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

Dear Basem and Mohammed,

Your point is very well argued and reasonable, very close to the one by the great mathematician, physicist and thinker Henri Poincaré in Science and Hypothesis

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/37157/37157-pdf.pdf

"Rôle of Hypothesis.--Every generalisation is a hypothesis. Hypothesis therefore plays a necessary rôle, which no one has ever contested. Only, it should always be as soon as possible submitted to verification. It goes without saying that, if it cannot stand this test, it must be abandoned without any hesitation."

I am impressed by Poincaré's insight. In our time, physics is much more mathematical. I think that it is the result of a collective cognitive effort, may be an adaptation of our specie to an ever changing environment. I like the view of Vincent Douzal in this respect.

I had a pleasant reading and give you now my best appreciation.

If you have time, I created a dialogue about a topic of interest for mathematical physicists. I am curious to see if you will like it.

Best regards,

Michel

Dear Mohammed,

Congratulations, you are on the right way already gussing what matters, soon being involved in a great chapter of science.

All the best,

Michel

Hi,

You wrote me that you looked at my paper and I am very appreciative. I read your paper and I like it.

I wish you would work out some more of your idea that simplicity and beauty in physical theories can be understood from the computational complexity point of view. Has anyone else talked about this?

Thanks again!

All the best,

Noson Yanofsky

Dear Noson,

Thank you for reading our essay

In our article we suggest that we can use computational complexity as a measure of simplicity because we use computers today for almost all physical computations and simulations .Hence , it's reasonable to choose measure of simplicity relative to computers, I am not sure if anyone else talked about that.

All the best,

Basem

Dear Mohammed, Basem,

It is a well established fact that people will mostly speak of things that impress them, either good or bad. I couldn't agree more with your point that Wigner's speech is not shedding light on theories that have not worked as hoped. For every successful theory like relativity or quantum mechanics, there is a bunch of other theories that we know are wrong, like N=4 super Yang Mills or your SU(5) example. I like your idea of quantifying the elegance of a theory through the number of dependent variables and the relations between variables. It sounds like the most compact network model possible. Your arguments do a very good job getting the point across as well as your clear and enjoyable writing style.

Warm regards,

Alma

Hi Mohammed and Basem--

An absolutely brilliant essay. I concur fully with your analysis. In fact, your essay is so good that I'm glad I didn't write on your precise topic. You would have put me to shame. And, needless-to-say, I certainly agree with your last bullet on page 3.

I can't believe you two are only undergraduates. Your professors are lucky to have you. I predict shining futures for both of you. Keep up the good work!

Best regards and best of luck in the contest,

Bill.

Dear Basem and Mohammed,

Though I disagree with your instrumentalist perspective on physics and your antiplatonist view of mathematics, I am genuinely impressed by your eloquent defense of your positions. It is all the more impressive considering that, if I infer correctly, you are not even native English Speakers.

Despite our philosophical differences, there is much in your essay that I do concur with, especially the notion that observation and experiment trumps any other consideration in science.

Your ideas about quantifying aesthetic notions like beauty are interesting and deserve more detailed treatment.Finally, I could not agree more with your last paragraph as my own research effort is geared precisely to developing new mathematics that helps us model and especially understand fundamental aspects of reality.

Overall, you did a great job

Best wishes,

Armin

Dear Mohammed,

Thank you for your kind remarks on my essay and I enjoyed reading yours as well. As you know, we agree on many points. It's very true that many theories which were considered beautiful or simple ended up failing to explain observations and experimental data. I liked your discussion on simplicity and computational complexity, and on how the same phenomenon can be described with different mathematical formulations. You present throughout a very interesting essay, and I rate it highly.

Kind regards,

Steve Sax