How Accurately Can Mathematics Describe Nature? by Basem Galal and Mohammed M. Khalil

Dear Basem Galal and Mohammed M. Khalil,

Very interesting and thought provoking essay. Your initial premise that mathematics is invented leading to its effectiveness, is followed up by a very solid argument "we argue that the usefulness of mathematics in discovering new theories is limited, and that it does not provide us with a real picture of the world, but with models useful as calculational tools for making predictions.".

Your statement "Our theories are models of nature. Some models are more useful than others." is the lead in to the geometric models in my essay here of the particles of the standard model. Hope you get a chance to read and comment on it.

Great essay, best of luck in the contest.

Regards, Ed Unverricht

I think that this is a remarkable essay for two undergraduates. It should signal a great future for both. Since my contribution takes a very similar position, but develops it historically, I really have no adverse comments. However, I find the claim that nature is symmetric a bit ambiguous. We use symmetry principles in developing theories especially the standard model of particle physics. Then we have to add qualifications because what we find are broken symmetries.

Ed MacKinnon

Dear Mssrs. Galal and Khalil,

You wrote: "A theory can have support from its theoretical foundation and solid mathematics,

but until it can produce predictions that can be compared with experiment, we must not evaluate it as the only truth. We should always consider alternative approaches even if they are less developed."

Please behold my alternative approach: This is my single unified theorem of how the real Universe is occurring: Newton was wrong about abstract gravity; Einstein was wrong about abstract space/time, and Hawking was wrong about the explosive capability of abstract NOTHING. Proof exists that every real astronomer looking through a real telescope has failed to notice that each of the real galaxies he has observed is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance from all other real galaxies. Each real star is unique as to its structure and its perceived distance apart from all other real stars. Every real scientist who has peered at real snowflakes through a real microscope has concluded that each real snowflake is unique as to its structure. Real structure is unique, once. Unique, once does not consist of abstract amounts of abstract quanta. Based on one's normal observation, one must conclude that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real objects have only one real thing in common. Each real object has a real material surface that seems to be attached to a material sub-surface. All surfaces, no matter the apparent degree of separation, must travel at the same constant speed. No matter in which direction one looks, one will only ever see a plethora of real surfaces and those surfaces must all be traveling at the same constant speed or else it would be physically impossible for one to observe them instantly and simultaneously. Real surfaces are easy to spot because they are well lighted. Real light does not travel far from its source as can be confirmed by looking at the real stars, or a real lightning bolt. Reflected light needs to adhere to a surface in order for it to be observed, which means that real light cannot have a surface of its own. Real light must be the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The stars remain in place due to astral radiation. The planets orbit because of atmospheric accumulation. There is no space.

Warm regards,

Joe Fisher

Hi Mohammed,

Thank you for reading my essay. You have written a very well essay although you probably know that our philosophies are different.

I have seen that you have co authored with Das and Faraj, that is very impressive. How did you do that? Is it possible to show my idea to Faraj and also get Basem to run the simple simulation(at the end of each section written "program link") to confirm the results.

Thanks and good luck.

Dear Basem Galal and Mohammed M. Khalil,

This is by far the best essay to argue that mathematics is invented which I have read, and, believe me, in researching for this contest, I read a lot of them!

Please take the time to check out and vote on my own essay:

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/2391

Best of luck in the contest!

Rick Searle

Mohammed (& Basem),

Thanks for commenting in my forum. I am at a loss, however, to know why you think our ideas are opposed -- I found your excellent essay to reflect an entirely rationalist view of science, as does mine.

I want to point out something to you: You quote Einstein on mathematics as a human invention:

"How is it possible that mathematics, a product of human thought that is independent of experience, fits so excellently the objects of physical reality?" (from *Sidelights in Relativity* 1922)

In my youth, I studied Einstein's and Leopold Infeld's popular book, *The Evolution of Physics* (1938) the way some people study religious texts. They write:

"Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison."

So regardless of whether mathematics is discovered or invented, it is only the rational correspondence of the mathematical language to experience and experiment, that gives us rational knowledge of the world.

Your concluding statement begins, "Mathematics and physics are different; mathematics is a useful human construct, and physics tries to describe the laws of nature. Yet, mathematics is very effective in physics. It enables us to make accurate predictions about the outcome of experiments and even predict undiscovered phenomena."

How could you think that this view differs from mine? I hope you return to my essay with new comments.

All best,

Tom

Mohammed, I'm afraid you still miss the point. I don't support the mathematical universe hypothesis a priori. The philosophical question of whether mathematics is invented or discovered has *nothing* to do with the correspondence of mathematics to physics, i.e., the corresponding truth content of their respective models.

You wouldn't say that natural language has truth content independent of physics, would you? In other words, the string of symbols C-A-T is true if, and only if, there is a physical counterpart to the symbols. That is what Einstein was saying -- e.g., he favored the introduction of extra dimensional models, even in his day, " ... if there exist good physical reasons to do so."

The MUH is based on physical probability, not mathematical philosophy.

Best,

Tom

Dear Galal & Khalil,

You have tried to give a logical picture how mathematics has become effective in physics, and suggest the need for new mathematical inventions to solve the hitherto unsolved problems. You say correctly, "A great mystery about nature is that we can describe the same phenomenon with different mathematical formulations". Have you thought of the reverse possibility? A unique mathematical equation can have different physical interpretations. Refer my essay: A physicalist interpretation of the relation between Physics and Mathematics.

Are there any mathematical laws? Or are there only mathematical structures? I would answer that both exist, and there should be a clear distinction between the two: mathematical laws are discovered; but mathematical structures are invented. The laws are fundamental and eternal, that even an omnipotent creator cannot defy the laws. The structures depend on axioms, which are nothing but 'assigned properties'. But the evolution of the structure follows the eternal mathematical laws.

The same thing is true for the physical world. The physical world has certain properties; but its evolution (the series of changes) depends solely on mathematical laws, and this leads to structures that are mathematically explainable. We try to explain the physical world based on axioms (assigned properties). To arrive at these properties, we depend on 'mathematical relations' based on the observable natural structures. However, this can be tricky. My essay deals with this. If the assigned properties are correct, we will be able to explain everything.

Dear Basem and Mohammed

I agree with your that mathematics is not enough to describe physics. Thus, that many mathematical theories predicted something in mathematics, but predictions were wrong. My opinion is that math is only an abstract language, which tell more simple what happening in physics. (Torsten Asselmeyer-Maluga used the best words: ''' abstraction is necessary concept for our species: we have a limited memory in our brain and a limited number of sensors to sense the world. Therefore, we have to simplify many relations in the world to understand them. But abstraction is also the root of mathematics: numbers as an abstract count of objects was the beginning. ') But fundamental physics should be simple, thus I hope that quantum gravity should be simple.

Thus, your approach is naturalistic (also Smolin) what is closer to me. Although you find good examples where only mathematics gave wrong predictions, I wrote one example where mathematics gave good predictions: Units kg, meter and second needs matematization and simplification, thus Planck found how to eliminate them, thus he showed how physics can become closer to mathematics. But my example with rectangular triangle shows how that euclidean geometry is a consequence of physics.

What do you think if I change one your sentence: '' U(1) gauge theory was an extension of general relativity that naturaly leads to electromagnetism. ''

But, I disagree that our theories are only models of nature. Math is a true goal of physics, but it is not everything.

My essay

Best regards,

Janko Kokosar

Dear Basem and Mohammed,

I liked reading your essay. It is very well written, and you explain very well the role of mathematical models, and how they can turn out to be inadequate to describe the physical world. I also like that you let open the possibility that a mathematical theory well suited to describe the universe may exist, although we will never be sure it is the true one.

Best wishes,

Cristi