The mathematization of theoretical physics

I think there are three elements driving this:(1) Mathematical Theoretical Physics is low cost and appeals to the "elegant solution" vision. It may also have more "superstar appeal" than experimental physics (see below).(2) Experimental Physics is expensive and subject to budget cuts by non-physicists.(3) The scale required of many new experiments makes them difficult to develop experimental tests that can be physically built (how big can a super collider be? Personally I think this is an excellent thing to put in a space station ...).(2) and (3) are kind of inter-related - the size is what drives the cost and cost limits restrict the size considered to achieve a theoretical result with a minimum cost.A lot of experimental physics is engineering, and engineering doesn't have as much cache as being a scientist?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't think it applies to the study of existing theories so much as the creation of new ones, regardless of the field. Because the theories need to check out mathematically before they can be considered valid?Mathematics is a tool, not a search engine, and the major new ideas (QM and relativity for example) were not mathematical in their initial conception, math became involved to show how it might work.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yep. I been tick, and just haven't had the energy. Actually, I would say "is more concerned with deriving an 'elegant' mathematical solution than with explaining the natural world" as a more universal formulation of the concept.Of course part of this is understanding what the "natural world" involves, particularly at levels where understanding means a heavy involvement of mathematics ... does this become a self-feeding loop? ... ... It may be just lil ol me and my warped perspective, but it doesn't appear to me that these comments are making your (Son Goku's original post) case.Rather this seems to say that physics is fundamentally tied to mathematics and that understanding physics requires rather esoteric mathematics at either large cosmological scales or small quantum mechanical scales.Could it be that you guys are so deep in the forest that you can't see a world without trees?Jus my 40%*Nickle.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I just did a little google on "physics elegant solution" and got several pages, some probable more appropriate than others ...
physics elegant solution - Google Search... the first on on the list is "String People: Brian Greene"
http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/bgreene.html We can argue about whether string theory really simplifies things later, the point is the focus on the mathematical solution being "elegant" ...... and (for one example) I can call up my personal favorite bete noir, the dark stuffs, where either we have a simple ('elegant') mathematical solution and a universe that is over 90% filled with stuff we haven't seen (and still have no evidence of) ... or we need a (perhaps) more complex solution to model what we do observe and do have evidence of.At the other end of the spectrum of "life, the universe and everything" we have a number of particles that are predicted by the ('elegant') mathematical theories, but that have yet to be observed ... (which to me is an indication that another approach just might be more productive).In both these cases it seems to me that the effort is to find the missing matter and not to question the math. I don't doubt that {the solution} will be best expressed mathematically, that is not the issue.The issue is whether the math - particularly the 'elegant' solution - is considered more important than the evidence (or the lack of evidence).In other fields people will try to model complex systems with very intricate mathematically based computer models. They then test them against reality, and when there is a near but not perfect fit they will adjust the factors to make the result come out better: they'll make an empirical correlation to adjust their factors.The question then is what is causing the empirically derived effect.Perhaps physicists are seduced by the apparent simplicity of their initial systems compared to other fields.Perhaps there is both strong and weak gravity forces that operate in different manners, and the weak gravity is not apparent until you are at vast cosmological distances: no amount of tweaking the strong force mathematics will make it drop out of the math or the data.We do have evidence of gravitational anomalies in the behavior of (all) manmade satellites at extreme orbits that show some of the same kind of behavior as would be predicted by dark stuffs, except that the stuff would have to be inside the solar system rather than lost in deep space (where we conveniently cannot look very easily).There are a number of papers on the topic and a bit of an argument over how valid the data is (question the data, not the math?), but to me there is a rather simple ('elegant'?) solution: build a satellite expressly for the purpose of measuring the anomalous behavior as accurately as possible and get it out there. Build a couple and send them in opposite directions just for good measure.Maybe they need to be in two parts to eliminate (or at least control for) other possible causes (solar wind, out gassing, etc) so one is small and compact and the other is large and flimsy but has the radio and communications to receive data from the other, and transmit that back with it's own data (plus it's measurement of relative position of the other).As satellites go, they could be very inexpensive. (less than a super-collider?)And they would answer the question: do we know how gravity works or not?That's my basic take on the matter.That's enough for now. Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

LOL. It's just that a concept that involves something like 10 or so dimensions as opposed to the current 4 is not necessarily simplifying things eh? Thoreau didn't build his cabin with 10 walls ... Which is why I propose a test to measure the actual effect of gravity rather than argue about it.What is arrogant and naive from my perspective is sitting back in chairs and arguing about the various "possible" and "impossible" (mathematical) systems without testing to know how the effect you are modeling really behaves. Until you know what the observed gravitational anomaly actually is and how it actually behaves in the solar system, any theory is just whistling in the (solar) wind eh?Can you explain why all (cosmological at least) physicists aren't clamoring to find this out? Is there any way this would be counterproductive?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

And this is making your case that physicists are more interested in the way the real world behaves versus their mathematical model?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Yes. My understanding is that {it\they} will be in near earth space, to test the effect of earth on space:
NASA - Gravity Probe Launched It was launched some two years ago?
Gravity Probe B: Testing Einstein's Universe Then there is Gravity Probe A (the first one):
Gravity Probe A - Wikipedia Then there's Gravity Probe C, or is there? Seems there are two or three proposals?But am I missing something? Is there one going into deep space? On the trail of the pioneers? Out to where the anomalies become measurable?The topic suposedly has to do with the relative reliance on mathematics and on evidence, and so far you are both dismissing possible evidence that challenges the mathematics.Many a breakthrough occurs, not when someone says "eureka" but "that's curious ... "Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.