4 ms·

String theorists should stop referring to themselves as physicists and just accept they're pure mathematicians already. String theory makes for an interesting

String theorists should stop referring to themselves as physicists and just accept they're pure mathematicians already. String theory makes for an interesting branch of mathematics, but an awful excuse for a physical theory.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
j2kun 12y ago
The problem is physicists tend to use "intuition" to prove things. I don't know any string theorists, but if they were trained to think like physicists then it's probably not any different.
- yk 12y ago
  Well, right tool for the job. So 90% of the time math is used in physics to either calculate some quantity, like a scattering amplitude or the position of a planet, or to build models. In both cases you are right. But there is the entire area of mathematical physics, where the goal is formal proofs. ( Admittedly, mathematical physicists are quite often more in the business to get in the position of being able to write down a formal proof, rather than actually proving theorems. )
- privong 12y ago
  > The problem is physicists tend to use "intuition" to prove things. That is not correct (or I am completely misunderstanding what you intended to say). There's a huge component of physics that is experimental, and those experiments are used to develop and test models and theories. Initution comes into play when developing theories or thinking about new directions to take experiments, but intution is not and cannot be a substitue for experimental evidence.
  - chriswarbo 12y ago
    There's a distinction between "mathematical proof" and "empirical proof". Physicists are certainly good at empirical proof, but I think the 'appeal to intuition' complaint was aimed at the mathematical side (ie. the Maths in Physics isn't very rigorous). As a former Physicist and current Computer Scientist, I would agree with that complaint (although our use of empirical evidence is FAR below that in Physics). For example, in Programming Language Theory it's amazing how many different notions of "equal" there are (isomorphism, definitional, judgemental, propositional, extensional, etc.). In Physics, there's just "=" :)
    - raverbashing 12y ago
      That "intuition" is what brought us Special and General Relativity "the Maths in Physics isn't very rigorous" Well, of course it isn't, because of the physical limitations. You can't expect to get Newton's second law and make it work with any kind of mathematical object. (if that's what you mean) > In Physics, there's just "=" Scalar equality? Vector equality? Magnitude equality? Also leptons are 'equal' following the Pauli exclusion principle?
      - j2kun 12y ago
        Nobody is criticizing the results of physics. But you can't call them mathematicians unless they're giving mathematical proofs.
      - chriswarbo 12y ago
        > That "intuition" is what brought us Special and General Relativity Yes. Intuition is a good thing. It just shouldn't be relied on for proofs. To compare, Mathematicians followed their intuitions to bring us all kinds of results (eg. ). It's a good thing. It just shouldn't be used to prone to making mistakes when but shouldn't be relied on for (Mathematical) proof. > You can't expect to get Newton's second law and make it work with any kind of mathematical object. That's not rigour, that's generality. For an example of rigour, compare the treatment of (infinitesimal) calculus in Physics and in pure Mathematics (eg. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#Foundations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#Foundations ). >> In Physics, there's just "=" > Scalar equality? Vector equality? Magnitude equality? I would say the first two are "instances" of the same principle (in the same way that, for example, intensional equality can be "instantiated" for integers, arrays, matrices, etc.). Magnitude equality composes the absolute value operation with "the" equality operation, so I would call it a shorthand rather than a distinct equality principle. > Also leptons are 'equal' following the Pauli exclusion principle? What an excellent example of a non-rigorous statement ;) (ie. what is your model of leptons?) For reference, some of the examples I mentioned are described at http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/equality http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/equality
- Vraxx 12y ago
  That's a bit of an oversimplification that I'd like to point out. Math proofs are certainly more rigorous and physics does rely on a bit more of an intuitive property in some ways, but that doesn't mean that intuition is the main source of proving things in physics. A bit of empirical evidence falls in there too. (Something mathematicians don't rely on as heavily :P)

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

j2kun 12y ago

The problem is physicists tend to use "intuition" to prove things. I don't know any string theorists, but if they were trained to think like physicists then it's probably not any different.

yk 12y ago
Well, right tool for the job. So 90% of the time math is used in physics to either calculate some quantity, like a scattering amplitude or the position of a planet, or to build models. In both cases you are right. But there is the entire area of mathematical physics, where the goal is formal proofs. ( Admittedly, mathematical physicists are quite often more in the business to get in the position of being able to write down a formal proof, rather than actually proving theorems. )
privong 12y ago
> The problem is physicists tend to use "intuition" to prove things. That is not correct (or I am completely misunderstanding what you intended to say). There's a huge component of physics that is experimental, and those experiments are used to develop and test models and theories. Initution comes into play when developing theories or thinking about new directions to take experiments, but intution is not and cannot be a substitue for experimental evidence.
- chriswarbo 12y ago
  There's a distinction between "mathematical proof" and "empirical proof". Physicists are certainly good at empirical proof, but I think the 'appeal to intuition' complaint was aimed at the mathematical side (ie. the Maths in Physics isn't very rigorous). As a former Physicist and current Computer Scientist, I would agree with that complaint (although our use of empirical evidence is FAR below that in Physics). For example, in Programming Language Theory it's amazing how many different notions of "equal" there are (isomorphism, definitional, judgemental, propositional, extensional, etc.). In Physics, there's just "=" :)
  - raverbashing 12y ago
    That "intuition" is what brought us Special and General Relativity "the Maths in Physics isn't very rigorous" Well, of course it isn't, because of the physical limitations. You can't expect to get Newton's second law and make it work with any kind of mathematical object. (if that's what you mean) > In Physics, there's just "=" Scalar equality? Vector equality? Magnitude equality? Also leptons are 'equal' following the Pauli exclusion principle?
    - j2kun 12y ago
      Nobody is criticizing the results of physics. But you can't call them mathematicians unless they're giving mathematical proofs.
    - chriswarbo 12y ago
      > That "intuition" is what brought us Special and General Relativity Yes. Intuition is a good thing. It just shouldn't be relied on for proofs. To compare, Mathematicians followed their intuitions to bring us all kinds of results (eg. ). It's a good thing. It just shouldn't be used to prone to making mistakes when but shouldn't be relied on for (Mathematical) proof. > You can't expect to get Newton's second law and make it work with any kind of mathematical object. That's not rigour, that's generality. For an example of rigour, compare the treatment of (infinitesimal) calculus in Physics and in pure Mathematics (eg. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#Foundations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#Foundations ). >> In Physics, there's just "=" > Scalar equality? Vector equality? Magnitude equality? I would say the first two are "instances" of the same principle (in the same way that, for example, intensional equality can be "instantiated" for integers, arrays, matrices, etc.). Magnitude equality composes the absolute value operation with "the" equality operation, so I would call it a shorthand rather than a distinct equality principle. > Also leptons are 'equal' following the Pauli exclusion principle? What an excellent example of a non-rigorous statement ;) (ie. what is your model of leptons?) For reference, some of the examples I mentioned are described at http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/equality http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/equality
Vraxx 12y ago
That's a bit of an oversimplification that I'd like to point out. Math proofs are certainly more rigorous and physics does rely on a bit more of an intuitive property in some ways, but that doesn't mean that intuition is the main source of proving things in physics. A bit of empirical evidence falls in there too. (Something mathematicians don't rely on as heavily :P)