The Accidental Astrophysicists 97
An anonymous reader recommends a ScienceNews story that begins: "Dmitry Khavinson and Genevra Neumann didn't know anything about astrophysics. They were just doing mathematics, like they always do, following their curiosity. But five days after they posted one of their results on a preprint server, they got an email that said 'Congratulations! You've proven Sun Hong Rhie's astrophysics conjecture on gravitational lensing!'... Turns out that when gravity causes light rays to bend, it can make one star look like many. But until Khavinson and Nuemann's work, astrophysicists weren't sure just how many. Their proof in mathematics settled the question."
Cross-Disciplines! (Score:1, Interesting)
And isn't that wonderful, that our sciences are so wide in breadth that one discipline may hold answers to other disciplines' questions?
And much much better is that someone in another discipline is willing to look across those divisions to see an answer that might have gone unremarked.
Re:Further proof ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I think the role of math as "leading" is oversold. I get the impression that a heck of a lot of math was inspired by physics. It seems as though the two develop in tandem. In particular, vector calc and E&M come to mind.
It can also be argued that philosophy is more basic than math. Some might say that we need our ontologies and epistemologies before we can do calculations involving them.
Re:Perhaps I am missing something... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Suprise! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Further proof ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Further proof ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Generally things like propositional logic and the axioms of mathematics are held to be self-evident physically. However, some things were thought to be mathematically self evident until physicists proved that they either weren't always true or that they depend on the universe in some way, Euclidian Geometry for example.
Then as the GP states, some people argue that maths is a subset of philosophy. Indeed, some people argue the other way around too.
My belief is that they are all interrelated fields that when combined can be used to answer questions about reality, but when studied individually can be interesting nevertheless (and sometimes even useful).
Re:Further proof ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Firstly I don't think there are any absolutes, sometimes math and physics develop in tandem and other times there's a lag time with one or the other leading. I personally think math "leads" the way. Not because it wants to describe the physical world but because it's interesting. Just remember that the math you learn in high school is hundreds of years old, you don't get to the current stuff until grad school. Whereas a physicist uses math as his tool to achieve his goal and will only invent a new tool if his toolbox is insufficient, a mathematician creates new tools just because he wants to understand them. In other words the goal of a mathematician is to make to tools, the goal of a physicist is to apply the tools. That's personally why I think math is "leading" most of the time. I'd rather not get into naming specifics examples as there are millions and I don't believe anyone could win that argument.
As far as math being a subset of philosophy I'll have to disagree; I think they are inexorably linked but neither proper subsets. They share the same grammar, logic, but differ in their dictionaries.
Those are just my thoughts on the matter though.
Re:Suprise! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Further proof ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Further proof ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Philosophy -> Physiology -> Biology -> Chemistry -> Physics -> Math -> Philosophy ->
Re:Suprise! (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, String "theory" doesn't have something very *very* important in it. Or at least by its nature it isn't in it. That being a "big bang". Quantum Loop Gravity has one of those in it *by the very nature of Quantum Loop Gravity*.
"""
Knowledge of this reality is gradually percolating through the physics establishment. Give it time.
"""
Wrong. Knowledge of this has been known in the physics establishment for a long *long* time. It's just that the funding, etc isn't done by the physics establishment. But, rather by administrators that are easily swayed by String "theory's" nasty PR campaign. But, the lack of results has lead even that to not hold as much sway any more. Luckly...