"A more extreme form of exponential growth was probably responsible for the start of the universe. Astronomer and physicists now generally accept the Big Bang theory, according to which the universe started at an unimaginably small size and then doubled in a split second 100 times, enough to make it the size of a small grapefruit. This period of 'inflation' or exponential growth then ended, and linear growth took over, with an expanding fireball creating the universe that we know today." (Richar Koch, "The Power Laws", 2000)
"Neither space nor time has any existence outside the system of evolving relationships that comprises the universe. Physicists refer to this feature of general relativity as background independence."
"One of the remarkable aspects of the distribution of prime numbers is their tendency to exhibit global regularity and local irregularity. The prime numbers behave like the ‘ideal gases"’which physicists are so fond of. Considered from an external point of view, the distribution is -in broad terms -deterministic, but as soon as we try to describe the situation at a given point, statistical fluctuations occur as in a game of chance where it is known that on average the heads will match the tail but where, at any one moment, the next throw cannot be predicted." (Gerald Tenenbaum & Michael M France,"The Prime Numbers and Their Distribution", 2000)
"[…] the search for a Theory of Everything also raises interesting philosophical questions. Some physicists, [Stephen] Hawking among them, would regard the construction of a Theory of Everything as being, in some sense, reading the mind of God. Or at least unravelling the inner secrets of physical reality. Others simply argue that a physical theory is just a description of reality, rather like a map." (Peter Coles, "Hawking and the Mind of God", 2000)
"Theoretical physicists are like pure mathematicians, in that they are often interested in the hypothetical behaviour of entirely imaginary objects, such as parallel universes, or particles traveling faster than light, whose actual existence is not being seriously proposed at all." (John Ziman," Real Science: What it Is, and what it Means", 2000)
"Physics builds from observations. No physical theory can succeed if it is not confirmed by observations, and a theory strongly supported by observations cannot be denied. (William N Cropper, Great Physicists, 2001)
"I don't have the hubris to imagine a theory of everything. I think that we scientists are seeking an understanding of the natural world. We come in various types - chemists and physicists and biologists and such - and we all have the same goal. We are making progress. The theories we have today of life and chemistry and physics are much better than they were ten years ago. And ten years from now they will be better still." (Sheldon Lee Glashow, [interview] 2003)
"Pure mathematics was characterized by an obsession with proof, rigor, beauty, and elegance, and sought its foundations in the disembodied worlds of logic or intuition. Far from being coextensive with physics, pure mathematics could be ‘applied’ only after it had been made foundationally secure by the purists." (Andrew Warwick,"Masters of Theory: Cambridge and the rise of mathematical physics", 2003)
"Some areas of human knowledge ever since its origin had shaken our understanding of the universe from time to time. While this is more true about physics, it is true about mathematics as well. The birth of topology as analysis situs meaning rubbersheet geometry had a similar impact on our traditional knowledge of analysis. Indeed, topology had enough energy and vigour to give birth to a new culture of mathematical approach. Algebraic topology added a new dimension to that. Because quantum physicists and applied mathematicians had noted wonderful interpretations of many physical phenomena through algebraic topology, they took immense interest in the study of topology in the twentieth century." (D Chatterjee, "Topology: General & Algebraic", 2003)
"Theoretical physics borrows from mathematics (or, if there's none to borrow, they invent new mathematics) in order to create a mathematical roadmap of things that can happen in the real world, in nature. It strives to explain all of the many different phenomena observed in the universe, perhaps ultimately seeking one elegant and economical logical system. However, physicists usually settle for lesser triumphs, in which many physical systems with common and comprehensible behaviors are successfully described. This description is always created in the abstract language of mathematics." (Leon M Lederman & Christopher T Hill, "Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe", 2004)
"We have come, in our time, to systematize our understanding of the rules of nature. We say that these rules are the laws of physics. The language of the laws of nature is mathematics. We acknowledge that our understanding of the laws is still incomplete, yet we know how to proceed to enlarge our understanding by means of the 'scientific method' - a logical process of observation and reason that distills the empirically true statements we can make about nature." (Leon M Lederman & Christopher T Hill, "Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe", 2004)
"Feedback and its big brother, control theory, are such important concepts that it is odd that they usually find no formal place in the education of physicists. On the practical side, experimentalists often need to use feedback. Almost any experiment is subject to the vagaries of environmental perturbations. Usually, one wants to vary a parameter of interest while holding all others constant. How to do this properly is the subject of control theory. More fundamentally, feedback is one of the great ideas developed (mostly) in the last century, with particularly deep consequences for biological systems, and all physicists should have some understanding of such a basic concept." (John Bechhoefer, "Feedback for physicists: A tutorial essay on control", Reviews of Modern Physics Vol. 77, 2005)
"Quantum physicists today are reconciled to randomness at the individual event level, but to expect causality to underlie statistical quantum phenomena is reasonable. Suppose a person shakes an ink pen such that ink spots are formed on a white wall, in what appears for all intents and purposes, randomly. Let us further suppose the random ink spots accumulate to form precise pictures of different known persons' faces every time. We will not regard the overall result to be a happenchance; we are apt to suspect there must be a 'method' to the person who is shaking the ink pen." (Ravi Gomatam) [response to Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg's article "Einstein's Mistakes", Physics Today Vol. 59 (4), 2005]
"[...] the view that math provides absolute certainty and is static and perfect while physics is tentative and constantly evolving is a false dichotomy. Math is actually not that different from physics. Both are attempts of the human mind to organize, to make sense, of human experience; in the case of physics, experience in the laboratory, in the physical world, and in the case of math, experience in the computer, in the mental mindscape of pure mathematics. And mathematics is far from static and perfect; it is constantly evolving, constantly changing, constantly morphing itself into new forms. New concepts are constantly transforming math and creating new fields, new viewpoints, new emphasis, and new questions to answer. And mathematicians do in fact utilize unproved new principles suggested by computational experience, just as a physicist would." (Gregory Chaitin, "Meta Math: The Quest for Omega", 2005)
"Mathematical language is littered with pejorative and mystical terms - such as irrational, imaginary, surd, transcendental - that were once used to ridicule supposedly impossible objects. And these are just terms applied to numbers. Geometry also has many concepts that seem impossible to most people, such as the fourth dimension, finite universes, and curved space - yet geometers" (and physicists) cannot do without them. Thus there is no doubt that mathematics flirts with the impossible, and seems to make progress by doing so." (John Stillwell, "Yearning for the Impossible: The Surprising Truths of Mathematics", 2006)
"[…] mathematicians complain when physicists leap over technicalities, such as throwing away terms they don’t like in differential equations. […] Mathematicians worry about justifying […] approximations and spend a lot of effort coping with paranoid delusions […] Mathematicians cherish the rare moments where physicists’ leaps of faith get them into trouble. […] While it is fun to point out physicists’ errors, it is much more satisfying when wediscover something that they don’t know." (Rick Durrett, "Random Graph Dynamics", 2006)
"[…] mathematicians are much more concerned for example with the structure behind something or with the whole edifice. Mathematicians are not really puzzlers. Those who really solve mathematical puzzles are the physicists. If you like to solve mathematical puzzles, you should not study mathematics but physics!" (Carlo Beenakker, [interview] 2006)
"In one of the largest calculations done to date, it was checked that the first ten trillion of these zeros lie on the correct line. So there are ten trillion pieces of evidence indicating that the Riemann hypothesis is true and not a single piece of evidence indicating that it is false. A physicist might be overwhelmingly pleased with this much evidence in favour of the hypothesis, but to some mathematicians this is hardly evidence at all. However, it is interesting ancillary information." (Peter Borwein et al, "The Riemann Hypothesis: A Resource for the Afficionado and Virtuoso Alike", 2007)
"Just as physicists have created models of the atom based on observed data and intuitive synthesis of the patterns in their data, so must designers create models of users based on observed behaviors and intuitive synthesis of the patterns in the data. Only after we formalize such patterns can we hope to systematically construct patterns of interaction that smoothly match the behavior patterns, mental models, and goals of users. Personas provide this formalization." (Alan Cooper et al, "About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design", 2007)
"Physicists have been drawn to elegant mathematical relationships that bind the subject together with economy and style, melding disparate qualities in subtle and harmonious ways. But this is to import a new factor into the argument - questions of aesthetics and taste. We are then on shaky ground indeed. It may be that M theory looks beautiful to its creators, but ugly to N theorists, who think that their theory is the most elegant. But then the O theorists disagree with both groups [...]" (Paul C W Davies, "Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life", 2007)
"That is, the physicist likes to learn from particular illustrations of a general abstract concept. The mathematician, on the other hand, often eschews the particular in pursuit of the most abstract and general formulation possible. Although the mathematician may think from, or through, particular concrete examples in coming to appreciate the likely truth of very general statements, he will hide all those intuitive steps when he comes to present the conclusions of his thinking to outsiders. It presents the results of research as a hierarchy of definitions, theorems and proofs after the manner of Euclid; this minimizes unnecessary words but very effectively disguises the natural train of thought that led to the original results." (John D Barrow, "New Theories of Everything", 2007)
No comments:
Post a Comment