Undergrad Why is Hilbert not the last universalist?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Demystifier
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hilbert
  • #31
lavinia said:
Following up on your post I started to listen to the Messenger Lecture. I think Feynman was talking not about mathematics per se but about the application of mathematics to physical problems.

Mathematicians examine the realm of mathematics much as physicists examine nature. As Feymann described for Physics, Mathematics also has need for the "Babylonian method" as he called it.

Did you watch the entire thing? I think it is pretty clear that physics both historically and today cannot work solely based on axioms, as mathematics does, because we do not have a complete theory of physics yet. This also means that we do not know today which axioms ultimately will turn out to be truly fundamental in physics, being able to derive the whole of physics from them.

The standard method in physics is definitely not to work from axioms as it is in modern mathematics, even if this could in principle be done (e.g. see the Wightman in axiomatic quantum field theory), because the most important thing for something to be called physics is to have the predictions match experiment; in mathematics this feature does not really exist.

I could go much further and in much more depth on these topics, but I think this all is getting way off-topic. To get back on topic: pure mathematicians have, and always have had, a disdain for anything applied, believing it to be beneath them; it goes without saying that this disdain extends to all of physics as well. Hilbert clearly agreed with this stance for pretty much his entire life. For Poincaré however, like Newton and Gauss before him, this purist view of all things could not be further removed from the truth.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Auto-Didact said:
Did you watch the entire thing? I think it is pretty clear that physics both historically and today cannot work solely based on axioms, as mathematics does, because we do not have a complete theory of physics yet. This also means that we do not know today which axioms ultimately will turn out to be truly fundamental in physics, being able to derive the whole of physics from them.

The standard method in physics is definitely not to work from axioms as it is in modern mathematics, even if this could in principle be done (e.g. see the Wightman in axiomatic quantum field theory), because the most important thing for something to be called physics is to have the predictions match experiment; in mathematics this feature does not really exist.

I could go much further and in much more depth on these topics, but I think this all is getting way off-topic. To get back on topic: pure mathematicians have, and always have had, a disdain for anything applied, believing it to be beneath them; it goes without saying that this disdain extends to all of physics as well. Hilbert clearly agreed with this stance for pretty much his entire life. For Poincaré however, like Newton and Gauss before him, this purist view of all things could not be further removed from the truth.

IMO mathematics does not work from axioms. Axioms are always an after thought - like physical laws.

To me, physics is in fact a deductive system and what physicists do is search for the best set of axioms to explain Nature. For example: Axiom: The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. Deduction: Relativity of simultaneity.

Mathematicians generally work empirically and through intuition and by Feynmann's "Babylonian Method" which looks at many examples and then derives a theory that reveals common properties. In this sense, it is very much like physics or any other science.

Euclidean geometry itself is an after thought of long research and the study of flat spaces goes far beyond Euclid's Axioms.

- Mathematics is not complete either. There are many unsolved problems with no known method of resolution.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Here is the section on Hilbert's work on Physics from the Wikipedia article "David Hilbert" At the end of the article, the Book "Mathematical Methods of Physics" by Courant and Hilbert is mentioned . It is an attempt to bring Mathematics and Physics together as is explicitly stated in the introduction.

"Physics[edit]
Until 1912, Hilbert was almost exclusively a "pure" mathematician. When planning a visit from Bonn, where he was immersed in studying physics, his fellow mathematician and friend Hermann Minkowski joked he had to spend 10 days in quarantine before being able to visit Hilbert. In fact, Minkowski seems responsible for most of Hilbert's physics investigations prior to 1912, including their joint seminar in the subject in 1905.

In 1912, three years after his friend's death, Hilbert turned his focus to the subject almost exclusively. He arranged to have a "physics tutor" for himself.[37] He started studying kinetic gas theory and moved on to elementary radiation theory and the molecular theory of matter. Even after the war started in 1914, he continued seminars and classes where the works of Albert Einstein and others were followed closely.

By 1907 Einstein had framed the fundamentals of the theory of gravity, but then struggled for nearly 8 years with a confounding problem of putting the theory into final form.[38] By early summer 1915, Hilbert's interest in physics had focused on general relativity, and he invited Einstein to Göttingen to deliver a week of lectures on the subject.[39] Einstein received an enthusiastic reception at Göttingen.[40] Over the summer Einstein learned that Hilbert was also working on the field equations and redoubled his own efforts. During November 1915 Einstein published several papers culminating in "The Field Equations of Gravitation" (see Einstein field equations).[41] Nearly simultaneously David Hilbert published "The Foundations of Physics", an axiomatic derivation of the field equations (see Einstein–Hilbert action). Hilbert fully credited Einstein as the originator of the theory, and no public priority dispute concerning the field equations ever arose between the two men during their lives.[42] See more at priority.

Additionally, Hilbert's work anticipated and assisted several advances in the mathematical formulation of quantum mechanics. His work was a key aspect of Hermann Weyl and John von Neumann's work on the mathematical equivalence of Werner Heisenberg's matrix mechanics and Erwin Schrödinger's wave equation and his namesake Hilbert space plays an important part in quantum theory. In 1926 von Neumann showed that if atomic states were understood as vectors in Hilbert space, then they would correspond with both Schrödinger's wave function theory and Heisenberg's matrices.[43]

Throughout this immersion in physics, Hilbert worked on putting rigor into the mathematics of physics. While highly dependent on higher math, physicists tended to be "sloppy" with it. To a "pure" mathematician like Hilbert, this was both "ugly" and difficult to understand. As he began to understand physics and how physicists were using mathematics, he developed a coherent mathematical theory for what he found, most importantly in the area of integral equations. When his colleague Richard Courant wrote the now classic Methoden der mathematischen Physik (Methods of Mathematical Physics) including some of Hilbert's ideas, he added Hilbert's name as author even though Hilbert had not directly contributed to the writing. Hilbert said "Physics is too hard for physicists", implying that the necessary mathematics was generally beyond them; the Courant-Hilbert book made it easier for them"
 
  • Like
Likes mathwonk, Demystifier and fresh_42
  • #34
Thanks for the above quote, I had already read it, but it is certainly useful here for others as well.

lavinia said:
IMO mathematics does not work from axioms. Axioms are always an after thought - like physical laws.

To me, physics is in fact a deductive system and what physicists do is search for the best set of axioms to explain Nature. For example: Axiom: The speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames. Deduction: Relativity of simultaneity.

Mathematicians generally work empirically and through intuition and by Feynmann's "Babylonian Method" which looks at many examples and then derives a theory the reveals common properties. In this sense, it is very much like physics or any other science.

Euclidean geometry itself is an after thought of long research and the study of flat spaces goes far beyond Euclid's Axioms.

- Mathematics is not complete either. There are many unsolved problems with no known method of resolution.

I agree with much of what you say; the point is not that mathematicians always do try to axiomatize and prove things, it is that they can at all and in many modern instances do. As for physics being deductive, I agree up to a point: the problem in physics is that the 'axioms' need to be experimentally verified before being justifiable as an axiom i.e. as a 'self-evident truth'; I would argue no such thing exists in physics, there are instead principles and postulates. Postulates and principles in physics can be rendered wholly defunct if they get experimentally falsified; their derivations are then pretty much worthless for physics since they never were true to begin with, let alone self-evident. I would also argue physics is more abductive (i.e. guesswork, estimation) than deductive as Feynman also said in one of last his Messenger Lectures describing how to do new science.

And of course mathematicians still also calculate things and do other conventional things, but proof has become a major part of any real mathematics programme, focusing on axioms and how to prove theorems thereby. One example is the mature linear transformation view in linear algebra which heavily abstracts away from vectors and can be applied to basically anything which satisfies the vector space axioms, another is the focus on methods of proof and definition of continuity, smoothness and analyticity as taught in analysis courses.

As Feynman points out, this extemely abstract and rigorous attitude marks a very great departure in the very meaning and goal of what historically was important in mathematics, and it was not really there at all for physicists and mathematicians before the 20th century; indeed, it was even the reason he changed his major from mathematics to physics. Incidentally, after logicism and formalism arose and physics simultaneously underwent it's two early 20th century revolutions, mathematics and physics, once very close subjects started to stray further and further apart; Dyson writes a bit on this in his paper 'Missed Opportunities' in the analogy of a marriage and a divorce. Last but not least, it may be that since Feynman's time studying mathematics in university has changed a bit focusing a bit less on axioms than before after the whole debacle with the Continuum Hypothesis being independent of certain axiomatizations of mathematics.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
More on-topic: a few years ago I read Poincaré's seminal book, The Foundations of Science. In it, he clearly discusses his mathematical views while carefully separating his views from the logicians and logicists.

Another such seminal work is Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science by Weyl. Here is my favourite quote:
Hermann Weyl said:
Mathematics with Brouwer gains its highest intuitive clarity. He succeeds in developing the beginnings of analysis in a natural manner, all the time preserving the contact with intuition much more closely than had been done before. It cannot be denied, however, that in advancing to higher and more general theories the inapplicability of the simple laws of classical logic eventually results in an almost unbearable awkwardness. And the mathematician watches with pain the greater part of his towering edifice which he believed to be built of concrete blocks dissolve into mist before his eyes.

Incidentally, I would also argue that Weyl, who was a student of Hilbert, comes close to being a universalist as well.
 
  • #36
Auto-Didact said:
comes close to being a universalist as well.

Weyl was not only a mathematician, his interests ranged from physics to philosophy. Surely he has made many contributions in mathematical, especially in the field on quantization (''Weyl quantization'') and in group theory. Anyway I think it is far from becoming a Universalist (in mathematics) like his ''big'' predecessors ...
 
  • #37
Ssnow said:
Weyl was not only a mathematician, his interests ranged from physics to philosophy. Surely he has made many contributions in mathematical, especially in the field on quantization (''Weyl quantization'') and in group theory. Anyway I think it is far from becoming a Universalist (in mathematics) like his ''big'' predecessors ...

I am basing my stance of him coming close to universalism off of the biographical memoir of Weyl by Michael Atiyah.
 
  • #38
Ssnow said:
Weyl was not only a mathematician, his interests ranged from physics to philosophy. Surely he has made many contributions in mathematical, especially in the field on quantization (''Weyl quantization'') and in group theory. Anyway I think it is far from becoming a Universalist (in mathematics) like his ''big'' predecessors ...

What exactly does he miss? Which area has he not contributed to?
 
  • Like
Likes Auto-Didact and Demystifier
  • #39
martinbn said:
What exactly does he miss? Which area has he not contributed to?

for example respect to Poincaré I don't know relevant works in analysis or complex analysis,differential equations, applied mathematics as celestial mechanics, elasticity, caos theory ...
In Poincaré I can see a greater variation of contributions on various branches of mathematics that I cannot see in Weyl ...
 
  • #40
martinbn said:
What exactly does he miss? Which area has he not contributed to?

for example respect to Poincaré I don't know relevant works in analysis or complex analysis,differential equations, applied mathematics as celestial mechanics, elasticity, caos theory ...
In Poincaré I can see a greater variation of contributions on various branches of mathematics that I cannot see in Weyl ...
 
  • #41
sorry, I saw now that I posted two times the same answer and I cannot cancel one of them, somebody know how to cancel a post after long time ...
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Ssnow said:
for example respect to Poincaré I don't know relevant works in analysis or complex analysis,differential equations, applied mathematics as celestial mechanics, elasticity, caos theory ...
In Poincaré I can see a greater variation of contributions on various branches of mathematics that I cannot see in Weyl ...

Now, to me at least, Weyl obviously is no Poincaré (imo Poincaré is the greatest of his era). This however does not detract from Weyl's massive contributions across numerous fields.

In mathematics, Weyl has done important work in singular differential equations, integral equations, number theory, convex bodies, the general theory of the representations and invariants of the classical Lie groups, the theory of self-adjoint operators, spectral theory, Riemann surfaces, analysis, algebra, topology, differential geometry and the foundations of mathematics, among many others.

In physics, he has done both ground-breaking and foundational work in spacetime theory, group theory in quantum mechanics, local spinor structures for curved spacetime, CPT symmetry and, perhaps most importantly, the invention of gauge theory.
 
  • Like
Likes martinbn and Demystifier
  • #43
In my previous post was not my intention to reduce the figure of Weyl that obviously remains one of the most influential in the world of mathematics, what I mean is that it is impossible to compare the two figures as Poincaré and Weyl for many reasons ... summarize it is the same to compare two stars that belong to different planetary systems ...
Ssnow
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
566