Starship Asterisk*

aristarchusinexile wrote:Einstein also was said to be poor in math

Einstein was one of the most brilliant mathematicians of our times.
See: Did Einstein flunk math?

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Einstein also was said to be poor in math

Einstein was one of the most brilliant mathematicians of our times.
See: Did Einstein flunk math?

More than one of the books I have read have Einstein asking more gifted friends to work out difficult math problems for him.

Did Einstein think in pictures rather than words? http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/4.html

aristarchusinexile wrote:More than one of the books I have read have Einstein asking more gifted friends to work out difficult math problems for him.

I doesn't matter. The point is, in every major publication, Einstein's ideas were fully supported by rigorous mathematical analysis. As such, they were presented in the common symbolic language of science, and therefore accessible to everyone for review. That is critical for any expression of new ideas in physics.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:More than one of the books I have read have Einstein asking more gifted friends to work out difficult math problems for him.

I doesn't matter. The point is, in every major publication, Einstein's ideas were fully supported by rigorous mathematical analysis. As such, they were presented in the common symbolic language of science, and therefore accessible to everyone for review. That is critical for any expression of new ideas in physics.

In your opinion of course.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:It doesn't matter. The point is, in every major publication, Einstein's ideas were fully supported by rigorous mathematical analysis. As such, they were presented in the common symbolic language of science, and therefore accessible to everyone for review. That is critical for any expression of new ideas in physics.

In your opinion of course.

It is not my opinion that math is the common language of physics. That's a simple fact.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

bystander wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:Einstein also was said to be poor in math

Einstein was one of the most brilliant mathematicians of our times.
See: Did Einstein flunk math?

More than one of the books I have read have Einstein asking more gifted friends to work out difficult math problems for him.

Did Einstein think in pictures rather than words? http://www.time.com/time/2007/einstein/4.html

Having gifted subordinates or colleagues proof-out the mathematics (or lab work) is a common academic practice beneficial to student and mentor alike. Because Einstein used assistance with mathematics should in no way imply he needed it.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:It doesn't matter. The point is, in every major publication, Einstein's ideas were fully supported by rigorous mathematical analysis. As such, they were presented in the common symbolic language of science, and therefore accessible to everyone for review. That is critical for any expression of new ideas in physics.

In your opinion of course.

It is not my opinion that math is the common language of physics. That's a simple fact.

What I commented on was your comment that math "is critical for any expression of new ideas in physics." Ideas can be presented in any language. Math is only critical to present those ideas to those whose basis of understanding is math, including those who do not have Einstein's ability of picturing ideas in their mind. Math, by the way, seems to rarely prove anything in physics, because free variables (I think that's the accepted term for fudging) seem to be included in most formulas .. very often more than two free variables.

Dr. Skeptic wrote: Having gifted subordinates or colleagues proof-out the mathematics (or lab work) is a common academic practice beneficial to student and mentor alike. Because Einstein used assistance with mathematics should in no way imply he needed it.

According to what I have read he needed it at times because he found it beyond his capabilities .. in one instance, I seem to recall, giving Bhors the task. We are not all gifted alike .. Einstein's greatest gift seems to have been his imagination .. his abilility to conceive (rather, perceive) ideas and present them to himself in images in his mind.

aristarchusinexile wrote:What I commented on was your comment that math "is critical for any expression of new ideas in physics." Ideas can be presented in any language. Math is only critical to present those ideas to those whose basis of understanding is math, including those who do not have Einstein's ability of picturing ideas in their mind. Math, by the way, seems to rarely prove anything in physics, because free variables (I think that's the accepted term for fudging) seem to be included in most formulas .. very often more than two free variables.

New ideas in physics are often born without involving math, but they are incomplete until framed mathematically. You'll note, for instance, that regardless of how Einstein came up with his ideas initially, he- alone or with help- expressed everything mathematically before publishing.

I cannot think of a single component of physics that does not require math in order to be fully described.

You misunderstand things if you think the purpose of math here is to "prove" anything. It is a symbolic language that allows the ideas to be formally manipulated and tested, something that is impossible in any linguistic language.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:What I commented on was your comment that math "is critical for any expression of new ideas in physics." Ideas can be presented in any language. Math is only critical to present those ideas to those whose basis of understanding is math, including those who do not have Einstein's ability of picturing ideas in their mind. Math, by the way, seems to rarely prove anything in physics, because free variables (I think that's the accepted term for fudging) seem to be included in most formulas .. very often more than two free variables.

New ideas in physics are often born without involving math, but they are incomplete until framed mathematically. You'll note, for instance, that regardless of how Einstein came up with his ideas initially, he- alone or with help- expressed everything mathematically before publishing.

I cannot think of a single component of physics that does not require math in order to be fully described.

You misunderstand things if you think the purpose of math here is to "prove" anything. It is a symbolic language that allows the ideas to be formally manipulated and tested, something that is impossible in any linguistic language.

I was commenting on your comment "is critical for any expression of new ideas in physics." You are going beyond your comment. As well, if math cannot prove the physics, what is the reason for the test? And if the test is subject to free variables, what is the purpose of the math? I appreciate that you are talking 'approximations', but wonder if you have that same appreciation, and that approximations are attainable without math. However, I do appreciate that it is math which allows Cassini to give us such great photos of Saturn, and I appreciate that this discussion is based on our disparity in views of what science is, and that each of us may bennefit from the other's view, blah blah blah.

aristarchusinexile wrote:As well, if math cannot prove the physics, what is the reason for the test?

Math provides a consistency of expression. Certainly, if the math doesn't work, either the idea is wrong, or the mapping of the idea to that math is wrong. That is important knowledge, either way. Math can work fine, of course, without proving any physical truths. But no physical theory can be considered complete until it can be rigorously described in the language of mathematics, so that anybody can test that theory and its predictions.

And if the test is subject to free variables, what is the purpose of the math?

You'll need to explain better what that even means before I can try answering the question.

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:As well, if math cannot prove the physics, what is the reason for the test?

Math provides a consistency of expression. Certainly, if the math doesn't work, either the idea is wrong, or the mapping of the idea to that math is wrong. That is important knowledge, either way. Math can work fine, of course, without proving any physical truths. But no physical theory can be considered complete until it can be rigorously described in the language of mathematics, so that anybody can test that theory and its predictions.

And if the test is subject to free variables, what is the purpose of the math?

You'll need to explain better what that even means before I can try answering the question.

Fudge factors to sweeten the way the math fits the theory.

aristarchusinexile wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:

aristarchusinexile wrote:And if the test is subject to free variables, what is the purpose of the math?

You'll need to explain better what that even means before I can try answering the question.

Fudge factors to sweeten the way the math fits the theory.

That is still no explanation that I can respond to.

Chris Peterson wrote: You'll need to explain better what that even means before I can try answering the question.

Fudge factors to sweeten the way the math fits the theory.[/quote]
That is still no explanation that I can respond to.[/quote]

Your response would be shiny wrapping paper for fudge anyway.