25 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassIn 1966?
Did you read it? The ideas are quite old, obviously, but all the hand-written equations on type writer paper and crossed-out edits are very cool. Not sure why he didn't just use track changes mode in Microsoft word.
25 Oct 17
Originally posted by @wildgrassI guess you are joking, but Word isn't used (even today) for writing physics papers or dissertations.
Did you read it? The ideas are quite old, obviously, but all the hand-written equations on type writer paper and crossed-out edits are very cool. Not sure why he didn't just use track changes mode in Microsoft word.
27 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraYeah. Obviously. I just found it interesting reading through all the mistakes he made while writing it. It's refreshing.
I guess you are joking, but Word isn't used (even today) for writing physics papers or dissertations.
Originally posted by @wildgrassAre you talking about math mistakes or English mistakes? Is there a way to restate this thesis so a human can understand it? I guess there was no other way to do the thesis but typing in those days and I wonder how many pages he threw out due to typing errors?
Yeah. Obviously. I just found it interesting reading through all the mistakes he made while writing it. It's refreshing.
What was he saying in this work? I printed it out and am at a loss to understand what he was saying. I guess his work on black holes came a lot later.
Is this work basically a critique of other work or is he actually pointing to some grand theory?
27 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseThe math is complete gibberish to me. But I think in each chapter he is addressing various implications of an expanding universe, how the universe is spatially organized while it's constantly changing and how change occurs. Isotropic vs. anisotropic? Open or closed?
Are you talking about math mistakes or English mistakes? Is there a way to restate this thesis so a human can understand it? I guess there was no other way to do the thesis but typing in those days and I wonder how many pages he threw out due to typing errors?
What was he saying in this work? I printed it out and am at a loss to understand what he was saying. I guess his work on black holes came a lot later.
Chapter 1 asks "in an expanding universe how are the boundaries defined?" Chapter 2 asks "how does the universe change over time? What forces drive change? How is it simultaneously rotating and expanding?". Chapter 3 says something confusing about how gravitational radiation perturbs the universe. Chapter 4 pokes some holes in an anisotropic model of the universe, and I think lays the groundwork for the existence of gravitational singularities (i.e. the center of black holes).
Originally posted by @wildgrassIt just doesn't seem to go anywhere as opposed to Einstein who came up with testable theories. Perhaps it was mainly a summation of the accomplishments of cosmology up to that point in time. I thought the idea of gravitational waves perturbing the universe was well known 40 years before that.
The math is complete gibberish to me. But I think in each chapter he is addressing various implications of an expanding universe, how the universe is spatially organized while it's constantly changing and how change occurs. Isotropic vs. anisotropic? Open or closed?
Chapter 1 asks "in an expanding universe how are the boundaries defined?" Chapter 2 asks ...[text shortened]... he groundwork for the existence of gravitational singularities (i.e. the center of black holes).
28 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseThese days, it's very rare for a PhD thesis to contain really groundbreaking new work. For the most part, a PhD is a learning experience. Groundbreaking new theories tend to arise after scientists already have some experience. The importance of the PhD thesis as a piece of original research has diminished over time, and is now merely a formality, a document accompanying some research papers. In the 1960s, the importance of the PhD thesis was already quite minor.
It just doesn't seem to go anywhere as opposed to Einstein who came up with testable theories. Perhaps it was mainly a summation of the accomplishments of cosmology up to that point in time. I thought the idea of gravitational waves perturbing the universe was well known 40 years before that.
30 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraMy son in law Gandhi, did a Phd paper that was original, he is now known as the 'father of foraging' for his work equating the foraging path of some birds and other predatory animals, how they proved to be following a known mathematical function. That was around 1988. He married my daughter Heather, she has Ma in music composition and is working on Phd there, they both live and teach at Federal University in Natal Brazil and have two kids.
These days, it's very rare for a PhD thesis to contain really groundbreaking new work. For the most part, a PhD is a learning experience. Groundbreaking new theories tend to arise after scientists already have some experience. The importance of the PhD thesis as a piece of original research has diminished over time, and is now merely a formality, a doc ...[text shortened]... ng some research papers. In the 1960s, the importance of the PhD thesis was already quite minor.
I wrote some guitar pieces in honor of them, actually need to write one for Gandhi now, have for both grandkids and Heather.
30 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseEvery PhD thesis is "original," (unless plagiarized), but my point is that, at least in physics, it doesn't tend to contain groundbreaking new results, which are usually published in papers immediately. Biology might have different traditions though.
My son in law Gandhi, did a Phd paper that was original, he is now known as the 'father of foraging' for his work equating the foraging path of some birds and other predatory animals, how they proved to be following a known mathematical function. That was around 1988. He married my daughter Heather, she has Ma in music composition and is working on Phd the ...[text shortened]... n honor of them, actually need to write one for Gandhi now, have for both grandkids and Heather.
30 Oct 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraHis field used to be called 'biophysics' but they now call it 'statistical physics' perhaps to try to veer away from the perception that field is only tied to biology. It goes way beyond 'just' biology. Last I saw of him he was onto new ideas in solar cells. Not sure what he is about right now though.
Every PhD thesis is "original," (unless plagiarized), but my point is that, at least in physics, it doesn't tend to contain groundbreaking new results, which are usually published in papers immediately. Biology might have different traditions though.
31 Oct 17
Originally posted by @sonhouseStatistical physics is a very old field of physics. It is mandatory in every undergraduate physics programme, usually focused on statistical mechanics and its relation to thermodynamics. Biophysics is a newer field, wherein some ideas from statistical physics are applied.
His field used to be called 'biophysics' but they now call it 'statistical physics' perhaps to try to veer away from the perception that field is only tied to biology. It goes way beyond 'just' biology. Last I saw of him he was onto new ideas in solar cells. Not sure what he is about right now though.
06 Nov 17
2 edits
Originally posted by @sonhouseThere's good stuff in there. As others mentioned, a Ph.D. dissertation isn't going to explain all the oddities of the universe all at once. It's a training exercise.
It just doesn't seem to go anywhere as opposed to Einstein who came up with testable theories. Perhaps it was mainly a summation of the accomplishments of cosmology up to that point in time. I thought the idea of gravitational waves perturbing the universe was well known 40 years before that.
He does new math and runs new equations to explain how the known forces of the universe could be impacting change over time. It also sets the stage for his work on gravitational singularities via mathematical proofs that they can exist.