On the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in

mathematics.

Discuss the language of the universe.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

On the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in

#1  Postby newolder » Jan 19, 2017 9:05 pm

I’ll just put this here and don’t mind if it gets moved to the physics board.

Natalie Paquette on “The unreasonable effectiveness of physics in mathematics.” - the title is a play on an earlier work by Eugene Wigner… Anyhoo, less than 12 minutes.

Related BPS Algebras, Genus Zero, and the Heterotic Monster arxiv preprint.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google



Re: On the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in

#3  Postby CdesignProponentsist » Jan 20, 2017 1:06 am

If string theory is not a model for our universe, I think it is certainly telling us something about it. I just wish it were easier to tease out the truth through observation.
"Things don't need to be true, as long as they are believed" - Alexander Nix, CEO Cambridge Analytica
User avatar
CdesignProponentsist
 
Posts: 12683
Age: 53
Male

Country: California
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: On the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in

#4  Postby crank » Jan 20, 2017 2:52 pm

I think it might not be all that hard to figure out what it's telling us, but few want to hear it.

Image
“When you're born into this world, you're given a ticket to the freak show. If you're born in America you get a front row seat.”
-George Carlin, who died 2008. Ha, now we have human centipedes running the place
User avatar
crank
RS Donator
 
Name: Sick & Tired
Posts: 10413
Age: 5
Male

Country: 2nd miasma on the left
Pitcairn (pn)
Print view this post

Re: On the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in

#5  Postby tuco » Jan 20, 2017 7:02 pm

Oh yeah its starts nicely as usual ..theory of little vibrating one dimensional objects .. this sounds a bit innocuous. Its not innocuous its .. unimaginable.

If I understand it correctly, the physicists had tools, in other words math, the mathematicians did not have. Or better yet, the physicists have not told the mathematicians about their know-how. Is there any other example where maths lags behind physics? I am asking because the way I understand it, physics is applied math.

---
edit: I do recognize that experimental physics lags behind theoretical and yes I also find it unsatisfactory. I guess change of priorities is in order. Bigger colliders, go!
tuco
 
Posts: 15544

Print view this post

Re: On the unreasonable effectiveness of physics in

#6  Postby newolder » Jan 20, 2017 8:11 pm

tuco wrote:Oh yeah its starts nicely as usual ..theory of little vibrating one dimensional objects .. this sounds a bit innocuous. Its not innocuous its .. unimaginable.

If I understand it correctly, the physicists had tools, in other words math, the mathematicians did not have. Or better yet, the physicists have not told the mathematicians about their know-how. Is there any other example where maths lags behind physics? I am asking because the way I understand it, physics is applied math.

That's kinda the point of the title, talk and paper.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7310
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post


Return to Mathematics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest