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

[Nereid]

In my example (I get to make up the details), they weren't comet hunting, they just happened to find a comet. That's still astronomy, isn't it?

It's a good question, hhEb09'1.

However, I think the answer is no, it's not astronomy (wrt the scope of this thread) :surprised

What you are pointing to is discovery, and that is no more quantitative (or qualitative) than discovery anywhere - a meteorite on the Nullabor Plain, or sprites, or the Wollemi Pine. Astronomy (or atmospheric physics, or botany) - as a science - is what happens when you start trying to account for (or explain) the discovery, or analyse it (in terms of some hypothesis or theory).

[Kristophe]

Very good points. Note that one may run the risk of concluding from mathematical aberations, especially when dealing with zero's and infinities, that 'things' like magnetic monopoles, false vacuums, cosmic strings, super strings, extra dimensions, branes, nonbaryonic supermassive particles, BHs, SMBHs, etc. (the list is extensive), that these defects actually exist, even though none have ever been observed in nature, and are not likely ever to be observed. There is thus no direct empirical basis, by any strech of the imagination, that can justify the equations.

See, this is where I think a lot of people who don't actually do the math go astray. They seem to think that there's some sort of fundamental disconnect between the math and the real world. Does it not occur to them that if the real world doesn't match the math, it's the math that gets thrown out? I mean, this is precisely how these theories are tested. And they are tested.

No one denies that you can create an entire internally consistent universe out of math that isn't our own. A lot of qualitative ATM pushers seem to think that this is the only thing that's going on. The math "looks good" so it has to be relevant. Often times it's not, and the theory dies.

[Nereid]

Math is a tool, much as any tool used to build, such as a carpenter might use a hammer and saw. But if the tool is used wrongly, no matter how good the tool, the end construct will not hold together. Reality, what we are able to measure empirically, is still the final arbiter of what the mathematical tool describes, no matter how pure and elegant that tool may be. The trouble is with the final construct, the story created with this tool, that I hear challenged here on ATM, such as space inflation and the Big Bang, that some find objectionable. The end product is a house that does not stand up straight, so the story is not to be believed, though the tool used for its construction was perfect.

Excellent points ... but OT for this thread (I think).

This aspect of science - how theories are tested, how alternatives are considered, etc - surely comes into play only when you have a theory (or alternative) that has passed muster ... quantitatively.

Or perhaps you're suggesting that the answer to my first question ("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?") is "Yes, ATM ideas should be subject to (much) less scrutiny ... if the 'story' that they're based on is more intuitively appealing (to at least the proponent)"?

For example, I showed the math to apply Milgrom’s MOND to our solar system here, and here computed the end result which approximates, however broadly, the Pioneer Anomaly. But I do not know that the math (which thus far remains unchallenged) is truly describing what is happening. The math postulated on a variable G, growing by a rather large measure of 1G per 1 AU with distance from the Sun, shows mathematically what happens with distance for a delta of acceleration (towards the Sun), but until this is measured empirically, it is just a story. A story made up mathematically is still just a story, until measured to verify its predictions. My math shows the Pioneer Anomaly, per modified MOND, predicts this acceleration delta is –a = 8.415E-7 m/s^2 (vs. –a = 8E-8 cm/s^2 for Pioneers) so not an exact match, but one which at least warrants a look. However, to date we have no measurements of what G is for the outer solar system, since we postulated Newton’s G to be a universal constant and measured ALL distant observations with this postulated G. Our mass measures, per Equivalence, may be off if G is not the same as here on Earth, but this would not show up in orbital dynamics, though it would show up in planetary density, something easily measured in atmospheric density. Why would Titan’s atmosphere, for example, be ten times taller than Earth’s atmosphere, when Titan is smaller than Earth? So the story, using math as a tool with a constant G is one way, while math using a variable G makes the story another way. Which is true? This is easily resolved with an empirical measure of G away from Earth’s known G. Then perhaps the story built up mathematically will have some more credence as a story.

I bring this up not to push for a variable G, but to illustrate that even with math we can weave any stories we like, as long as the math is right. But math is only a tool, and not in and of itself an a priori justification for theory being right. Theory is still just a story, until it is verified empirically, not within the domain of the math used, but with a ‘double blind’ test type measurements, where the measurements are verified independent of the math used. That’s when the story gets interesting. Copernicus, Keppler, Brahe, Galileo, all made our former stories of astronomy obsolete with real observations, supported by the math. The trouble I see, expressed by many on these ATM pages, is when the math paints the story first, and then is used to prove the story, the story gets muddled. Remember the Ptolemeic epicycles within epicycles? There were mathematically correct, but the story came out wrong, much to regret for all those who bought into the original story. It took empirical evidence, independent of the mathematical epicycles, to finally get the story right. That said, I agree that any story in physics, or astrophysics, must in the end find mathematical expression, since that is the only way we can use it for predictability of physics phenomena.

BTW, if G is variable with distance from the Sun, as I suspect (1 G per 1 AU), then at very great distances from the Sun, or any star and galaxy ‘hot’ energy, say 50,000 AU and beyond, the G would be very high, and high enough to ‘gravitationally’ redshift all cosmic light passing through the gases and molecules of intergalactic space at about the Hubble constant. Take one hydrogen molecule per cubic centimeter of space and gravitationally redshift it per light year with G = ~10X-6, and see what you get. I worked out the math on these boards, like here and here, and it comes in pretty close. Still, even if the math is correct, the whole idea of a variable G may be no more than a fine fiction. But if we accept a priori that all distant cosmic redshift is due to Doppler effect space expansion, are we not entertaining a similar fine fiction? How do you ‘double blind’ test for space expansion? And if we don’t test for an independent verification, independent of the math used, then how do we know it is real? BBT may be no more than another story, awaiting another Copernicus type to blow it away, with the math of course! All we have to do is test empirically to see if the tools used were right for the story.

Cheers, Ivan

Normally I'd scream and yell about how you're hijacking a thread to promote your own ATM idea

However, I think it illustrates one problem with the ATM section, as it is presently set up; namely, that ATM ideas which are, in principle, quantitative, and which are, in principle, able to be tested, tend to get neglected ... in favour of speculative stories that are neither testable (at all) nor quantifiable (at all) in the form they are presented (and, in many cases, I feel it's impossible to even show internal inconsistency!). Perhaps BAUT would be better off without these speculative stories?

Finally, you seem to be making the same (implicit) assumption that both galacsi and brodix made - that it is possible to have 'theory-free' (or 'story-free') empirical verification. That this has come up three times now, in the short history of this thread, suggests that it's worth exploring - I'll start a separate thread (it really is OT for this thread).

[Kristophe]

Actually, a lot of ATM arguments fail precisely because they are "Look at the picture" arguments, ignoring that you have to understand the physical context of the image, which usually is highly quantitative: What is the scale of the image features? What is/are the temperatures of the image object(s)? How is this determined from the image data? What is the density of image objects? What, based on physics (thermodynamics, gravitational force, etc.), can we deduce from this image? And so forth.

Further, many (most?) images are not simple photographs, but are processed, manipulated data, which is, of course, a quantitative process. Unfortunately, in many arguments these images are treated as simple photographs. Also, a great deal of data is not available in image format and has to be considered quantitatively to understand.

You can go beyond "look at the picture" arguments, though. Say I've developed some qualitative "theory" of anti-gravity, and by some means (let's assume reasonable, rational means that lead to the prediction, rather than an ad hoc prediction) I'm able to determine that there should be an anti-gravity "peak" in the woods just outside Margaree Forks, Nova Scotia. Now, Margaree Forks is a very small, relatively remote community, and I doubt any physicists are wandering around in the woods outside it to discover floating squirrels and hovering tree branches. So, the test for this theory is to go to the predicted spot, and start dropping things to see if they fall, hover, go up, or whatever. There's a purely qualitative test, and it's the sort of thing that a lot of ATMers feel is sufficient to trump the Tyrant King Einstein.

But, of course, it assumes that no other theory predicts the same thing. Your theory of anti-gravity could predict a peak at the exact same spot. If our theories use different mechanisms, they could -- and probably should -- give different results. If that spot actually does show rocks to fall up, for some reason, we have no way to differentiate between whose theory is the right one. Without coming up with a rigorous mathematical model, we can't.

This downplaying of math thing may seem like a "fresh perspective" to them, but it ultimately falls because it doesn't let them make the kind of predictions one needs to confirm or disprove it. Qualitative theories that match qualitative observations become unfalsifiable without quantitative predictions. Whether people are looking at pictures, or working from qualitative experiments, they fall victim to math.

No wonder math is seen as some sort of excessive burden.

[Nereid]

Actually, a lot of ATM arguments fail precisely because they are "Look at the picture" arguments, ignoring that you have to understand the physical context of the image, which usually is highly quantitative: What is the scale of the image features? What is/are the temperatures of the image object(s)? How is this determined from the image data? What is the density of image objects? What, based on physics (thermodynamics, gravitational force, etc.), can we deduce from this image? And so forth.

Further, many (most?) images are not simple photographs, but are processed, manipulated data, which is, of course, a quantitative process. Unfortunately, in many arguments these images are treated as simple photographs. Also, a great deal of data is not available in image format and has to be considered quantitatively to understand.

A nice illustration of a conundrum - if a proponent of a (purely qualitative) ATM idea uses 'images' to support that idea, can the idea be put on hold until the detailed (quantitative) steps involved in image production can be shown to be consistent with that idea?

Or, more radically, that the idea be regarded as internally inconsistent precisely because it fails to explain the link between the theory-drenched, quantitative observation and the fact-free story?

At the very least it is certainly ironic to see highly quantitative, theory-laden data ('images') used to support stories which are almost certainly strongly inconsistent with the well-established theories used to produce the observational data in the first place!

[Nereid]

Nereid,

Do pictures/illustrations and geometric examinations count as math because I find that I can not always determine the math needed until after or during the drawing of a picture/illustration?

Right now I am contemplating the geometric implications of relativistic beaming - I think I can develop a reasonable idea of what I want to convey via graphics (but the graphics will also need math to be accurate) but until I get a graphic idea my math skills, feeble as they are, will not be useful.

Also, a good word picture of the idea is quite useful - sort of like a story problem from math class except ATMers tell the story first and, hopefully, realize the math that is needed after the story is told.

I think you answered your own question, at least in terms of the scope of this thread ... if astronomy is quantitative, then the 'minimum math' is arithmetic; unless I have misunderstood your post, the math involved in "geometric examinations" is at least arithmetic (e.g. trigonometry), and I expect every "geometric examination" is quantitative (or easily made so).

[Nereid]

With the 18th century work of Herschel, Laplace, and the ensuing efforts of 19th century astronomers, both theoretical and observational cosmology crossed the threahold of a new era. The discovery of a supernova in the Andromeda nebula (1880's) came as a surprise to some, to others it was confirmation of what they had suspected all along: Our galaxy was not unique. Immanuel Kant had written about this possibility in his influential Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens (1755).

Following suggestions from a certain Mr. Wright of Duram__who regarded the fixed stars as a system with the greatest resemblance to that of the planets, rather than a randomly scattered swarm__Kant wrote of the stars in our Milky Way as forming a circular plane. Furthermore he wrote "I consider the species of nebulous stars, of which De Maupertuis makes mention in his treatise "On the Figure of the Fixed Stars" which present the form of more or less open elipses: and I easily persuade myself that these stars can be nothing else than a mass of many fixed stars...And I further saw that that, on account of their feeble light, they are removed to an inconceivable distance from us."

[snip]

"We see that at immense distances there are more of such star-systems, and that the creation in all the infinite extent of its vastness is everywhere systematic and related in all its members...The plan of their revelation must therfore, like themselves, be infinite and without bounds." Kant, 1755)

Kant was 31 years old when he wrote what is often credited to E. Hubble: the discovery that galaxies (nebula) are star systems that lie beyond the Milky Way, and thus enlarging our view of the heavens.

Hubble, Einstein, de Sitter (and others) were almost certainly familliar with Kant's theory (which by the way introduced several aspects of what would later find its way into relativistic cosmology, from SR to the big bang: He had written about "the power of expansion poportional to the heat...the most violent conflagration...the most volatile matter" with obvious Newtonian influence). M. Friedman noted that reference to the Kantian framework was almost necessary arbitration in all debate of the foundations of physical science up until the early 1930's.

I don't recall seeing one equation in Kant's seminal work(s).

Coldcreation

This is a great example!

Kant wrote down an idea, a story; Kant was a philosopher, and he was not doing astronomy.

When historians trace the origin of successful (modern) theories, they invariably find (or make up) plausible stories to tell about how the ideas which became the theories began far back in time. They also usually find that there are many fathers - the ideas which became the theories (in the historians' stories) grew in certain (social, political, scientific, ...) environments, etc.

What we rarely see are all the orphans - the ideas which didn't make it, which weren't able to make some kind of paternity claim. Perhaps Kant wrote a hundred other ideas in that seminal work, none of which you could quote, because there are no successful theories you could claim are the descendants of those (failed) ideas?

A more nuanced view: there are parts of the Kant quote which, interpreted today, are wrong ("and that the creation in all the infinite extent of its vastness is everywhere systematic and related in all its members...The plan of their revelation must therfore, like themselves, be infinite and without bounds.") - it is contradicted by Olbers' paradox, for example (though Kant was already dead by the time Olbers wrote this). Perhaps Kant knew this (but chose to write it anyway)?

In my telling of the story of astronomy, the Kantian ideas (above) are not astronomy - they are not quantitative. However, if some equivalent were to be written today, we should expect that they be quantified before being given serious scrutiny. Why? Many reasons, but one obvious one is that it is so much easier to turn a story into something quantitative (at least to the OOM level) and (in principle) testable than it was 250 years ago - you can teach yourself the necessary math, from online courses (for example), and (possibly) for free! And the high quality data ...

But back to my five questions - do I take it that your answer, Cold Creation, to 1), 2), and 3) is "yes"? And that your answer to 4) is "all of cosmology, and much of astronomy too"? And to 5) "they can't, and they don't need to be"?

[galacsi]

To Nereid

You ask me a question and I answered it but
I forgot to ask you why this question ?

Originally Posted by Nereid View Post

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?

[Nereid]

I note that your questions don’t deal so much with ATM ideas as with the attitudes of those who present their ideas and I often suspect there is a gulf of misunderstanding between the qualitative and quantitative presentation of ideas.

One person will run a half baked idea up the flag pole just to see if it waves. They might say, "I think the moon must be made of green cheese."
Another person replies, "Show me the math."
"I don’t have the math."
"Then get the math."
"I don’t see how math would make any sense. It’s not a math problem."
"Then you should study astronomy, physics, calculus and Einstein."
"What do they have to say about green cheese?"
"Read them and find out."
"But that’s a lot to read."
"So what? I did?"
"And what do they say about the moon being made of green cheese?"
"I can’t answer that until you show me the math."

Those who present their views in a non-quantitative manner are usually looking for a non-qualitative consideration of their views and I don’t find this to be an unreasonable expectation. They are not asserting the supremacy of that point of view they are just looking for an answer they can understand.

[snip]

Excellent post!

This brings out a different aspect of a many ATM ideas that have been presented here: the use of undefined terms; or, if you prefer, the need to understand what the terms you use - in a qualitative ATM idea - actually mean.

I think the dialogue should more realistically be something like this:
"I think the moon must be made of green cheese."
Another person replies, "You mean, our Moon 'moon'? and 'cheese' the stuff you can make from goat's (or cow's) milk?"
"Yes"
"Well, one easy way to test this idea is to compare the density of cheese with the density of the Moon; if the two are quite different, then the moon cannot be made of green cheese, can it?"
"I don’t see how math [a.k.a. calculating densities] would make any sense. It’s not a math problem."
"Then you should learn the concept of 'density' [a.k.a. study astronomy, physics, calculus and Einstein]."
"What does density have to say about green cheese?"
"Read, and find out."
"But that’s a lot to read."
"You're kidding me, right?"
"And what does density have to say about the moon being made of green cheese?"
"I can’t answer that until you show me you understand the concept of density [a.k.a. the math]."

(the more realistic version of this would substitute 'energy' or 'speed of light' or 'neutron degeneracy pressure' for 'green cheese'.)

(BTW, I think you meant to write "quantitative" (bolded text)

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

You could also ask the question from another point of view. If quantitative means are the only test of merit, does that mean that rationality, common sense, simplicity, consistency, symmetry, and other tests do not apply?

Good question; let's take them one by one:

"rationality": if this is a synonym for 'logical consistency', then it's a more fundamental criterion than any quantitative test - an idea which lacks logical consistency surely has no legs at all. But perhaps you had some other meaning in mind?

"common sense": surely the huge success of quantum physics puts paid to this as reasonable criterion, doesn't it?

"simplicity": if this is similar to Occam's razor, then it's certainly a good criterion; when and where to use it is rather case-specific though.

"consistency": other than "rationality" (above), what does it entail? The easiest one is "consistency with well-established theories where the domains of applicability overlap"; if so, then it can only be used once the idea has been expressed in a clear, internally-consistent, quantitative form

"symmetry": not sure I understand this, especially wrt how it could be used as a test for an idea which is not expressed quantitatively - can you elaborate please?

[Nereid]

To Nereid

You ask me a question and I answered it but
I forgot to ask you why this question ?

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?

It's off-topic for this thread, galacsi, but if (as you say) you 'don't believe in cosmology', then should you write a post presenting (or defending) an ATM idea that is 'about cosmology' (including any 'bashing of the Big Bang Theory'), a BAUT member may challenge you to explain the (rather blatant) inconsistency.

[Nereid]

Very good points. Note that one may run the risk of concluding from mathematical aberations, especially when dealing with zero's and infinities, that 'things' like magnetic monopoles, false vacuums, cosmic strings, super strings, extra dimensions, branes, nonbaryonic supermassive particles, BHs, SMBHs, etc. (the list is extensive), that these defects actually exist, even though none have ever been observed in nature, and are not likely ever to be observed. There is thus no direct empirical basis, by any strech of the imagination, that can justify the equations.

That is what is called 'new physics,' even though it is neither 'new' nor 'physics.'

I am, though, as most of you likely are, of the opinion that logical theoretical reasoning (based preferably on fundamental laws of nature, etc), empirical evidence (observational, experimental) and mathematical solutions to the data combined will ultimately lead to a sound cosmology.

Coldcreation

(my bold)

Van Rijn's post indirectly points to the internal inconsistency of this view, as does Kristophe's reply to yours.

My comments on nutant gene 71's and Bob Angstrom's posts are also pertinent, as are some of the old exchanges we had, in the thread discussing your ATM ideas (I can't find it just now).

What your list (esp the parts I bolded) assumes is that there is a way to get these without relying on (other) theories!

But the days when empirical evidence could be easily equated to "I can see it with mine own eyes" are long gone - almost all such 'evidence' today - and certainly all good empirical evidence in astronomy today - is theory-based. Or, saying this another way, if you accept the 'evidence', then you must also accept the theories which went into the production of that 'evidence'*.

"fundamental laws of nature" is even more problematic - how do you establish any such, other than by the normal scientific method? How do you determine the domains of these so-called laws, other than by testing them (in the domains of interest)?

'Conservation of energy' is a case in point: many ATM ideas contain this, sometimes explicitly. However, they also contain 'this idea is consistent with GR' (or something similar), without realising that there is an automatic inconsistency (in GR, 'energy' is not conserved ... except in special cases)!

*or re-interpret the evidence using different theories ... and say so, explicitly.

[Kesh]

I note that your questions don’t deal so much with ATM ideas as with the attitudes of those who present their ideas and I often suspect there is a gulf of misunderstanding between the qualitative and quantitative presentation of ideas.

One person will run a half baked idea up the flag pole just to see if it waves. They might say, "I think the moon must be made of green cheese."
Another person replies, "Show me the math."
"I don’t have the math."
"Then get the math."
"I don’t see how math would make any sense. It’s not a math problem."
"Then you should study astronomy, physics, calculus and Einstein."
"What do they have to say about green cheese?"
"Read them and find out."
"But that’s a lot to read."
"So what? I did?"
"And what do they say about the moon being made of green cheese?"
"I can’t answer that until you show me the math."

Those who present their views in a non-quantitative manner are usually looking for a non-qualitative consideration of their views and I don’t find this to be an unreasonable expectation. They are not asserting the supremacy of that point of view they are just looking for an answer they can understand.

The problem is, giving them a correct answer often involves math. Or, at the very least, instructing them on the basic physics and observations that all astronomy is founded on. In the forum here, that would be a monumental task (given the number of times these discussions come up). Hence, "please study these basic subjects first" can be a valid response if someone actually wants to learn why these things are accepted as fact.

[nutant gene 71]

Excellent points ... but OT for this thread (I think).

This aspect of science - how theories are tested, how alternatives are considered, etc - surely comes into play only when you have a theory (or alternative) that has passed muster ... quantitatively.

Or perhaps you're suggesting that the answer to my first question ("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?") is "Yes, ATM ideas should be subject to (much) less scrutiny ... if the 'story' that they're based on is more intuitively appealing (to at least the proponent)"?Normally I'd scream and yell about how you're hijacking a thread to promote your own ATM idea

However, I think it illustrates one problem with the ATM section, as it is presently set up; namely, that ATM ideas which are, in principle, quantitative, and which are, in principle, able to be tested, tend to get neglected ... in favour of speculative stories that are neither testable (at all) nor quantifiable (at all) in the form they are presented (and, in many cases, I feel it's impossible to even show internal inconsistency!). Perhaps BAUT would be better off without these speculative stories?

Finally, you seem to be making the same (implicit) assumption that both galacsi and brodix made - that it is possible to have 'theory-free' (or 'story-free') empirical verification. That this has come up three times now, in the short history of this thread, suggests that it's worth exploring - I'll start a separate thread (it really is OT for this thread).

Thanks for the response, Nereid, and sorry if I skated on the thin ice of OT. My goal was not to push or hijack, but to use an actual historic ATM posted idea, where math was used to illustrate a physics "fiction" of sorts, my own. Of course, this math cannot in and of itself prove anything, except to use it as a "qualitative" theory platform from which empirical "quantitative" observatiionals would verify or not, to get it off the ground, if it can fly at all.

New thread split is welcome from my end. My point was merely that quantitative math can be used to create a qualitatively new idea, e.g., a story, but this is meaningless unless empirical evidence can verify the math involved. Of course, if actual empirical observations fail the math involved, then it is not phsyics but merely another mathematically constructed story. I think your above ".. in favour of speculative stories that are neither testable (at all) nor quantifiable (at all) in the form they are presented.." is a critical point, that it must be testable, and tested quantitatively, to pass muster, even for an ATM theory.

Thanks, cheers, and a very Happy New Year to BAUT! Great forum.

[hhEb09'1]

It's a good question, hhEb09'1.

However, I think the answer is no, it's not astronomy (wrt the scope of this thread) :surprised

What you are pointing to is discovery, and that is no more quantitative (or qualitative) than discovery anywhere - a meteorite on the Nullabor Plain, or sprites, or the Wollemi Pine. Astronomy (or atmospheric physics, or botany) - as a science - is what happens when you start trying to account for (or explain) the discovery, or analyse it (in terms of some hypothesis or theory).

I would hope most people would think that the discovery of a new comet would be a success for astronomy, and science, rather than have it disingenuously placed in the plus column of some ofher discipline. Hard to imagine what discipline that would be, even.

This may be the root of your problem in understanding this situation. You keep trying to narrow the scope of your question--until you can only obtain the answer that you want. Instead, I think you should reflect on the examples that you have been handed, and try to understand them in the scope of science.

[galacsi]

It's off-topic for this thread, galacsi, but if (as you say) you 'don't believe in cosmology', then should you write a post presenting (or defending) an ATM idea that is 'about cosmology' (including any 'bashing of the Big Bang Theory'), a BAUT member may challenge you to explain the (rather blatant) inconsistency.

Yes it is OT so very briefly to be understood : I am not an opponent of Cosmology , I am not all interested by Cosmology . i am indifferent to IT.

[Nereid]

Thanks for the clear answers!

[snip]

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

Huh?

When Inflation theory and Dark energy are fully explained and proven, I'll surrender.

Huh²?

Are you claiming that Inflation and DE are not tested, quantitatively? Or that they have not been so tested? or that they should not be so tested?

Or are you claiming that any ATM cosmology idea need be tested only to the same extent that Inflation and DE have been tested?

Or that, when it comes to two particular concepts in modern cosmology (Inflation and DE), you, brodix, require an additional means of testing (which means is not specified)?

Just what do you mean!

[dgruss23]

This may be the root of your problem in understanding this situation. You keep trying to narrow the scope of your question--until you can only obtain the answer that you want. Instead, I think you should reflect on the examples that you have been handed, and try to understand them in the scope of science.

I absolutely agree with this assessment Grapes!

Nereid, its an interesting question, but I think it can probably be boiled down to a simple statement ... something like this:

"The more one is able to quantify a subject of study through measurement, graphical relationships, and predictive equations, the broader will be the range of opportunities to scientifically test that subject."

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?

Can you do astronomy without math? What you mean by math? Do you mean counting? Do you mean developing graphical relationships that can be quantified by a linear or some other relationship? Do you mean developing a set of equations that represent a theoretical idea?

I would argue that the amount of math needed to do science depends upon the type of science you're doing. Are you simply classifying? If so, then you may not need a scrap of math, but certainly counting and measuring is enough math to classify.

For example, Hubble's tuning fork classification of galaxies did not require math. It was purely descriptive. Spiral galaxies have "arms" that extend out from the nucleus. Some of these are barred. Letters a,b, and c follow the S for spiral to indicate whether the arms wrap tightly around the nucleus or open away so you have Sa,Sb,Sc or SBa,SBb, or SBc.
Galaxies without arms are classified as SO if they are disk shaped or Elliptical if they are generally spherical.

You can look at any of the Hubble deep field photographs and use Hubble's classification system to describe many of the galaxies.

There are researchers that work to develop galaxy classification schemes that are measurement based. Whether these schemes are any better than the tuning fork depends upon the purpose of the research and intended uses for the classification scheme.

Obviously at some point if you want your understanding to progress more math must be brought in. For example, if you want to extend your description of galaxies you need measurements of diameters, magnitudes, rotational velocities, magnitudes at different wavelengths, redshifts, spectral analysis, ...

Such measurements can allow you to identify empirical relationships such as the Tully-Fisher relation and obviously extends your knowledge beyond the purely descriptive Hubble classification system.

Relationships such as this are still descriptive - just mathematically so.

But perhaps you're a researcher looking for more. Perhaps you want a theory to explain the different types of galaxies and their formation. In that case you may need to put your theory in the context of larger theories - such as how the universe formed (Big Bang theory). That theory gives you starting conditions and based upon gravitational theory you can begin to make some predictions about how galaxies could have formed. You end up with predictions (for example) that elliptical galaxies may form through major mergers and spirals grow through minor mergers.

I think all this is just an illustration of the simple statement I made in red above. Theories are built from qualitative observations, quantitative observations, empirical relations, natural laws and a good dose of conceptual development. And often you need the brainstorm of a concept before you can capture it quantitatively through equations that make predictions.

[Bob Angstrom]

But to some, maths can be a real barrier. (There is a version of dyslexia that applies to numbers) So perhaps you should ask those who have not produced quantative evidence, how they are at maths?

Hense my belief that some of those who do not give quantitive evidence may have maths problems.

There are three kinds of people in the world. People who are good at math and people who arn't.

[Fortis]

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.

Though the prediction was presumably derived from theoretical considerations?

[Tensor]

Though the prediction was presumably derived from theoretical considerations?

Gee, that sounds familiar (With grape's answer).

[brodix]

Thanks for the clear answers! Huh²?

Are you claiming that Inflation and DE are not tested, quantitatively? Or that they have not been so tested? or that they should not be so tested?

Or are you claiming that any ATM cosmology idea need be tested only to the same extent that Inflation and DE have been tested?

Or that, when it comes to two particular concepts in modern cosmology (Inflation and DE), you, brodix, require an additional means of testing (which means is not specified)?

Just what do you mean!

It means that I think they are patches on an errant theory and will never be anything more.

The duality is reality. Once you see it, it is drop-dead obvious and it becomes impossible to not-see. But it is not yet seen by the mainstream and is not included in any model.

Peter, Thank you for stating it so well!

A story is a linear narrative structure, with a beginning, middle and end, which is the exact frame BBT seeks to impose on the universe. It may seem fundamental to us, given it's the structure of our own existence, but does it really apply to the universe as a whole?
As I've pointed out in various other threads, time has two directions. The observer's arrow of time goes from past events to future events, but these events go from being in the future to being in the past, so the arrow of time for the observed goes the other way. To the hands of the clock, the face is going counterclockwise. The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. The hour on the clock starts in the future and the hand passes from its beginning to its end and then moves on to the next, leaving the previous hour in the past. Days go from dawn to dusk, as the sun moves from east to west, but the reality is that the earth is rotating west to east and the sunlight is moving on to other time zones. Our individual lives are units of time going from beginning to end, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin. Compare it to a factory. The product moves from start to finish, but the production line is facing the other way, consuming raw material and expelling finished product.
While the equilibrium of space is disturbed locally, it isn't broken, so there is no need for a dimension external to space to allow motion.

What's the math on this? How about 1+(-1)=0.

[Nereid]

It's a good question, hhEb09'1.

However, I think the answer is no, it's not astronomy (wrt the scope of this thread)

What you are pointing to is discovery, and that is no more quantitative (or qualitative) than discovery anywhere - a meteorite on the Nullabor Plain, or sprites, or the Wollemi Pine. Astronomy (or atmospheric physics, or botany) - as a science - is what happens when you start trying to account for (or explain) the discovery, or analyse it (in terms of some hypothesis or theory).

I would hope most people would think that the discovery of a new comet would be a success for astronomy, and science, rather than have it disingenuously placed in the plus column of some ofher discipline. Hard to imagine what discipline that would be, even.

This may be the root of your problem in understanding this situation. You keep trying to narrow the scope of your question--until you can only obtain the answer that you want. Instead, I think you should reflect on the examples that you have been handed, and try to understand them in the scope of science.

I was, I hope, careful ... the "wrt the scope of this thread" caveat is important.

There are two important distinctions to make, with regard to the scope of this thread: astronomy as a science, and astronomy today*.

Astronomy as a science.

In general, I much prefer Lakatos to Feyerabend (he of Against Method), but when it comes to method vs methods and astronomy, I think he's right - as a science, astronomy has a number of characteristics which are unusual or even unique (among the sciences). These distinct characteristics lead to a need to consider astronomy as astronomy just as much as one might consider astronomy as a science.

The key importance of quantification is one aspect of the science of astronomy that highlights its distinctiveness. Physics is astronomy's obvious sibling in this regard; the biology of Darwin's time an obvious foil.

And historically too, astronomy has had a strong quantitative bias (as I mentioned briefly in the OP), unique among all sciences?

Astronomy today.

Many an ATM proposal, and several posts in this thread, seem to treat astronomy as if it were largely classical - that all you need worry about are the verities of physics before Einstein and quantum mechanics.

"Empirical evidence" is (perhaps) a footprint of this mindset.

But, as several posters in this thread have pointed out, what looks like a holiday snap of Uncle Jon and the kids in front of the Sydney Opera House (a.k.a. a VLBI image of the M87 jet, or a 171Å solar image from TRACE) is nothing of the sort.

("Common sense" as a criterion for judging an ATM idea is another example)

And we haven't even mentioned the Bayesian revolution yet!

For the purposes of this thread, the sooner we acknowledge the stupendous changes that have taken place in astronomy, as a science, in the last 50 or so years, the better; astronomy today is just so staggeringly different from the astronomy of Lord Rosse that it makes no sense to continue to act as if it were the same. And the irreducible minimum of those changes is that astronomy today is now wholly quantitative.

*In this post I'm using 'astronomy' as a shorthand for 'astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology'; the space sciences are in somewhat of a twilight zone.

[Nereid]

Several posters have said, in essence "maths is not the be all and end all, of astronomy, or anything! Maths-based astronomy can be really, really bad (and wrong to boot)."

Of course they're right.

However, that's not what this thread is about!

So what is it about?

Simply this: if your ATM idea can't be put into a quantitative form, whatever it is, it sure ain't astronomy.

Does that mean that ATM ideas which are in quantitative form must be right? No.

Does that mean what mainstream (astronomy) theories - which are, by definition, already in quantitative form - must be right? No.

Does that mean one can't find holes in mainstream (astronomy) unless one attacks it quantitatively? No*.

Should those posters who failed to recognise the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient", in terms of simple logic, be made to stay back after class?

*But it sure won't be easy - any such flaw, not otherwise already identified, will likely be very subtle indeed.

[Nereid]

Are you claiming that Inflation and DE are not tested, quantitatively? Or that they have not been so tested? or that they should not be so tested?

Or are you claiming that any ATM cosmology idea need be tested only to the same extent that Inflation and DE have been tested?

Or that, when it comes to two particular concepts in modern cosmology (Inflation and DE), you, brodix, require an additional means of testing (which means is not specified)?

Just what do you mean!

It means that I think they are patches on an errant theory and will never be anything more.

Which does not, of course, answer any of my questions.

Should you be made to stay back after class?

Peter, Thank you for stating it so well!

A story is a linear narrative structure, with a beginning, middle and end, which is the exact frame BBT seeks to impose on the universe. It may seem fundamental to us, given it's the structure of our own existence, but does it really apply to the universe as a whole?
As I've pointed out in various other threads, time has two directions. The observer's arrow of time goes from past events to future events, but these events go from being in the future to being in the past, so the arrow of time for the observed goes the other way. To the hands of the clock, the face is going counterclockwise. The unit of time goes from beginning to end, but the process of time is going toward the beginning of the next, leaving the old. The hour on the clock starts in the future and the hand passes from its beginning to its end and then moves on to the next, leaving the previous hour in the past. Days go from dawn to dusk, as the sun moves from east to west, but the reality is that the earth is rotating west to east and the sunlight is moving on to other time zones. Our individual lives are units of time going from beginning to end, while the process of living goes on to the next generation, shedding the old like dead skin. Compare it to a factory. The product moves from start to finish, but the production line is facing the other way, consuming raw material and expelling finished product.

So far, so (qualitatively) good; a nice introduction to how - philosophically - different perspectives that are observationally indistinguishable (even in principle) can be constructed.

While the equilibrium of space is disturbed locally, it isn't broken, so there is no need for a dimension external to space to allow motion.

[snip]

And off the rails, into the swamp of speculation, untrammelled by even 20th century science, we sail!

If this (kind of) speculation leads to a successor to GR, the historians of the future will put it in a place of honour.

However, unless and until it gets converted into something quantitative, unless and until the key terms (such as "space") get defined in terms that will permit at least a qualitative comparison with GR (which has a rather carefully crafted definition of "space", and how to handle it, quantitatively ... among other things), what can we say about it?

(other than please don't hijack this thread to promote your own ATM idea).

[Fortis]

Gee, that sounds familiar (With grape's answer).

That's what happens when I post to a thread before reading it all the way through...

[upriver]

Several posters have said, in essence "maths is not the be all and end all, of astronomy, or anything! Maths-based astronomy can be really, really bad (and wrong to boot)."

Of course they're right.

However, that's not what this thread is about!

So what is it about?

Simply this: if your ATM idea can't be put into a quantitative form, whatever it is, it sure ain't astronomy.

Does that mean that ATM ideas which are in quantitative form must be right? No.

Does that mean what mainstream (astronomy) theories - which are, by definition, already in quantitative form - must be right? No.

Does that mean one can't find holes in mainstream (astronomy) unless one attacks it quantitatively? No*.

Should those posters who failed to recognise the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient", in terms of simple logic, be made to stay back after class?

*But it sure won't be easy - any such flaw, not otherwise already identified, will likely be very subtle indeed.

To say astronomy is completely about measuring CCD's, PMT's and lens' full of data, is to lose sight of human endevour.
Thats what we are best at, intuition.

There is also the recognition of something wrong even though everything is "right". So all you can do is logically discuss it and hopefully after examining all the data again and again, you will find that one thing that you can now use to mathematically prove that everything that was right has a little tiny spot way over here that changes the interpretation for a narrow range of things.

So, yes math is important, but its like fanning the clutch in the corner on a turbo. Boost can kick in and take you where you don't want to go!
Intuition is a hard tool to use properly. Math can completely overwhelm that little idea you had hanging around.

A demonstration of understanding of basic principles should allow a more descriptive dialog vs. an equation based dialog.
Ultimately, I think you want to quantify everything to satisfy your peers.

[dgruss23]

Several posters have said, in essence "maths is not the be all and end all, of astronomy, or anything! Maths-based astronomy can be really, really bad (and wrong to boot)."

Of course they're right.

However, that's not what this thread is about!

So what is it about?

Simply this: if your ATM idea can't be put into a quantitative form, whatever it is, it sure ain't astronomy.

Does that mean that ATM ideas which are in quantitative form must be right? No.

Does that mean what mainstream (astronomy) theories - which are, by definition, already in quantitative form - must be right? No.

Does that mean one can't find holes in mainstream (astronomy) unless one attacks it quantitatively? No*.

Should those posters who failed to recognise the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient", in terms of simple logic, be made to stay back after class?

*But it sure won't be easy - any such flaw, not otherwise already identified, will likely be very subtle indeed.

It might help the class if you clarified what you mean by quantitative.

[Bob Angstrom]

Many an ATM proposal, and several posts in this thread, seem to treat astronomy as if it were largely classical - that all you need worry about are the verities of physics before Einstein and quantum mechanics.

Either I totally disagree with this statement or I totally misunderstand it.

And the irreducible minimum of those changes is that astronomy today is now wholly quantitative.

When I can go to the store and buy 50 g. of dark matter and fill my tank with 800 K cal. of dark energy I will know the day of quantitative astronomy has arrived.

[Nereid]

Many an ATM proposal, and several posts in this thread, seem to treat astronomy as if it were largely classical - that all you need worry about are the verities of physics before Einstein and quantum mechanics.

Either I totally disagree with this statement or I totally misunderstand it.

It's easy to explain; here are three posts in this thread which seem to be saying that all you need is classical physics: #20, #41, and #44. To see this in one or two of brodix' posts in this thread you need to go outside it.

For avoidance of doubt, an ATM idea which explicitly seeks to provide an alternative to GR, or write cosmology with an alternative to GR, obviously acknowledges this part of 20th century physics.

However, an ATM idea which insists on the universality of (classical) thermodynamics but fails to address how and where it needs to be modified to incorporate QM and GR* would be an example of what I'm tallking about.

And the irreducible minimum of those changes is that astronomy today is now wholly quantitative.

When I can go to the store and buy 50 g. of dark matter and fill my tank with 800 K cal. of dark energy I will know the day of quantitative astronomy has arrived.

Thanks - this is a very nice illustration of one way in which astronomy differs from, say, chemistry.

You can no more "buy 50 g. of dark matter" at a store than you can buy 50 g of a degenerate electron gas (what white dwarfs are made of), or 50 g of a degenerate neutron gas (what neutron stars are made of), or 50 g of neutrinos, or 50 g of metallic hydrogen, or ...

Like the iantresman neutron question, this should make an interesting new thread in the Q&A section - I'll start one.

[ETA: Done]

*If there is acknowledgement of the success of QM and GR, in terms of observational and experimental results, but no acknowledgement that classical thermodynamics is thereby limited, then it's just plain inconsistent; if it seeks to replace or supercede both QM and GR, then it's not.

[Nereid]

It might help the class if you clarified what you mean by quantitative.

I've done so, several times in this thread - it's context-specific, but at a minimum it involves quantities which can, in principle, be measured and compared; the minimal math is arithmetic.

Your post #77 raises some good points in this regard; it's one of several I haven't yet replied to.

However, the post you're quoting was intended to address a misunderstanding - I'm claiming that it is necessary to be quantitative to do astronomy, but being quantitative alone is not sufficient.

Several posters seem to have confused a necessary condition with a sufficient one. A recent example: the 'existence' of dark matter can be established by doing (quantitative) astronomy; it is necessary to do quantitative research to make a case for dark matter. Does DM thereby exist, simply because some quantitative astronomical research was done? No, this research no more establishes DM's existence than (other quantitative astronomical) research establishes the existence of a SMBH in the nucleus of the Milky Way galaxy, or the inspiral of PSR 1913+16, or that the Crab Nebula was a supernova, or that Virgo cluster ScI galaxies have intrinsic redshift(s), or the onset of a MOND regime at 1.2 x 10^-10 m s^-2 h₇₅², or ... - what's sufficient is a separate question (and not within the scope of this thread).