (and hence can't make quantitative descriptions and predictions), you are not doing physics - you are merely making up stories." - Bjoern (source).

And while Cosmology relies on invisible, undetectable and unfalsifiable Black holes, dark matter and neutron stars, you ain't doing physics either, merely making up stories -- Tresman.

Apparently Dr John A. Wheeler, emeritus professor of physics at Princeton, who coined the word "Black hole" said:

"To me, the formation of a naked singularity [a black hole] is equivalent jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that it can't be done. But I can't prove that it can't be done." (Source: New York Times - Mar 10, 1991

Regards,
Ian Tresman

[galacsi]

To Nereid : I Answered before receiving your post "18

Excellent observations!

However, they are not relevant to this thread! :surprised

To repeat, this thread's scope is how one can do astronomy, today, without being quantitative*.

Let me repeat, and number, the questions I asked in the OP:

1) Do the proponents of non-quantitative ATM ideas feel that these ideas are exempt, somehow, from the kind of scrutiny which the rest of astronomy is subject to?

I support or have an inclinaison for one or two ATM theories. So i fell inclinate to answer.

No , not all , an ATM idea has the ambition to become a mainstream idea so dont treat it differently. Except you dont ask a baby what you ask from a grown up. The little ATM idea must get some flesh , must be developped before being testable. Very often is more an intuition than a theory.

2) That a re-writing of all of astronomy is possible, to put it on a purely qualitative basis?

Edited short story : No

3) That vague, qualitative ideas are somehow superior to detailed numerical models built from quantitative physics theories?

What a question !

A good and right qualitative idea is better than a wrong but mathematically sound quantitative model.

4) What is the realm - within astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - within which an insistence on maths, numbers, equations and stuff is misplaced, or even downright antithetical to science?

... Edited : too harsh Sorry . Dont believe in Cosmology

5) How can ATM ideas - in astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, or space science - be tested, other than by quantitative means?

With good data well chosen , observation is the only judge

The problème of ATM ideas , when they are not dead wrong of course , is that they are not promoted by professional scientists with good math skills but by simple amateurs . So discussion cannot go very far.

[Amber Robot]

"To me, the formation of a naked singularity [a black hole] ..." (Source: New York Times - Mar 10, 1991

A naked singularity and a black hole are not the exact same thing.

[Saluki]

This is an interesting topic, but I have a much more burning question.

Since when did it become acceptable usage to add an 's' to the end of 'math'?

Last I checked, 'math' is an abbreviation of 'mathematics', and is inherently plural, much like 'deer' or 'fish'.

Is this one of those UK-American oddities?

[Nereid]

"As long as you don't have math (and hence can't make quantitative descriptions and predictions), you are not doing physics - you are merely making up stories." - Bjoern (source).

And while Cosmology relies on invisible, undetectable and unfalsifiable Black holes, dark matter and neutron stars, you ain't doing physics either, merely making up stories -- Tresman.

Fortunately (or not), this is both falsifiable, and false.

We have a 3 X 3 matrix (invisible, undetectable, unfalsifiable X BHs, DM, NSs); of the nine elements, only two are true (BHs and DM are both invisible ... by definition!), and even for these the 'truth' exists only in a narrow way.

More generally, only one part of the main claim ("Cosmology relies on ...") is true, even in a narrow sense (today's concordance cosmology does not "rely upon" BHs or NSs).

However, the worst part of this statement is the implicit, absolute distinction between observation and theory, similar to what galacsi posted. In particular, the "undetectable, unfalsifiable" part, as applied to BHs and NSs, is (logically) equivalent to "neither GR nor QM can be tested; neither GR nor QM are falsifiable".*

So an easy counter to Tresman would be something like: please provide an outline of the types of modern astronomical observations which are theory-free.

Apparently Dr John A. Wheeler, emeritus professor of physics at Princeton, who coined the word "Black hole" said:

"To me, the formation of a naked singularity [a black hole] is equivalent jumping across the Gulf of Mexico. I would be willing to bet a million dollars that it can't be done. But I can't prove that it can't be done." (Source: New York Times - Mar 10, 1991

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Excellent!

While I can't be sure, I think equating Wheeler's "naked singularity" with "a black hole" is one concatenation too far. And in any case, to argue that an unobservable (GR) theoretical construct that has been known to be inconsistent within the framework of another, well-established, theory (QM) is somehow a plus for the case that vague, qualitative ideas are superior to detailed numerical models built from quantitative physics theories is beyond me - could you clarify please?

*For DM the logical equivalence is not so obvious, but nonetheless quite strong - see this thread, for example.

[JohnW]

Is this one of those UK-American oddities?

Yes. Maths in English, math in American.

Any Canadians out there? What do you use?

[JohnW]

Dont believe in Cosmology

Galacsi, did you mean to say you don't accept the current theories of cosmology? Saying you "don't believe in cosmology" is a little like saying you don't believe in ornithology. The Universe exists*. Therefore, so does cosmology.



* Hmm. Discuss...

[galacsi]

Galacsi, did you mean to say you don't accept the current theories of cosmology? Saying you "don't believe in cosmology" is a little like saying you don't believe in ornithology. The Universe exists*. Therefore, so does cosmology.



* Hmm. Discuss...

Yes that's exactly that ; except I do believe in Ornithology and all natural science. Does not mean I will believe everything ornithologist will say but all in all I trust this science and think it is sound.

I dont want to be too direct because some people here may be are they are cosmologists . No I dont believe in Cosmology.

[Nereid]

Galacsi, did you mean to say you don't accept the current theories of cosmology? Saying you "don't believe in cosmology" is a little like saying you don't believe in ornithology. The Universe exists*. Therefore, so does cosmology.



* Hmm. Discuss...

Yes that's exactly that ; except I do believe in Ornithology and all natural science. Does not mean I will believe everything ornithologist will say but all in all I trust this science and think it is sound.

I dont want to be too direct because some people here may be are they are cosmologists . No I dont believe in Cosmology.

While we might have a very interesting discussion of your (stated) (dis-)belief, I think it would be OT for this thread.

More generally, if that's so, and you are not prepared to defend any such claims galacsi, may I conclude that you have no interest in participating in threads which cover cosmology?

[Bob Angstrom]

The theory of General Relativity (GR) superceded Newton's theory of gravity ... based on the quantitative results of experiments and observations designed to test the quantitative predictions of that theory. Cosmology today is based on GR, and some of the most stringent tests of GR are astronomical.

The theories of relativity began with Einstein’s seminal idea at the age of fourteen that, if you could travel at the speed of light, a light wave would look like a straight line. The math and observations came later. Much, much later. This is the natural order in the evolution of any complex theory. Should we fault the young Einstein for thinking ahead of the math and observations?

[brodix]

I guess the 'good news' here is that we are getting close to understanding this 'logical inconsistency'* (in another thread), and it is (to me) looking increasingly likely that it is (simply) a misunderstanding of GR.

Presumably you meant to link to an earlier thread. I only introduced that argument in the second to last post and the last post was mine as well, so there was no response to it yet. The only earlier solutions to it I recall basically involved saying they were simply two different coordinate systems. Which may be true, but they are both determined by properties of light. (The Arabs and the Israelis use two different coordinate systems to define the Middle East, but it's still the same ground.)

The other part ("[t]his habit of proposing massive additions to reality") is more worrying - if you're doing astrophysics or cosmology, what do you do with observations that don't fit the current theories? Ignore them? or develop a (quantitative) extension to the theory (or a new theory), and then go test it? However, I think we should explore this in another thread, perhaps "ATM Science" - is there such a thing?

You can propose any number of extensions you wish, but the more speculative they are, the more caveats should be attached. This makes it more likely that all possible alternatives will be considered and not have the establishment gravitate to whatever supports the current model, because the result is politics, not science.