Understanding the frontier of physics?

[pivoxa15]

It seems that physics is increasingly becoming more mathematical. Would you say that an average mind without any talents in maths or physics but would like to understand the frontiers of physics (more specifically any GUT related theories) although not necessary contriubte to physics would be better off becoming a mathematician?

This occurred to me because a professor theoretical particle physicist at my university said he found it hard to understand the second part of "A First Course in String Theory" by Zwiebach, Barton (2004). He also admitted another time while lecturing that his knowledge of maths isn't large. And that he wished he had the time to look into it more. So obviously he is doing research in less maths intensive fields of theoretical particle physics.

Obviously it would be best to be a physicist working directly on the GUT but let's assume that dosen't happen.

 

[cristo]

Would you say that an average mind without any talents in maths or physics but would like to understand the frontiers of physics (more specifically any GUT related theories) although not necessary contriubte to physics would be better off becoming a mathematician?

I'd say that an "average person with no talent in maths" would not be able to become a mathematician!

 

[pivoxa15]

I'd say that an "average person with no talent in maths" would not be able to become a mathematician!

I think they can become a mathematician with enough interest hence the willingness to put the effort in. Although I wouldn't expect them to become a great mathematician. I infact once asked a senior pure mathematician via an email whether someone with no talent can become a mathematician and the first sentence of his reply was something like 'I am not talented either'. He actually retired the following year without having gained any professorial status during his career.

 

[cristo]

I think they can become a mathematician with enough interest hence the willingness to put the effort in. Although I wouldn't expect them to become a great mathematician.

Willingness is not equivalent to potential to succeed, though. That's like saying that everyone who is interested in politics, say, has the potential to become a politician.

It seems a bit stupid to start on a career path that one is not going to suceed in!

I infact once asked a senior pure mathematician via an email whether someone with no talent can become a mathematician and the first sentence of his reply was something like 'I am not talented either'. He actually retired the following year without having gained any professorial status during his career.

He was probably either being modest, or is an anomoly.

 

[rewebster]

Do you think that Einstein, for example, read EVERY book on physics that was ever published, read every article that was every written, talked to every physicist about all of the known work of every physicist that that ever lived, and knew all the math everywhere on every plane?

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

A lot of it depends on the attitude that you have about the things that you learn, what interests drive you to learn, what you believe about what you learn, etc...(learn is the key word, though).

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

My point was that Einstein probably did READ an enormous amount of work, and probably DID talk to quite a few people---but it was WHAT he read, WHAT he thought was important, and what and how he thought about what he did learn that made him a little different.

 

[deloprator2000]

Nearly everyone has some talent for mathematics, the difference is how long it will take you to learn and master the mathematics needed for string theory. Learning the mathematics will probably take less time if you have a talent for maths, and more time if you have less talent. Either way it can be done, given enough time and effort.

 

[Demystifier]

This occurred to me because a professor theoretical particle physicist at my university said he found it hard to understand the second part of "A First Course in String Theory" by Zwiebach, Barton (2004). He also admitted another time while lecturing that his knowledge of maths isn't large. And that he wished he had the time to look into it more. So obviously he is doing research in less maths intensive fields of theoretical particle physics.

The math of the second part of the Zwiebach's book is not much different than math used in theoretical particle physics. Instead, the physical concepts are those that are quite different than those in particle physics. I would guess that this professor is too old to accept significantly new physical concepts and/or that he is probably a particle phenomenologist (not a theorist in a more narrow sense), not used to question and explore the basic physical concepts.

 

[Feynman diagram]

In answer to the original question, I don't think you can get far at all in understanding the details of GUT's, or many other branches of physics, without having some ability with the maths. That said, I don't believe that becoming a mathematician would be useful. I would pursue the theoretical particle physics route, but try to learn all the relevant maths along the way. You never know when it may come in useful regarding more advanced physics.

I have had this same debate at university many times before and the general consensus seems to be that the 2 subjects can be hard to tell apart sometimes. When embroiled in a very lengthy calculation in quantum field theory the final result of the calculation will have physical significance so I am doing physics. But in evaluating all the integrals and manipulating elements of a Grassmann algebra, etc, I am simply doing maths - acting on an expression with a Klein-Gordon operator doesn't correspond to a physical process, it's simply maths that takes me closer to a final answer.

 

[arivero]

I'd say that an "average person with no talent in maths" would not be able to become a mathematician!

I guess that an entry point to become a mathematician is to recognise the potential tautology in this phrase.

 

[pivoxa15]

The math of the second part of the Zwiebach's book is not much different than math used in theoretical particle physics. Instead, the physical concepts are those that are quite different than those in particle physics. I would guess that this professor is too old to accept significantly new physical concepts and/or that he is probably a particle phenomenologist (not a theorist in a more narrow sense), not used to question and explore the basic physical concepts.

True, he is known for research into neutrino physics.

 

[rewebster]

What area/level of physics do you see yourself liking and are comfortable within/as or a combination of?

(analogy below:)

do you like the idea about yourself being inventor of the 'brick'?

the person doing the 'trial and error' for the composition of the 'brick'?

the maker of the 'brick'?

the seller of the 'brick'?

the hauler of the 'brick'?

the worker laying the 'brick'?

the owner of the 'brick' home?

the demolisher of the 'brick' home?

the salvager of the 'brick' of the demolished home?


To me, the first deals with theory (the very smallest whole number-tip of the pyramid), the rest applied.

Does a person gamble being a theorist with his life (and life's work) for the very small chance to be the discoverer of the 'brick', or 'work' in the area (applied) with the idea/hope/dream of discovering a/the 'brick' along the way?

 

[Demystifier]

I see myself as the inventor, but I presume that this refers also to most if not all contributors on this subforum.

 

[rewebster]

I see myself as the inventor, but I presume that this refers also to most if not all contributors on this subforum.

From reading your posts (they are responsive, creative, directed, etc.) and a couple of your papers-----I would tend to agree with you






(about referring to most if not all contributors on this subforum)

 

[Fra]

I agree with PF's own descendant of Bohm. Though during the last 3 years, I've observed myself desperately trying to "invent things" in various context, to the point where I have now come to take interest in the inventive, and evolutionary process itself. Because I noticed that I could try to invent just about anything, and it often boils down to a set of repeating questions giving me the deja vu sensation. So instead of trying to invent explanations for the presumed reality, I've come to try invent an explanation for the inventive process itself. At first a seemingly circular taks, but on closer lookup it's more evolutionary than circular. My vision is that this will provide an efficient route to a deeper understanding of things.

So I guess while I think of myself as an inventor, I've come to pay more interest in logic of the inventive process itself, and less in the actual inventions.

/Fredrik

 

[setAI]

c- become a computer scientist

http://digitalphysics.org/

 

[Fra]

According to the theory of Digital Physics, information is more fundamental than matter and energy

This roughly appeals to me, although I think there is a relation between them. They kind of come together.

time and space are discrete, and laws of physics are deterministic

Mmm I am a little doubtful at this, in particular the latter, depending on how it's specified in detail.

DP is a non-experimental physics.

I wonder what you mean by this? In my thinking experimental input is what drives the whole thing, and is thus in a sense paramount. Without it, there are no answers. Of course one can picture any sample input, but this "sample input" should in principle be real input.

But I'll be a little bit more fair and at least look at that webpages closer tomorrow.

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

SetAI, if you advocated the digital physics, do you know these two missing points in the FAQ?

> 5.2 Why is there microscopic reversibility, according to DP?
> 5.3 How does DP explain the arrow of the time? (Why does DP suggest that the Universe is a reversible, but not invertible CA?)

/Fredrik

 

[Demystifier]

From reading your posts (they are responsive, creative, directed, etc.) and a couple of your papers-----I would tend to agree with you

Thanks!
May I also ask you which of my papers have you been reading?

 

[rewebster]

Thanks!
May I also ask you which of my papers have you been reading?

I picked out the ones that had my interest from the title and intro first--I'll go back and look again.

you've got a good handle on English (if it is your second language)


http://xxx.lanl.gov/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Nikolic_H/0/1/0/all/0/1

 

[Demystifier]

you've got a good handle on English (if it is your second language)

Thanks again! (Yes, English is my second language. In fact, in primary school and high school my marks in English were rather low. Interestingly, in that time, I've got my first (and last) A in English when I wrote an essay about Steven Hawking. Later, my English has significantly improved at the college, when I started to read physics textbooks in English. I guess, it is all about motivation.)

 

[rewebster]

well, was Tesla from near you?

 

[Demystifier]

well, was Tesla from near you?

Yes, the same country, few hundreds kilometers from me.

 

[rewebster]

good----maybe a little of his 'gene pool' is part of yours

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

I'll look at and re-read your papers today

 

[pivoxa15]

I am a bit lost here. Starting with post 11, I haven't been able to follow the discussion.

 

[rewebster]

I am a bit lost here. Starting with post 11, I haven't been able to follow the discussion.

It was just an analogy of where the theorist (inventor) fits in with the theorist's (inventor's) impact, how rare the theorist (inventor) is, and how many others (jobs) are created after the fact that the theory (invention) is used IF it is a viable theory (invention).

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

Demystifier---

You've 'created' an interesting group of papers. I remember reading the 'Myth' paper, and the 'Cosmological constant' now, but had skipped all the others until now. The one I missed (and I don't know how or why) is the (paraphrased) 'How much wood could a woodchuck chuck..' :tongue: one--which was more interesting than I expected from the title. ---yeah, good stuff--and it looks like you've been busy on them lately (revising?)

I'll send a private message to you in the next day or two.

 

[setAI]

SetAI, if you advocated the digital physics, do you know these two missing points in the FAQ?

> 5.2 Why is there microscopic reversibility, according to DP?
> 5.3 How does DP explain the arrow of the time? (Why does DP suggest that the Universe is a reversible, but not invertible CA?)

/Fredrik

don't have details for 5.2 [we nedd to find the CA that yields U(1)xSU(2)xSU(3) ]- but 5.3 is pretty well answered by 'Block Time'- the arrow of Time would be established from the causal structure of an observers world-state: probability determines that ordered structures are more often the result of causal systems with an arrow of time/entropy than acausal/chaotic origins- Stephen Wolfram has a great description of this in his "monkeys on laptops" analogy: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/lloyd06/lloyd06_index.html

 

[CarlB]

I voted "particle physics" because math is big, the laws that govern the universe are small. I think most of the problem with modern physics is that too much mathematics has been thrown at it.

 

[rewebster]

I think most of the problem with modern physics is that too much mathematics has been thrown at it.

If you mean 'theoretical physics', I would tend to agree. I know everyone/most wants to help/add to the understanding of 'it all', and sometimes it seems that that is what most someone can do (not 'inventing' the mousetrap, but building a 'better one'--modifying/adjusting the 'original' to work better---another angle of the brick analogy).

I still think that's the reason for the 'supernova' effect of ST/SST/MWI in the theoretical arena--no expensive lab/experiment or lab time had to be requested for most of the work (being math--mind, paper, and pencil). The original post infers that math is one part, but implies that 'particle physics' equates with 'theoretical physics' which isn't right of course, but it does show the thinking that just 'math' isn't 'theoretical' work--almost like it's a different area; and, that working with 'particles' is, somehow, more 'theoretical'--more of a 'hands on'/'manly' work.

Sometimes I think that if some high school student (interested in a physics career) was 'shown' a paper of someone's recent work (195 equations and 10 words), I don't know if it would be the same as seeing a particle physicist with a hammer smashing an atom.

 

[Fra]

I just noticed I didn't vote. And neither of the two options given seems to be in taste. But if I had to choose particle physicists sure seems more relevant than a matematican.

I think of mathematics as a language that is very efficient and fairly non-ambigous when it comes to describing and communicating quantiative statements. But this doesn't replace a coherent line of reasoning that brings you to that mathematics. Sometimes I think mathematics can obscure the coherent line of reasoning. I often get the impression that physicists guided by language completely disconnected to the concept of a coherent line of reasoning. It's often motivated by that it seems to work. I never quite understood that philosophy.

To give my opinion of the question of the thread I think you at least need some kind of basic knowledge of mathematics or else the language barrier will obscure everything, but the language is partly a technical matter, and understanding the language is not the same thing as understanding what it tries to say.

I think the important things are how to find a mapping between mathematics and reality. Or the connection between the language, and it's dynamics/development, and whatever we are trying to express using this language, and it's dynamics/development. Sometimes physical theories are axiomatized and from there on treated purely mathematically. All you need to accept is that the axioms sensibly couple to reality. At least from a human point of view, I have hard to see how you can do that with without getting a little bit philosophical. And I think this can be the hardest part. A consistent mathematical formalism no matter how beautiful is not sensible as physical formalism unless it's axioms really have been chose in a reasonable manner. When we use the power of mathematics to draw complex implications from a set of axioms, "almost reasonable" doesn't seem satisfactory.

I think reality should guide us to building the appropriate language we need. Not let the "language purists" guide is in the quest of understanding reality, it seems to be quest driven by the wrong measure and hence I might doubt that the quest converges to the right thing. I guess it does boil down to what view of the scientific method one has.

Long time ago me a friend discussed (beeing students) what is the difference between what we know and what we don't knowthe best answer we came up to at the time was : time. It was based in the assumption that what I don't konw, I could (in principle; there may be exceptions of course) always find out, and "finding out" is a process that basically just takes some time. An implication from this seemed to be that, the point is not to know everything, the more important thing is to know how to get what you don't know when you need it, as soon as possible. This has been a guiding principle for me since. The more important thing I think I learned studying wasn't just what I learned, it was that I learned how to learn. And at some point you feel that you know enough basics, and also know enough to know how to further find out what you don't know. Another conclusion is that since time and memory is limited, "learning" things you never asked for may be a waste of time and memory.

I remember that looking at the history of science and the body of complexity it seems I need to first get a PhD in logic and philosophy, and then a PhD in mathematics, and they a PhD in physics, and perhaps a PhD in molecular biology wouldn't hurt either these days. One realizes that I would be hundred years old and still haven't mastered everything that might be remotely useful knowledge.

The only thing I really need to master, is howto efficiently find answers that make me grow, whatever the nature of these questions may be. The most useful answers often require first finding the good questions. These questions quickly inflates in complexity and requires good bookkeeping to not stall development. If I ran into a question I can't answer that is not the end of life as long as I can find the answer within a reasonable timeframe. What would be fatal OTOH, is to run into a question you can't answe AND not have the slightest clue howto find the answer. So knowing howto find out what you don't know is more fundamental than a priori knowing everything.

/Fredrik

 

[rewebster]

Sometimes I think mathematics can obscure the coherent line of reasoning. I often get the impression that physicists guided by language completely disconnected to the concept of a coherent line of reasoning. It's often motivated by that it seems to work. I never quite understood that philosophy.


/Fredrik

I was thinking 'another' "what" the initial question (what does this imply?) implies----:


Do you (you all) think any, most, the greatest of discoveries are made through math (equations), or work with particles (experimental work), or?

 

[Fra]

I was thinking 'another' "what" the initial question (what does this imply?) implies----:

Do you (you all) think any, most, the greatest of discoveries are made through math (equations), or work with particles (experimental work), or?

I don't see why it has to be separated. I like to think two things are "obvious".

a) The first is that real input (observations, experiments) is a major raw material that feeds our increase in knowledge.

b) But we also need to make do theoretical work to refine our questions, and find a systematic and efficient way to interpret the input. I think if this as a general kind of "self observation". Theorizing beeing a kind of self observation, or getting in equilibrium with yourself.

When taken together input, observations and experiments can also be seen as "feedback".

If we consider ourselves as lifeforms, then both points above are necessary for success.

If we are to make a educated guess, as to what the relative frequency of observation of a particular even is, that simply means coming up with a number. And that leads us to math. If there was not math, we would have to invent it, just like mankind did once upon a time. But they did it for a reason, not just for the fun of it - or at least that's what I like to think it was before my time . But as our knowledge incrases, so does the complexity of math.

I don't like to see that there really is a contradiction or problem between theory and experiment, as they are both important. Currently I feel that the theory of physics is such a logical "mess" that I've got a feeling that's where the next step will be taken, but that's just my guess.

/Fredrik

 

[chrisina]

I didn't really understand the question, that's why I voted for 1.

I would propose to open another thread / poll, just don't know if it fits here or in "philosophy" :

Why is it that so far, mathematics have worked to explain the laws of nature ?

here are some suggestions for the poll answers :

1) because mankind developped mathematics looking at nature (eg counted apples in a basket, divided apple tarts into parts, apples falling from a tree, etc...)

2) because the one who created the universe was a mathematician

3) because we are lucky

4) none of the above

?

What do you guys think ? Shall we open this poll ? In this subforum ?

Thanks

 

[Demystifier]

Yes, that would be an intersting poll. Open it!

 

[jostpuur]

I voted "particle physics" because math is big, the laws that govern the universe are small. I think most of the problem with modern physics is that too much mathematics has been thrown at it.

I think the problems have their source in the fact that physicists don't usually know what they are doing with mathematics. When a physicist encounters something difficult that he doesn't understand, instead of improving himself, he distorts the mathematics until it has become easy enough for him.

I would be happy, if the development of theoretical physics in the future started to become more and more a job of mathematicians. Not because I wanted the science to go this way, but because this way I would be right with my opinions.

 

[Fra]

Yes, poll on. My opinion will be (1).

Not but be picky, but I'm not sure I agree mathematics "explains the laws of nature". Describes sounds better than explains to me?

/Fredrik