# What is the relationship between Mathematics,Science and Nature?

Nobel Prizewinner Richard Feynman had this to say about mathematics:

"To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in".

When mathematical physicist Paul Dirac was asked what he believed, without hesitation he replied that the laws of nature should be expressed in beautiful equations.

As we learn more about nature, it becomes increasingly apparent that an accurate statement about nature is necessarily mathematical. Anything else is an approximation. So, mathematics is not only science but is also an exact science.

Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences."

Conclusion: Nature is innately mathematical, and she speaks to us in mathematics. We only have to listen.

http://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index.html

It has been said that "mathematics is science without limit" and that "mathematics is the language we write science".

What do you think is the relationship between mathematics, science and nature?

"To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in".

When mathematical physicist Paul Dirac was asked what he believed, without hesitation he replied that the laws of nature should be expressed in beautiful equations.

As we learn more about nature, it becomes increasingly apparent that an accurate statement about nature is necessarily mathematical. Anything else is an approximation. So, mathematics is not only science but is also an exact science.

Because nature is mathematical, any science that intends to describe nature is completely dependent on mathematics. It is impossible to overemphasize this point, and it is why Carl Friedrich Gauss called mathematics "the queen of the sciences."

Conclusion: Nature is innately mathematical, and she speaks to us in mathematics. We only have to listen.

http://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index.html

It has been said that "mathematics is science without limit" and that "mathematics is the language we write science".

What do you think is the relationship between mathematics, science and nature?

## Popular Answers

Issam Sinjab· Alumni University of Leicester & University of SussexI want now to present an example that illustrates this in a beautifully way and make another equally important conclusion.

Because of quantum theory we now have two kinds of physical theories, those that work at a large scale and those that work at the scale of individual atoms. these theories are incompatible — the very successful theory of relativity isn't expressible in quantum terms, and vice verse.

Currently,we don't have a theory that works at all scales-unified theory. However, an element of such a theory is an equation written by Paul Dirac in 1928. Dirac's equation successfully predicts the behavior of particles moving at relativistic velocities, so to some degree it reconciles the relativistic and quantum views of reality.

While writing his equation Dirac realized it had two possible roots. At that point, Dirac could have decided his equation was only an approximation of reality (there are plenty of those), or he could claim his equation accurately described nature, therefore nature allowed two different kinds of matter, with positive and negative signs. Dirac decided his equation described nature and in so doing his equation implied the existence of a new form of matter, antimatter.

Dirac realized he could rewrite his equation to eliminate the negative root, but that equation would have been complex and unattractive, solely to eliminate the strange possibility that nature allowed two kinds of matter. Acting primarily on instinct, Dirac decided his equation accurately reflected nature, and he described the possibility of something he called "antimatter." Within a few years antimatter had been observed in 1932 by Carl Anderson. Carl discovered a new particle called "positron"(like electron but with positive charge).

Dirac did not invent his equation, if he did then this implies nature subsequently obeyed Dirac' equation and this will make Dirac some kind of a creator! But Dirac is not a creator, Dirac discovered his equation and he found it in nature. This clearly demonstrate that nature speaks to us in mathematics and equally importantly, that mathematics was discovered not invented.

The question of this thread was inspired by the reference below and the above is an extract from it:

http://arachnoid.com/is_math_a_science/index.html

Louis Brassard·## All Answers (948)

Issam Sinjab· Alumni University of Leicester & University of SussexRavi Ananth· OnSight Technology USAImpressive query stats Issam! 126 contributors, 100 followers

@ 09:09hrs EST 6-30-14 ----- 35 / 4 · 901 Answers · 24363 Views

BTW you may now increase the number of topics "up top" to a total of 15 as opposed to 5 when you initiated this thread back in Oct 30, 2012.

Issam Sinjab· Alumni University of Leicester & University of SussexRegards,

Issam

James F Peters· University of ManitobaAdding to what you wrote about the very impressive question for this well-thought-of thread, I extend my thanks to Issam, who inspired two of the threads that I started. The connections between Mathematics, Science and Nsture provide very rich fertile ground for good questions and ideas.

Issam Sinjab· Alumni University of Leicester & University of SussexJames F Peters· University of ManitobaIt was G.H. Hardy who characterized mathematics in terms of pattern-making and pattern discovery:

http://www.math.ualberta.ca/mss/misc/A%20Mathematician's%20Apology.pdf

On page 13, Hardy writes:

A mathematician, like a painter or poet, is a maker of patterns. If his patterns are more permanent than theirs [painters and poets], it is because they are made with ideas.

He goes on to write that a mathematician is a maker of patterns of ideas and that beauty and seriousness are the criteria by which his patterns should be judged, p. 13. He eplains (p. 16) that a serious mathematical theorem should be general and capable of considerable extension.

Hardy's last point about the extensionality of mathematics is relevant to the question for this thread. That is, it is often the case that the findings of a mathematician often find their way into science. After all, a scientist can be characterized as a discoverer of patterns in nature. This can be seen, for example, by the enormous imporance of non-Euclidean geometry and Riemannian maniforlds in Physics. Perhaps the followers of this thread can point to the connections between mathematical discoveries (e.g., number zero) and science.

Antonio Lucero@James: There are so many - too numerous to list.

And it can work both ways. Besides mathematical inventions/discoveries/creations finding useful applications/isomorphisms in science (including the social sciences), trying to understand these historically non-mathematical disciplines can often lead to new mathematically-oriented concepts.

For example, Synergism or Emergence is common phenomenon in non-mathematical spheres, but in trying to understand how it works, requires someone with a mathematical orientation to break a system down into its quasi-independent components, each of which may be amenable to mathematical analysis. Then based on this understanding one can, in turn, understand how synergism takes place. (See, for example, the patent listed in my ResearchGate publications which is a physically realized case of a pattern recognition system compose of 3 quasi-independent pattern recognizers whose results are pooled together to obtain very high true detection rates with very low false alarm rates. The synergism is readily understood, but requires a mathematical base.)

James F Peters· University of Manitoba@Antonio Lucero:

Many thanks for the pointer to your pattern recognition system. Yes, I agree that this is an example of mathematics at work in science. The description for your patent Target acquisition and tracking system is wonderfully detailed. Here is the link for a detailed view of your patent:

http://www.google.ca/patents/US5341142

I just now found a pdf file that contains all of the images as well as a detailed description of the mathematics underlying the target tracking system introduced in your patent:

patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US5341142.pdf

You use the Sobel method to extract the gradient intensity and gradient direction for each pixel. Have you considered using Canny's edge detection method?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canny_edge_detector

Antonio Lucero@James:

Thanks for the references. We did this work so many years ago that i had lost touch with all the related publications.

I am not familiar with Canny's edge detection method. I will look it up.

The key thing about the edge-based features were the

joint edge events: STRAIGHTNESS, CURVATURE +/-, and CORNERS +/-.Prior to this work, everybody in the field of extended infrared target detection/recognition using pattern recognition, had a linear processing flow and tried to deal with a high dimensional problem using a relatively low dimensional pattern space.

This work introduced the parallel architecture of concurrent pattern recognizers each working in its own, separate, relatively low dimensional pattern space. Then the results from the individual pattern recognizers combined at the end to give the composite classification result.

James F Peters· University of Manitoba@Ans Schapendonk:

Instead of writing

From TORA > Greek Myth. > Bible > Koran >...

consider writing

From TORA > Greek Myth. > Bible > Quar'an <…

http://www.amazon.com/The-Holy-Quran-Abdullah-Yusuf/dp/1853267821

For more information about the Quar'an, see

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/sultanbaybars.html

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityMany people believe “Nature is innately mathematical”. But it is equally fair to say “Nature is innately physical” and “Nature is innately chemical”…. Mathematics is often overemphasized by its characteristics.

Is mathematics one of sciences? Sciences are built-in, so mathematics is built-in, too. I think this is relationships among Mathematics, Science, Philosophy and Nature.

Ravi Ananth· OnSight Technology USAOnce I disclose any of my proprietary information on such a public media as RG, then I've lost the proprietary nature of the information I've disclosed. No point in futile opining. The alternative is to invest in a patent, disclose all details of the "secret" to the public and then have someone far overseas (or nearby) duplicate it at a lower cost and better features, then invest and try to recover intellectual assets...:-) Catch 22!

All pontificators are welcome to this RG discussion as well when convenient. Just try to be cogent as best as possible: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Genesis_Fact_fiction_or_faith

Flickr link to photo below: https://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/10221065324/in/set-72157645018820696

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityI think scientific working train of thought and ideas are far more important than details in this platform; good ideas will arouse a group of people marching in a right direction….

James F Peters· University of ManitobaDear Geng,

Do you mean "marching" or "doing research" in the right direction? It is certainly the case that following scientific trains of thought (hypothesise --> test, experiment--> draw conclusions from experimental data)) is fruitful. Is this more or less what you have in mind when you write "scientific working train of thought"?

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityDear James，

Thank you very much.

Yes, more exploring, pioneering forward in our discussing and research.

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityWhat is the relationship between Mathematics, Science and Nature?

I think this question comes to the bottom: What mathematics is! What science is! What Universe and Nature is!

We human exist with our own time and space while Universe and Nature exists with its own time and space; this is one important fact we have to have in our mind all the time. Existing along with human, human science is human’s cognitive product to Universe and Nature------things in our science should be with the property of “human time and space” and “Universe and Nature time and space” so we know how they are from and how they are being in our science.

Thus, we have "reality" and "model", "infinite" and "finite", "homogeneous" and "fractal", "consistent" and "inconsistent”…

Ravi Ananth· OnSight Technology USAJust to stir up the pot a bit! When Hippocrates, now considered the father of medicine science, said (paraphrasing) "let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food", the "move forward" for him in those days of scientific thought process, was terminal incarceration:-) In other words, it is always human subjectivity, generally superciliousness, that is in control eventually. Math, science, nature ...Blah...Blah! http://static2.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Our-food-should-be-our.jpg

Take for example, the "Crusades" of the old days or the modern day "Jihad" may have some modicum of scientific thought, but certainly involves "The Human" as the ultimate Blasphemer! Taking God's authority in Man's own frail/corrupt hands? So finally (in my opinion), "What is the relationship between Mathematics, Science and Nature?" It is, us humans, that create and perceive such inferences of relationship. We see beauty when we want to see it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocrates

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityDear Ravi，

If we don’t want to see beauty, is beauty still there?

Regards

Ravi Ananth· OnSight Technology USAIt is certainly in the "eyes of the beholder", isn't it? Our existence may only be a figment of our imagination too :-)

Louis Brassard·Ravi,

The here and now of your life is not a figment of our imagination. If you are not sure, take a hammer and hit your fingers. But the story of your life is the figment of your imagination in the sense that it is not here and now and can only be generated by your imagination.

Ravi Ananth· OnSight Technology USACliché! Louis! You fellows can feed this digression here on:-)

"If you are not sure, take a hammer and hit your fingers". Ouch! Just imagining it, hurts :-(

"But the story of your life is the figment of your imagination in the sense that it is not here and now and can only be generated by your imagination", kind of like "history"? The manifestation of the writer's perspective/imagination?

How come I haven't seen you pontificate on this question yet Louis?https://www.researchgate.net/post/Genesis_Fact_fiction_or_faith

Wilfried Musterle· Max-Born-GymnasiumWe model (!) our observations with mathematical formulas. That's all.

Nature do not know mathematics.The only statement we can give is that there is not chaos and randomness but an order therefore we and all things can exist. But there is no mystical relation between nature and mathematics.

Louis Brassard·Ravi,

I am sorry if you did not like my humour.

Regards

Ravi Ananth· OnSight Technology USAHow did you conclude that Louis? In any case, do share your views uninhibitedly as always. I just heard that exact same response many a times before. I've been around, that's all:-)

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityThis topic is a very good one; people have been talking about this since we have Mathematics and Science.

Does it basically mean how much we human do in Mathematics and Science? many people really confuse.

Ravi Ananth· OnSight Technology USA"Relationship between Mathematics,Science and Nature", maybe "reason" or "logic".

Relationship between Human and Nature, may be faith. The same faith that propels some men to sacrifice themselves for the sake of others or many men to sacrifice others' lives for their own gratification (salvation?). This relationship is bereft of both "reason" and "logic".

"Human we are the only animal which have imagination", maybe in our own vanity and knowledge of the past, perhaps?

The original question (Oct. 2012) is highly philosophical (in my opinion) and has obviously made many a men emote. So, this is just to throw some more energy for thought propagation :-)

Views 28469 (WOW!), Followers 213, Answers 927 (1000 is close!)

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityAs we know, we now really have 4 confusing “infinitude” related things in our science:

(1) potential infinity as something unknown, as the pre-Aristotlean Greek believed,

(2) actual infinity as a property of sets, as Cantor thought on it,

(3) infinitesimal with the number form of X--->0,

(4) infinity as big number, as the pre-K12 child think on it.

We have a big trouble:

for the first 2, we have long-drawn-out and ceaseless “potential infinity--actual infinity” debates since antiquity; while for the last 2, people use them as “numbers relating to infinitude” in many kinds of practical calculations but they are “non-number number of variables（"One thing is important"-------theoretically they should not be numbers but "another thing is also important"------- practically they should be numbers）”.

We human have been “opening one eye and closing another eye” ever since.

Mathematics, science and nature----What can we do?

Donald G PalmerGene:

Happy New Year to all (on the Gregorian calendar).

It has been a little while since the last post on this item, which has gotten pretty long...

But to consider your last post: Actual infinity maybe too difficult to address directly. So, aside from actual infinity, the other three items are questions of scale – large and small.

We always ‘start’ from our own perspective of scale, while a study that might address all three of these items likely needs to look at what is consistent across scale – what is consistent using very large, very small, and at our scale quantities - numbers. In order to study this issue we will need to represent numbers across vast differences of scale and to perform operations on numbers of very different scales. For our current positional numbers, scale is represented by the base of a number. However, if we stay with one base, we will always get into trouble with vastly different scales – consider a simple addition of numbers like (1.0) and (1.0 x 10^100^100). This is not practical even with high speed computers today. We need a number system that can ‘easily’ change base and perform operations on numbers of very different bases – say adding two numbers with base 10 and base 10^100^100.

(1.0 base 10) is very different than (1.0 base 10^100^100) or (1.0 base 10^-123) - or even (1.0 base Pi or e).

A system that could represent numbers using any base and perform operations on very different base numbers would be able to look at scale from a relative stand point, rather than always starting from our base 10 or base 2 standpoint. I will suggest (one of my ‘themes’) that our current systems for representing numbers are not adequate for performing operations and comparing numbers across such scale differences. We will need to devise a new system(s) that can, which (I suggest) is the next step needed to address this infinite item.

Donald

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityDear Donald,

Happy New Year to all and thank you Donald for your enlightening new number idea.

It is said that numbers is the language of mathematics and it is true that “number history” is a vivid picture of our mathematics history. We human have been using infinite related number forms since the notation of “infinite” came into our science and really trying very hard to describe “infinite things in universe” with quantity. They are the products of mathematical theory systems, the defected theory system will have defected languages even hard to produce their related languages-----“non-number infinitesimal number (variables)” is a typical example and a helpless interlude.

But if numbers is really the language of mathematics, it should be in its “language system” within its related mathematical theory systems of different levels, so we have notions of “number system”, “number spectrum” … with systematic sense.

Sincerely yours,

Geng

Kerry Soileau· Louisiana State UniversityIn my view, mathematics is independent of Nature. Once the integers are defined, a definition that is independent of physical reality, in turn the rational numbers, the reals, the complex numbers, analysis, algebra and topology are all determined uniquely. There cannot be an alternate physical reality with a different mathematics.

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityDear Kerry,

If we look at the forms of numbers and formulas…, we may say “mathematics is independent of Nature”. But if we ask how numbers and formulas… came from, many answers would be “from Nature (including physical reality)”. So, we actually come to the bottom: What is science and what is mathematics?

Sincerely yours,

Geng

Isabella Koldras·...in all conscience and wholeheartedly, I endorse the hint offered by Galileo: "Nature"s great book is written in mathematical language"...and with total sincerity believe that it is...Artist"s task to find the right brushstroke of a landscape"s mysterious language...Poet"s verse to unfold the universe of a single thought...Musician"s symphony to express this sudden occurrence of a new theory of Nature"s sound...Scientist's intellectual quest and carefully considered thought in attempt to demystify that genetically inherent code...so we all communicate this mysterious equation arising out of single human thought...the mathematics of life on Earth...entire Universe of a single thought...

Happy New Year!

Yuri Pavlov Pavlov (Juryi)· Bulgarian Academy of SciencesI agree to this position:

“As we learn more about nature, it becomes increasingly apparent that an accurate statement about nature is necessarily mathematical. Anything else is an approximation. So, mathematics is not only science but is also an exact science.”

In addition I could aid a passage from the Master Petar Danov:

“Some say that Truth is abstract. No, Truth is the reality that is at the foundation of our life. Truth is a world of indescribable beauty, which has its own colors, tones, and music. It is a world which exists now and will exist forever. In this world, everything is strictly mathematically defined. There is nothing unforeseen, nothing accidental. Truth is independent of individual conceptions. Whether you think in one way or another about it, whether you approach or retreat from it, you will not modify its relations. ” http://www.panevritmia.info/philosophy/truth/?lang=en

Donald G PalmerA question for those putting mathematics on a pedestal:

Are you referring to some 'Ultimate Mathemcatics' or are you referring the mathemcatics we have today?

Human mathematics is a far cry from any such 'Ultimate' far in the future, if even humanly possible, Mathemcatics.

James F Peters· University of Manitoba@Donald G Palmer: A question for those putting mathematics on a pedestal:Are you referring to some 'Ultimate Mathemcatics' or are you referring the mathemcatics we have today?

I am guessing that you meant to write "mathematics" instead of "mathemcatics". Also, the "on a pedestal" metaphor probably should be replaced by "on an elevated level". In addition, the term mathematics should be interpreted in terms of applied mathematics familiar to scientists and pure mathematics which is characterized by sets of points and various functions and relations on sets of points, which are definitely on an elevated level. Do you agree?

Geng Ouyang· MinNan Normal UniversityAnother work relating to number in Mathematics-Science-Nature is challenging us.

When we study ”the meaning of zero" and the location of zero in “number spectrum” in our mathematics, an unbalanced defect can be easily discovered: “zero" appears on one side of the “number spectrum” as a kind of mathematical language telling people a situation of “ nothing, not-being,…”; but on the other side of the “number spectrum” we lack of another kind of mathematical language telling people an opposite situation to “zero”------“ something, being,…”.

We need a new number symbol (“yan”) with opposite meaning to zero locating at the opposite side of zero in the “number spectrum” to make up the structural incompleteness of “number spectrum” and to complete the existence of “zero”.

Donald G Palmer@Issam:

As Louis states, mathematics is about relations. However , i think it is also a means of generalizing relations between any 'Units'. 'One', 'Two', etc. are generalizations of any object or unit. If we discover (or invent) relationships that work regardless of what object or unit we apply the relationship to, then they are universal relationships valid for any object or unit. I will suggest that it is this generalization of object or unit that makes mathematics so powerful - and that allows the identified relationships to hold so universally.

So, if we have discovered relationships that are universal, it would seem almost an a priori expectation that any units of nature would also adhere to these universal relationships. However, when studying nature, we are interested in more than universal relationships, as we need to understand the relationships of this or that specific unit or object. This is where the limitations of mathematics comes into focus and we begin to understand we are simply 'approximating' specific objects using universally generalized concepts. What is specific to a specific object (say a single electron, rather that the averaged; closer to universal results) is what becomes difficult using mathematics.

The concept of a 'Theory of Everything' is the desire to find what is common to all relationships. This is a very mathematical concept. However, the ability to predict the unique future of a very specific event does not come easily from relationships about general or universal objects. This is were the specifics of Nature defy the direction and universality of mathematics. It could also be why we continue to make use of probability, which explicitly avoids the uniqueness of a specific event and which may explicitly prevent us from predicting the future of any specific event.

Donald

Louis Brassard·Donald,

The reason why quantum physics is about probability relation is because it is totally impossible to find invariant relation that apply to specific object such an electron. Quantum mechanic has nothing to say about specific events or specific object. It makes very precise prediction for large number of objects and events. When dealing with a single electron, no prediction can be made. So quantum mechanic is not a science of specific object or event. But the difference with classical physics is more profound than that. In quantum physic object and event are not independent of the context which include all the instruments. And the state of a quantum system cannot in principle be totally known.

Louis Brassard·Descartes is one of the most important found of modern science. Its most important contribution is the creation of the most important part of mathematic used by engineer: analytical geometry. Analytical geometry was done by the invention of the coordinate axis for locating a point in space. It de facto merge two previously independent field of mathematic: algebria and euclidean geometry. Now algebrian equations correspond to surface and curve in space. It allows to create a dimension of time and de facto create space time and within this framework calculus and differetial equations will be invented and the project of the geometrisation of the world began and the rest is history.

Descartes is well known for being a dualism, i.e. he divided the world in between the res extensia and the res cogitans. But almost everybody assumed that Descartes sperated the world in two realm of existence, a material realm and a realm of the soul and everybody pointed out the impossibility of the soul to communicate with the body. But this is a big misunderstanding. Descartes in the first two meditations did not divided the world into two realm of existence, he posits one realm of existence: the res cogitans. He doubted everything until he came down to one thing he could not doubt: ''I am a thinking substance''. The res extensa is what can be model within space time, the realm of scientific modeling. All in the res extensa is doubtfull but can be perfected. The res extensa is not a realm of existense but a real of modeling of what exist. So the is one existing reality and all the scientific knowledge about reality forms the res extensa. Consciousness exist while the res extensa is not the realm of existence but the realm of modeling of what exist. Mathematic is the language of the res extensa but not all reality can be modeled. With this interpretation of Descartes dualism, the mind body problem totally disappear.

Donald G PalmerThank you, Louis

What I think you are saying would suggest that the use of probability in QM is because it provides the 'best' available model we can currently devise.

Are we so enamored with this model that we do not look for a 'better' one? It would seem the application of QM to technologic use still has a long way to go and so there is not much incentive to consider a better model there.

However, the need to resort to probabilities (where we explicitly 'average' actions) could also be an indicator that we must leave information 'on the table' in order to model the world using QM. So this would indicate there might be better models that account for this lost (averaged) information.

That is what I am interested in. This direction suggests we do not have adequate mathematical tools (let alone technologic measuring tools) to proceed forward. So the search includes more advanced mathematical tools in order to better model reality.

I have no problem with people continuing with QM, since it is the best current theory. I just think there are better ones that can be discovered and/or devised and search for them.

Donald

Louis Brassard·Donald,

Mechanical engineer just needs Euclidean geometry for what they do while for GPS positioning the slight curvature of spacetime cannot be neglected and Riemanian geometry is necessary. For crafting nuclear weapon , understanding chemical reaction and designing microchips regular quantum mechanics is good enough. But cosmologist and astro-physicist would need a quantum gravity theory in order to go back in time at the origin of the cosmos and understanding what is going on in black holes or for expanding physics into a more harmonious whole. A small number of physicists are working at that fundamental level.

To conceive Newton's physics , you need analytical geometry and calculus. Both general relativity and quantum mechanics emerged around 1927 about fifty years after Riemanian geometry and Hilbert Space the two geometrical foundation have emerged. David Deutsch is crafting a new geometrical framework for physics : contructor theory and Lee Smolin is also trying to establish new foundations. Those are only two that I know but there are probably douzen out there as promising that are being constructed. What is exciting about this is not that physicists will understand some remote esoteric problems such as what is going on in Black hole but that these new framework change our way of thinking about everything including what we think about ourself a bit like the discovery by Copernicus that the earth is not the center of the cosmos. That discovery was not just an astronomical discovery but a discovery that change everything we thought about the world and about ourself. Kings fells and religions changed and new one emerged out of this discovery. I expect as much from the new physics.

Saeed Dashtban· Khorasan Institute of Higher EducationIn fact, the entire realm of mathematics is full of beauty and art. One way of understanding the beauty of mathematics (especially geometry) information on the progress and evolution. Another aspect of the beauty of mathematics is that with all of your abstract, but on all the knowledge of the government and its laws,

Natural and social sciences as a powerful tool to polish it, the prevailing interpretation and serve the individual.

How beautiful! ... and the problem is solved. Mathematics is often called the most beautiful in the solution or solutions we use.

Typical examples of the phenomenon of interest apart and easier to understand and easy to work with, the objective being to form.Msalhhay It is unusual for them to independently solve isomorphic sample (the equivalent of) chose a way that is simpler than the phenomenon. This is an example of it being unusual and unexpected meaning and beauty

The elegance of the solution.

= + Objective of unexpected beauty

And thus solves the problem Namtarftr and more beautiful than the rest of the easiest and shortest, yet most exciting way to answer that question

Marius Dejess· Society for Research on Atheists' AttitudesIt seems that physicists are like tax accountants who first consult with their clients how much these latters will pay for tax; then these tax accountants make up the calculations and the quantities and the entities in such a manner, that their mathematics comes up with the amount of tax which they got from their clients as the tax these latters want to pay.

And the government tax examiners are afraid to challenge the computations of these tax accountants, because they do not have the subtle mastery of working with figures and definitions, and besides they cannot outtalk the subtle tax accountants -- better they decide to keep silent than be outtalked by these tax accountants and show themselves to be unlearned and even worse, fools (besides government tax examiners can expect something in return, what with the subtle mind of tax accountants who can think up ways and means to reward government tax examiners and leave them with what, impunity!

Can you help by adding an answer?