how old is the universe?

[Matthew.Blake]

Mathematics is a tool, it doesn't describe the universe. Mathematics is the relation between descriptors. If something has property A we could find that property A changes when ( occurs and that the relation between A and B is described by mathematics. A and B are the principle qualities - physics deals with these, then mathematics is employed by the physicists to complete *our* notion of what occurs. Physics describes the universe. Mathematics is the language of physics. Anyone agree?

Mathematics is the purest of all languages. I am a physicist myself, but recognise without it we cannot describe the universe. Mathematics is more than a simple tool, the more you learn the more you realise how beautiful it is.

[Astro_Baby]

Where is the Cosmic story-going ?

The aim to be all-wise all, all-knowing,

is laudable - but please bear this in mind,

that there is always more to find !

Less than a Century ago

astronomers still didn't know

how stars shine; and not knowing this

caused a physics paralysis -

The task was formost on the list

of every astro-physicist !

That problem now has been sorted out alright;

But dammit theres another one in sight,

for some old stars should have been born

BEFORE that scintilating dawn

when time began and, without clocks,

thats something of a paradox.

It will be sorted out of course,

perhaps by some expanding force

that puts Creation back a bit;

But making all these details fit

could bring new problems into view

if each one answered raises two

then what appears to be sucess

may mean in fact that we regress -

The more we know - the less we know

if this is the scenario.

The knowldge jigsaw will increase

each time we add another piece

so till the last one is in place

take my advice

and watch this space.

(With apologies to James Murden who I have probably misqouted )

[lunator]

The second link is interesting

I do hope they find the superpartner called the Wino.........

I wouldlove to read the press release..

[brianb]

Was the Big Bang on January 1st, or does it have its birthday then for convenience (like all racehorses)? If so, the Universe is a year older than it was yesterday. Happy Birthday to you, ....

[Jim M]

Mathematics is the purest of all languages. I am a physicist myself, but recognise without it we cannot describe the universe. Mathematics is more than a simple tool, the more you learn the more you realise how beautiful it is.

I didn't say mathematics was a *simple* tool. I agree that physics cannot describe the universe without mathematics and that mathematics has a beauty all its own but language when it is used to express ideas I think can be thought of as a tool for without language how would we communicate ideas? If mathematics can be thought of as a tool which helps us express ideas then it is also a language - albeit a specialised language - oops! Ignore anything I say :-) Have a happy new year.

Hic...*!"£$!_zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jim M]

Where is the Cosmic story-going ?

The aim to be all-wise all, all-knowing,

is laudable - but please bear this in mind,

that there is always more to find !

Less than a Century ago

astronomers still didn't know

how stars shine; and not knowing this

caused a physics paralysis -

The task was formost on the list

of every astro-physicist !

That problem now has been sorted out alright;

But dammit theres another one in sight,

for some old stars should have been born

BEFORE that scintilating dawn

when time began and, without clocks,

thats something of a paradox.

It will be sorted out of course,

perhaps by some expanding force

that puts Creation back a bit;

But making all these details fit

could bring new problems into view

if each one answered raises two

then what appears to be sucess

may mean in fact that we regress -

The more we know - the less we know

if this is the scenario.

The knowldge jigsaw will increase

each time we add another piece

so till the last one is in place

take my advice

and watch this space.

(With apologies to James Murden who I have probably misqouted )

<<Less than a Century ago

astronomers still didn't know

how stars shine; and not knowing this

caused a physics paralysis -

The task was formost on the list

of every astro-physicist !

That problem now has been sorted out alright;>>

So you think you know what our suns' energy source is?

The Sun: A Great Ball Of Iron? ;-)

[Astro_Baby]

Wouldnt surpise me in the least to find that science has got it wrong (again) even on something that we thought we knew.

Please dont get me started on the hubris of science.

[brianb]

Wouldnt surpise me in the least to find that science has got it wrong (again) even on something that we thought we knew.

Hmmm. Of course there will be improvements in our understanding of the universe, and some paradigm shifts are not unlikely ... but the Sun is a perfectly ordinary star, and the idea that there has to be a supernova core inside "dwarf" main sequence stars is simply barmy. The astrophysical models we have that assume a hydrogen/helium mix with or without a small proportion of heavier elements work pretty well at explaining the formation & evolution of moderate mass stars well into old age; with a degenerate core they don't - there would be a serious problem getting the material to accrete, the evolution of the object would be completely different & the population of stars we observe would be completely at variance with reality.

[Darth Takahashi]

At the risk of alienating some people, I'm going to lay it on the line where mathematics is concerned.

I don't like Jazz music, in fact, my personal opinion is that it is masturbating with a musical instrument! So where am I going with this argument, well I believe the same can be said of many of the MATHEMATICAL theories about the universe, many of them are nothing more than masturbation with maths.

Before there is a backlash from many outraged readers, think about this fact; many of the models we have today including the standard model and Supersymmetry predict the existence of particles such as TACHYONS let alone the fabled GRAVITON. Many physicists are content to ignore these issues as something that will eventually get ironed out...

I take a more simple view, you either live with everything the model predicts or you accept that the model is wrong. The problem is that many people will happily proclaim the standard model as the most accurate description of physics to date while conveniently dismissing its issues or false predictions.

Mathematics is simply a tool and any tool can be misapplied.

I have no problem with mathematics per-say, just some of the so called theories it produces... I also apologize to any Jazz enthusiast that I many have offended, remember its just my personal opinion and I couldn't think of a better analogy.

[part timer]

Mathematics is simply a tool and any tool can be misapplied.

Bravo! My thoughts exactly.

It is true that Mathematics has a beauty of its own but this does not reflect it's use in Physics.

As a child I read something written by Patrick Moore which at the time I believed whole heartedly but can now see is entirely untrue.

Patrick had essentially (I can't remember the exact wording) stated that Mathematics is a universal truth and that it was discovered but not invented by, mankind. This is a fundamental misunderstanding which is sadly shared by many, including a proportion of Physicists.

Mathematics is an invention of the Human mind. It is our descriptive language with witch we able to quantify our descriptions of physical phenomena.

As such it can be used in a predictive manner only in situations in which the physical context of the results is clear.

It is scientifically valid to use mathematical predictions to formulate theory's which can then be quantitatively tested without the need for interpreting large numbers of the parameters involved.

Cosmology for example is science in which all data is subject to what could charitably be called 'interpretation' (I would call it wishful thinking!) There can be no absolute evidence for any cosmological theory at present as the measured data is at such great distance and of such dimensions (big and small) that all such data can be interpreted in almost any way the experimenter or theoretician so chooses.

Science of any kind is cumulative. We are not doomed to eternal ignorance in such fields as cosmology but we should accept that to be able to make measurements and to develop mathematical models of such things we really do have a long way to go. We are all aware of the limitations of current physical theories and in all honesty it would be a much more productive use of intellect if theoreticians were to concentrate on resolving these problems and formulating a coherent Physical theory which describes all known phenomena and could then be applied to the universe in general to give a much more realistic view of the cosmos and its history.

[brianb]

Mathematics is an invention of the Human mind. It is our descriptive language with witch we able to quantify our descriptions of physical phenomena.

No. Mathematics always existed & will continue to exist irrespective of the existence of the universe. You don't need for there to be a right angled triangle, or a plane surface to draw it on, for Pythagoras's Theorem to be true.

So far as physics is concerned, mathematics is just a tool ... which can be applied or misapplied ... if a mathematical model makes predictions that are consistent with physical observations, the model may be an approximation to the truth; if the model makes predictions which are inconsistent with physical observations, it can't be right.

[brianb]

we should accept that to be able to make measurements and to develop mathematical models of such things we really do have a long way to go. We are all aware of the limitations of current physical theories

but the limitations of our measurements - on the scale of the very very large or the very very small - are much more of a significant issue, and always will be.

Current physical theories are consistent with the measurements. Sometimes there are multiple models which "work" & we need to do more experiments to distinguish between them - this is the heart of the research with e.g. the Large Hadron Collider. Of course we don't know everything, we never will, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to refine the models we have and/or develop new ones which explain the observed universe better.

[George Jones]

Patrick had essentially (I can't remember the exact wording) stated that Mathematics is a universal truth and that it was discovered but not invented by, mankind. This is a fundamental misunderstanding which is sadly shared by many, including a proportion of Physicists.

Mathematics is an invention of the Human mind.

There is no way to determine with certainty whether mathematics is discovered (Platonism) or invented (formalism); it is a matter of personal opinion and philosophy. In my experience, the majority of theoretical physicists are formalists and believe, as you do, that mathematics is invented.

The famous English pure mathematician G. H. Hardy was a Platonist:

... and there is no sort of agreement about the nature of mathematical reality among either mathematicians or philosophers. Some hold that it is 'mental' and that in some sense we construct it, others that it is outside and independent of us ... I believe that mathematical reality lies outside of us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and that the theorems which we prove, and which we describe grandiloquently as our 'creations', are simply our notes of our observations.

Other PlatonistS include pure mathematician and logician Kurt Godel (possibly the greatest mathematician of the last century) and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose.

It is my belief (and I recognize that this is my personal opinion) that mathematics is discovered.

[part timer]

Current physical theories are consistent with the measurements.

This is perfectly true but at the moment that creates more of hindrance than a help. we are aware of the inconsistency between the Quantum and Relativistic worlds. The fact that both are currently born out by experimentation and observation provides no answer to the problem if the correct interpretation of results.

Also, cosmological theories can not be considered to agree with observation. In all case's a theory is put forward and found deficient. It is then altered in such a manner as to fit observations. In cosmology there is no second universe with which to provide a check and so the resulting theory is not science in the true sense of the word. When a theory makes predictions (and I use that word in the traditional sense rather than the modern fashionable way of actually meaning 'explanations') which can then be measured and are shown to be definitively correct then we can say the theory currently matches observation. Merely adjusting and adding to theories in attempt to 'force' them to fit with observations is never going to give the correct solution. I will add here that making a theory excessively mathematical is no substitute for it being physically realistic.

but that shouldn't stop us from trying to refine the models we have and/or develop new ones which explain the observed universe better.

Absolutely not. However sometimes it should be accepted that when a theory needs to be constantly added to with more and more physically extreme and mathematically contrived additions it may be time to put it on hold and and review what is concrete, what different interpretations of data may be and perhaps to rethink the context of situation.

[Darth Takahashi]

To quote another famous scientist "Richard Feynman";

but the limitations of our measurements - on the scale of the very very large or the very very small - are much more of a significant issue, and always will be.

Current physical theories are consistent with the measurements. Sometimes there are multiple models which "work" & we need to do more experiments to distinguish between them - this is the heart of the research with e.g. the Large Hadron Collider. Of course we don't know everything, we never will, but that shouldn't stop us from trying to refine the models we have and/or develop new ones which explain the observed universe better.

Second rate physicists doing first rate work following a cook book!

So we are still nothing more than cavemen throwing rocks at the wall to see what they are made of! Lets see if we can throw them hard enough to find the elusive Higg's boson! if it exists at all... Particle accelerators cannot be the only window with which we can look into the world of Physics and the universe in general.

[Matthew.Blake]

I love pub physics. Just enough information to think your critiques are reasonable, not quite enough to realise how wrong you are...

I'm with the mathematics being a universal truth and thus discovered crowd. Someone should start a poll:

Are you

a) A Platonist

Wrong

c) What, hey, no fair

[Darth Takahashi]

My vote goes for discovered; however, based upon the local space-time geometry.

Hell, there may be intelligent life living somewhere out there where the space-time is hyperbolic... Not to mention N dimensional! Which admittedly my brain can't handle!

[part timer]

I love pub physics. Just enough information to think your critiques are reasonable, not quite enough to realise how wrong you are...

Are you

a) A Platonist

Wrong

c) What, hey, no fair

How scientific.

And there was me thinking this was a discussion on a forum for people who happen to be interested in this subject.

If we didn't have different opinions there wouldn't be much of a discussion would there!

Never mind

[matt c]

I don't think you need to be a highly qualified physicist to discuss things like this it is just a bit of fun at the end of the day. Personally i think we may never know the truth for sure becuase we are limited by our human perception, there is know way of knowing whether our perception is the absolute frame of referance. I think the laws mathematics are there already in place it's up to us with our possibly very flawed and inaccurate perception to try and understand them:)

[Darth Takahashi]

Lets also not forget that the greatest contribution to science was made by an untrained physicist, Albert Einstein. You don't have to be a formally trained scientist to employ your imagination.

I like many, enjoy reading other peoples perspective on this subject, right or wrong!

[George Jones]

Lets also not forget that the greatest contribution to science was made by an untrained physicist, Albert Einstein.

Actually, Einstein did get a formal education in physics. He graduated from the Zurich Polytechnic in 1900 and received a Ph.D. in 1905. His formal training in mathematics was typical for someone with a 1905 physics Ph.D.

You don't have to be a formally trained scientist to employ your imagination.

Agreed!

[matt c]

I think i read that he was talented in geometry the most having mastered a book a relative/friend had given him, but I'm not sure can anyone confirm this :)

[George Jones]

I think i read that he was talented in geometry the most having mastered a book a relative/friend had given him, but I'm not sure can anyone confirm this :)

Yes, a family friend gave Einstein a book on Euclidean geometry before Einstein studied Euclidean geometry in school, and Einstein devoured the book.

[Matthew.Blake]

How scientific.

And there was me thinking this was a discussion on a forum for people who happen to be interested in this subject.

If we didn't have different opinions there wouldn't be much of a discussion would there!

Never mind

That bulge in my cheek is my tongue...

[AstroTiger]

I agree, maths i am sure can be a beatiful tool (for those who understand it of course)

But it has to be said theoriticans have introduced constants just to make their equations work, often resulting in weird theories.

I also agree that those with no formal scientific training can engage their imagingation (as i do) and come up with plausible theories as well.

I'm afraid to say it but do feel that when maths is misapplied to a theory, it is like history, and becomes bunk.