From
https://www.quora.com/Is-physics-or-mathematics-more-fundamental

The reply that caught my attention was a Feynman quote:

“If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week.”
(Richard Feynman)

That’s rubbish, isn’t it?

The Rev Dodgson said:

From
https://www.quora.com/Is-physics-or-mathematics-more-fundamental

The reply that caught my attention was a Feynman quote:

“If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week.”
(Richard Feynman)

That’s rubbish, isn’t it?

Completely.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From
https://www.quora.com/Is-physics-or-mathematics-more-fundamental

The reply that caught my attention was a Feynman quote:

“If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week.”
(Richard Feynman)

That’s rubbish, isn’t it?

I know you are not a Quora fan, but usually the discussion has some replies that seem pretty good to me, but this one I think I disagree with almost everything in all of them (or those I read).
Completely.

If there were other life forms in our universe, intelligent life forms, they would be using the same physics as us but not necessarily the same mathematics.

Peak Warming Man said:

If there were other life forms in our universe, intelligent life forms, they would be using the same physics as us but not necessarily the same mathematics.

Good point.

I’m not sure how true it is, but it certainly helps to clarify the question.

I think there would be fundamental similarity between the maths used by us and aliens. There may be some techniques they know that we don’t know (and vice versa) but you could say the same for their knowledge of physics.

You can do fuck-all physics without maths, but the converse is not true.

the math may be different but the answers would be the same.

Bogsnorkler said:

the math may be different but the answers would be the same.

Not necessarily.

Their physics and the associated maths will certainly be based on a different set of observations, so the answers may well be different.

Fundamental to what?

Doesn’t mathematics describe physics and we could redesign all our mathematical symbols and equations would look completely different but physics remain the same. Take away mathematics and the universe wouldn’t care but take away physics and the universe wouldn’t exist.

Cymek said:

Doesn’t mathematics describe physics and we could redesign all our mathematical symbols and equations would look completely different but physics remain the same. Take away mathematics and the universe wouldn’t care but take away physics and the universe wouldn’t exist.

Depends on what you mean by “physics”. I assume they’re using it in an epistemological sense, i.e., “the scientific study of physical things”, rather than the physical things themselves.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

the math may be different but the answers would be the same.

Not necessarily.

Their physics and the associated maths will certainly be based on a different set of observations, so the answers may well be different.

I think the revs point was that an alien viewing and feeling things via different senses might arrive at calculations to explain “observations” totally different to ours, not just a substitution of symbols.

Cymek said:

Doesn’t mathematics describe physics and we could redesign all our mathematical symbols and equations would look completely different but physics remain the same. Take away mathematics and the universe wouldn’t care but take away physics and the universe wouldn’t exist.

Does physics rely on language and mathematics ?

Does physics have rules similar to mathematics and language ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Doesn’t mathematics describe physics and we could redesign all our mathematical symbols and equations would look completely different but physics remain the same. Take away mathematics and the universe wouldn’t care but take away physics and the universe wouldn’t exist.

Does physics rely on language and mathematics ?

Does physics have rules similar to mathematics and language ?

Aliens may have different language and maybe different mathematics to describe physics.

But a 0 is a zero and a 1 is a one.

Gravity is a word for a physics concept.

I imagine that aliens would know the concept of gravity, space and time, behavior of particles etc.

dv said:

I think there would be fundamental similarity between the maths used by us and aliens. There may be some techniques they know that we don’t know (and vice versa) but you could say the same for their knowledge of physics.

You can do fuck-all physics without maths, but the converse is not true.

The point that dv makes in key here…

maths is “language” of physics… it’s the tool we use to describe the behavior of physical systems…

without it, physics would just be a whole lot of handwaving

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Doesn’t mathematics describe physics and we could redesign all our mathematical symbols and equations would look completely different but physics remain the same. Take away mathematics and the universe wouldn’t care but take away physics and the universe wouldn’t exist.

Does physics rely on language and mathematics ?

Does physics have rules similar to mathematics and language ?

Physics has rules so to speak but I wonder if you could break them but subjecting the universe to conditions not found naturally.
We rely on language and mathematics to describe our human understanding of physics but it probably wouldn’t apply outside out species. Dogs might rely on smell and can I bury it or chew it to describe physics

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I think there would be fundamental similarity between the maths used by us and aliens. There may be some techniques they know that we don’t know (and vice versa) but you could say the same for their knowledge of physics.

You can do fuck-all physics without maths, but the converse is not true.

The point that dv makes in key here…

maths is “language” of physics… it’s the tool we use to describe the behavior of physical systems…

without it, physics would just be a whole lot of handwaving

Take away language and mathematics then try describing physics.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

Doesn’t mathematics describe physics and we could redesign all our mathematical symbols and equations would look completely different but physics remain the same. Take away mathematics and the universe wouldn’t care but take away physics and the universe wouldn’t exist.

Does physics rely on language and mathematics ?

Does physics have rules similar to mathematics and language ?

Aliens may have different language and maybe different mathematics to describe physics.

But a 0 is a zero and a 1 is a one.

Gravity is a word for a physics concept.

I imagine that aliens would know the concept of gravity, space and time, behavior of particles etc.

Don’t different cultures develop language in similar ways

descriptive words

words for actions

etc

So I imagine the same would be similar for mathematics ?

Tau.Neutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I think there would be fundamental similarity between the maths used by us and aliens. There may be some techniques they know that we don’t know (and vice versa) but you could say the same for their knowledge of physics.

You can do fuck-all physics without maths, but the converse is not true.

The point that dv makes in key here…

maths is “language” of physics… it’s the tool we use to describe the behavior of physical systems…

without it, physics would just be a whole lot of handwaving

Take away language and mathematics then try describing physics.

That applies to most things though.
Physics works regardless of it being described but the mathematics describing physics wouldn’t mean anything if the physics didn’t exist.

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

The point that dv makes in key here…

maths is “language” of physics… it’s the tool we use to describe the behavior of physical systems…

without it, physics would just be a whole lot of handwaving

Take away language and mathematics then try describing physics.

That applies to most things though.
Physics works regardless of it being described but the mathematics describing physics wouldn’t mean anything if the physics didn’t exist.

physics (as a study of physical systems) is a human construct… yes physical systems would exist in absence of physics, but physics itself would not exist in the absence of mathematics…

Cymek said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

The point that dv makes in key here…

maths is “language” of physics… it’s the tool we use to describe the behavior of physical systems…

without it, physics would just be a whole lot of handwaving

Take away language and mathematics then try describing physics.

That applies to most things though.
Physics works regardless of it being described but the mathematics describing physics wouldn’t mean anything if the physics didn’t exist.

Language describes things.

Mathematics describes things.

Physics describes things.

That about wraps it up – mathematics is fundamental to the science of physics, but the science of physics is not fundamental to mathematics.

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

the math may be different but the answers would be the same.

Not necessarily.

Their physics and the associated maths will certainly be based on a different set of observations, so the answers may well be different.

I think the revs point was that an alien viewing and feeling things via different senses might arrive at calculations to explain “observations” totally different to ours, not just a substitution of symbols.

I wasn’t even thinking about different senses, but yes, good point.

The Rev Dodgson said:

AwesomeO said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not necessarily.

Their physics and the associated maths will certainly be based on a different set of observations, so the answers may well be different.

I think the revs point was that an alien viewing and feeling things via different senses might arrive at calculations to explain “observations” totally different to ours, not just a substitution of symbols.

I wasn’t even thinking about different senses, but yes, good point.

Aliens might sense things differently, an interesting area for research.

The study could draw knowledge from how other lifeforms sense the universe / environment.

>>That about wraps it up

Good, no need for a press conference on this one.
Just release a press statement for and on behalf of the Tokyo Chapter of the Holiday Forum, fallow members, honoury members etc etc
Then we can move on to items 2, 3, 4, 5 through to 11 all of which pertain to lunch, pre lunch post lunch items and their addendums pertaining to accompanying libations.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>That about wraps it up

Good, no need for a press conference on this one.
Just release a press statement for and on behalf of the Tokyo Chapter of the Holiday Forum, fallow members, honoury members etc etc
Then we can move on to items 2, 3, 4, 5 through to 11 all of which pertain to lunch, pre lunch post lunch items and their addendums pertaining to accompanying libations.

And a substantial pay rise

i’d guess the math is originated of the physics (out there, and ya brain), so they ain’t so separate.

variously structures, and what ain’t

The Rev Dodgson said:

From
https://www.quora.com/Is-physics-or-mathematics-more-fundamental

The reply that caught my attention was a Feynman quote:

“If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week.”
(Richard Feynman)

That’s rubbish, isn’t it?

Um, it’s rubbish according to Dirac.

But now times are different. All the physics that we have observed is based on mathematics prior to 1986. About the last new mathematical theory that has since been confirmed by experiment is slow roll cosmic inflation, and the mathematics for that was developed in 1982.

You could say that baryon acoustic oscillation is more recent, but the mathematics for that is fairly trivial and most of the maths for that was completed in 1970 anyway.

Physics is being held up by lack of observation, not by mathematics.

Thought I’d check if Feynman actually said that. Looks like he did, at least I didn’t find anyone saying he didn’t, but very little discussion of what he meant by it.

The best comment I found was:

“ I am thinking its suppose to be a pun. If there’s no math, technically he can’t count. And if he can’t count, he won’t know exactly how long physics would be set back by. “

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

From
https://www.quora.com/Is-physics-or-mathematics-more-fundamental

The reply that caught my attention was a Feynman quote:

“If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week.”
(Richard Feynman)

That’s rubbish, isn’t it?

Um, it’s rubbish according to Dirac.

But now times are different. All the physics that we have observed is based on mathematics prior to 1986. About the last new mathematical theory that has since been confirmed by experiment is slow roll cosmic inflation, and the mathematics for that was developed in 1982.

You could say that baryon acoustic oscillation is more recent, but the mathematics for that is fairly trivial and most of the maths for that was completed in 1970 anyway.

Physics is being held up by lack of observation, not by mathematics.

I suppose our technology has to catch up

clearly it’s not meant to be taken (too) literally

seems to me to point to math originating of physics.

dunno

transition said:

clearly it’s not meant to be taken (too) literally

seems to me to point to math originating of physics.

dunno

Having applied some mathematical thought to it, I think it’s supposed to be a self-referential joke (not a pun).
The “exactly” is the give-away.

But I don’t agree with the line of thought that without maths there would be no physics. The maths certainly allows the physics to be both much more precise and much broader, but people did some pretty impressive physics for thousands of years with little or no maths attached.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

clearly it’s not meant to be taken (too) literally

seems to me to point to math originating of physics.

dunno

Having applied some mathematical thought to it, I think it’s supposed to be a self-referential joke (not a pun).
The “exactly” is the give-away.

But I don’t agree with the line of thought that without maths there would be no physics. The maths certainly allows the physics to be both much more precise and much broader, but people did some pretty impressive physics for thousands of years with little or no maths attached.

the physics variously informs of the math, was the gist I got.

but i’m a math dunce, beware.

Tau.Neutrino said:

diddly-squat said:

dv said:

I think there would be fundamental similarity between the maths used by us and aliens. There may be some techniques they know that we don’t know (and vice versa) but you could say the same for their knowledge of physics.

You can do fuck-all physics without maths, but the converse is not true.

The point that dv makes in key here…

maths is “language” of physics… it’s the tool we use to describe the behavior of physical systems…

without it, physics would just be a whole lot of handwaving

Take away language and mathematics then try describing physics.

Interpretive mime

math is inseparable from computation, is my opinion.

to my naive mind physics variously makes computation possible, so math elements and functions, such representational possibilities, are an outcome of physics.

it’s interesting territory though of what of physics (the physical world, from structure, forces etc) make that theoretical possible.

this is where I bump into God.

but mostly because i’m stupid. Bumping into stupid’s not all bad, the limits of (ones own) knowledge. I don’t have to wander far for that experience.

OTOH I don’t think this is an important or extremely engaging topic.

>Take away language and mathematics then try describing physics

fairly obviously that’s not a knock down argument

i’ve seen toddlers walk, young kids ride skateboards and catch balls, all of which require some intimacy with physics (forces themselves, not the learned formalization of the subject).

I could argue kids on a seesaw describes something of physics.

dv said:

OTOH I don’t think this is an important or extremely engaging topic.

Feel free to STHU then :)

It was really the rather strange quote from Feynman that prompted me to raise it, but I do think it is QI.

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

OTOH I don’t think this is an important or extremely engaging topic.

Feel free to STHU then :)

It was really the rather strange quote from Feynman that prompted me to raise it, but I do think it is QI.

Hard to tell what he meant by that statement. If he meant that all the mathematical theories of modern physics would still be there in the physics textbooks, but the mathematical knowledge that created them is somehow lost, then perhaps he meant it would only take a week to re-derive it all from the physics.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Feel free to STHU then :)

Very well then

transition said:

>Take away language and mathematics then try describing physics

fairly obviously that’s not a knock down argument

i’ve seen toddlers walk, young kids ride skateboards and catch balls, all of which require some intimacy with physics (forces themselves, not the learned formalization of the subject).

I could argue kids on a seesaw describes something of physics.

Even if we limit the discussion to knowledge that is passed on from others, rather than inherited or learned by trial and error, there is/was an awful lot of physics that was passed on by demonstration and drawing, rather than spoken language, let alone maths.

So interpretive mime it is.

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

dv said:

OTOH I don’t think this is an important or extremely engaging topic.

Feel free to STHU then :)

It was really the rather strange quote from Feynman that prompted me to raise it, but I do think it is QI.

Hard to tell what he meant by that statement. If he meant that all the mathematical theories of modern physics would still be there in the physics textbooks, but the mathematical knowledge that created them is somehow lost, then perhaps he meant it would only take a week to re-derive it all from the physics.

That seems a little optimistic, given that all the equations in the text books would be meaningless squiggles.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Feel free to STHU then :)

It was really the rather strange quote from Feynman that prompted me to raise it, but I do think it is QI.

Hard to tell what he meant by that statement. If he meant that all the mathematical theories of modern physics would still be there in the physics textbooks, but the mathematical knowledge that created them is somehow lost, then perhaps he meant it would only take a week to re-derive it all from the physics.

That seems a little optimistic, given that all the equations in the text books would be meaningless squiggles.

Yeah but he was good at that stuff :)

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Hard to tell what he meant by that statement. If he meant that all the mathematical theories of modern physics would still be there in the physics textbooks, but the mathematical knowledge that created them is somehow lost, then perhaps he meant it would only take a week to re-derive it all from the physics.

That seems a little optimistic, given that all the equations in the text books would be meaningless squiggles.

Yeah but he was good at that stuff :)

Perhaps in re-inventing the maths he would re-define the week as the time taken to re-invent the maths.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

That seems a little optimistic, given that all the equations in the text books would be meaningless squiggles.

Yeah but he was good at that stuff :)

Perhaps in re-inventing the maths he would re-define the week as the time taken to re-invent the maths.

Since maths was gone, “week” could mean anything. 7 days, a trillion days, whatever.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Yeah but he was good at that stuff :)

Perhaps in re-inventing the maths he would re-define the week as the time taken to re-invent the maths.

Since maths was gone, “week” could mean anything. 7 days, a trillion days, whatever.

If language is gone, it might take a long time to define anything.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Perhaps in re-inventing the maths he would re-define the week as the time taken to re-invent the maths.

Since maths was gone, “week” could mean anything. 7 days, a trillion days, whatever.

If language is gone, it might take a long time to define anything.

Only the maths is gone, not spoken, written, or interpretative dance language.

Which reinforces the conclusion that maths is not the (only) language of physics.

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

Yeah but he was good at that stuff :)

Perhaps in re-inventing the maths he would re-define the week as the time taken to re-invent the maths.

Since maths was gone, “week” could mean anything. 7 days, a trillion days, whatever.

Yes, I think the “exactly” implies that is what he meant.

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Perhaps in re-inventing the maths he would re-define the week as the time taken to re-invent the maths.

Since maths was gone, “week” could mean anything. 7 days, a trillion days, whatever.

If language is gone, it might take a long time to define anything.

One might need to first create a visual language system

Then probably an alphabet system

then a numerical system

followed by a mathematical system

maybe they all develop at the same time or in a certain order ?

dunno

:)

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

dv said:

Since maths was gone, “week” could mean anything. 7 days, a trillion days, whatever.

If language is gone, it might take a long time to define anything.

Only the maths is gone, not spoken, written, or interpretative dance language.

Which reinforces the conclusion that maths is not the (only) language of physics.

Why is only the Maths gone and not other things?

Tau.Neutrino said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

If language is gone, it might take a long time to define anything.

Only the maths is gone, not spoken, written, or interpretative dance language.

Which reinforces the conclusion that maths is not the (only) language of physics.

Why is only the Maths gone and not other things?

Because that was the hypothesised event.

“If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week.”
(Richard Feynman)

Richard Feynman made that up.

If mathematics disappeared, then so does the financial system, economics, computers, etc

>Why is only the Maths gone and not other things?

it’s a mystery of the Land of Math, you’d have to consult rev’s ancestor Lewis Carroll

I have the uncertain feeling that some mathematics was invented but then forgotten. Mathematics that is vital for explaining dark matter.

Eg. Robinson’s hyperreal mathematics from the 1960s. Or something way more esoteric.

mollwollfumble said:

I have the uncertain feeling that some mathematics was invented but then forgotten. Mathematics that is vital for explaining dark matter.

Eg. Robinson’s hyperreal mathematics from the 1960s. Or something way more esoteric.

Perhaps there are many mathematical concepts, in desk drawers, notepads, books, or on computer tape waiting to be discovered or have been lost?

Maybe the great library of Alexandria had mathematical concepts in some of its books?

Perhaps some thought up mathematical concepts and did not write them down?

While others dreamed about mathematical concepts in their sleep but did not remember them when they woke.

Others were drawn on blackboards only to be wiped off.

Maybe aliens gave calculations for the universe to ancient people who then lost them?

Maybe they are many mathematical concepts for things we are not yet aware of?

the rat is caught. now that I get a chance to see it up close, it’s a brown black rat. Now I’m not sure what to do with it. Letting it go down the road just gives me a couple of days reprieve until it’s back again… it made it’s nest in an old retic box we used for storage of retic stuff.. that plastic is hard and solid, but it still manage to make shredded plastic out of it… so, it’s clearly a superat. I cannot cook fine foods… so what should I do with it?

Arts said:

, it’s a brown black rat.

wait, is it black or brown?

wrong thread, obviously

Arts said:

the rat is caught. now that I get a chance to see it up close, it’s a brown black rat. Now I’m not sure what to do with it. Letting it go down the road just gives me a couple of days reprieve until it’s back again… it made it’s nest in an old retic box we used for storage of retic stuff.. that plastic is hard and solid, but it still manage to make shredded plastic out of it… so, it’s clearly a superat. I cannot cook fine foods… so what should I do with it?

got any herpetologist mates?

Arts said:

the rat is caught. now that I get a chance to see it up close, it’s a brown black rat. Now I’m not sure what to do with it. Letting it go down the road just gives me a couple of days reprieve until it’s back again… it made it’s nest in an old retic box we used for storage of retic stuff.. that plastic is hard and solid, but it still manage to make shredded plastic out of it… so, it’s clearly a superat. I cannot cook fine foods… so what should I do with it?

Put it in a bin. Start the generator & let it warm up. Hose from exhaust to bin. Wait until painless death occurs.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

the math may be different but the answers would be the same.

Not necessarily.

Their physics and the associated maths will certainly be based on a different set of observations, so the answers may well be different.

I was commenting on the maths only. But anyway, physical constants and the like will be the same.

Baby boomers’ drink and drug misuse needs urgent action, warn experts

By 2020, the number of over-50s receiving treatment for substance misuse problems is expected to double in Europe and treble in the US, say researchers

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/23/baby-boomers-drink-and-drug-misuse-needs-urgent-action-warn-experts

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

the math may be different but the answers would be the same.

Not necessarily.

Their physics and the associated maths will certainly be based on a different set of observations, so the answers may well be different.

I was commenting on the maths only. But anyway, physical constants and the like will be the same.

No, the physical constants will certainly be different. It may just be a different approximation of the same number*, or the same constants may have different values in their bit of space, or they may have come up with completely different constants.

• After adjusting for units, obviously.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Not necessarily.

Their physics and the associated maths will certainly be based on a different set of observations, so the answers may well be different.

I was commenting on the maths only. But anyway, physical constants and the like will be the same.

No, the physical constants will certainly be different. It may just be a different approximation of the same number*, or the same constants may have different values in their bit of space, or they may have come up with completely different constants.

• After adjusting for units, obviously.
  

the universe wont exist if some of those physical constants are even the tiniest bit different. this we know.and i’m not getting into an assumption argument. because they go no where.

Bogsnorkler said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Bogsnorkler said:

I was commenting on the maths only. But anyway, physical constants and the like will be the same.

No, the physical constants will certainly be different. It may just be a different approximation of the same number*, or the same constants may have different values in their bit of space, or they may have come up with completely different constants.

• After adjusting for units, obviously.
  

the universe wont exist if some of those physical constants are even the tiniest bit different. this we know.and i’m not getting into an assumption argument. because they go no where.

Then feel free to ignore my reply.

1. We certainly do not know which if any constants are restricted to a tiny range.
2. Even if there are such constants, or even if there are constants that are exactly constant across our visible universe, the aliens numbers for them will be slightly different.

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

I have the uncertain feeling that some mathematics was invented but then forgotten. Mathematics that is vital for explaining dark matter.

Eg. Robinson’s hyperreal mathematics from the 1960s. Or something way more esoteric.

Perhaps there are many mathematical concepts, in desk drawers, notepads, books, or on computer tape waiting to be discovered or have been lost?

Maybe the great library of Alexandria had mathematical concepts in some of its books?

Perhaps some thought up mathematical concepts and did not write them down?

While others dreamed about mathematical concepts in their sleep but did not remember them when they woke.

Others were drawn on blackboards only to be wiped off.

Maybe aliens gave calculations for the universe to ancient people who then lost them?

Maybe they are many mathematical concepts for things we are not yet aware of?

Yes, maybe.

I think what Feynman is referring to is the vast amount of wasted thought that currently goes into developing new mathematical underpinnings of physics – none of which are being confirmed by experiment. If those currently working on the mathematical underpinnings of physics were redirected into observational physics then physics would progress faster.

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

I have the uncertain feeling that some mathematics was invented but then forgotten. Mathematics that is vital for explaining dark matter.

Eg. Robinson’s hyperreal mathematics from the 1960s. Or something way more esoteric.

Perhaps there are many mathematical concepts, in desk drawers, notepads, books, or on computer tape waiting to be discovered or have been lost?

Maybe the great library of Alexandria had mathematical concepts in some of its books?

Perhaps some thought up mathematical concepts and did not write them down?

While others dreamed about mathematical concepts in their sleep but did not remember them when they woke.

Others were drawn on blackboards only to be wiped off.

Maybe aliens gave calculations for the universe to ancient people who then lost them?

Maybe they are many mathematical concepts for things we are not yet aware of?

Yes, maybe.

I think what Feynman is referring to is the vast amount of wasted thought that currently goes into developing new mathematical underpinnings of physics – none of which are being confirmed by experiment. If those currently working on the mathematical underpinnings of physics were redirected into observational physics then physics would progress faster.

algebra?

mollwollfumble said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

I have the uncertain feeling that some mathematics was invented but then forgotten. Mathematics that is vital for explaining dark matter.

Eg. Robinson’s hyperreal mathematics from the 1960s. Or something way more esoteric.

Perhaps there are many mathematical concepts, in desk drawers, notepads, books, or on computer tape waiting to be discovered or have been lost?

Maybe the great library of Alexandria had mathematical concepts in some of its books?

Perhaps some thought up mathematical concepts and did not write them down?

While others dreamed about mathematical concepts in their sleep but did not remember them when they woke.

Others were drawn on blackboards only to be wiped off.

Maybe aliens gave calculations for the universe to ancient people who then lost them?

Maybe they are many mathematical concepts for things we are not yet aware of?

Yes, maybe.

I think what Feynman is referring to is the vast amount of wasted thought that currently goes into developing new mathematical underpinnings of physics – none of which are being confirmed by experiment. If those currently working on the mathematical underpinnings of physics were redirected into observational physics then physics would progress faster.

That sounds like a pretty good guess at what he was getting at.

I wonder if he was right.

My guess is that there is some existing maths that at some stage will be connected to some existing observations in a way which will seem bleeding obvious in hindsight, and all the scientists will feel a bit foolish.

Could be wrong of course.