any scientists here?

[jehangircama]

i wanted to see how many scientists there are on this forum as it seems that there are some scientists who are pretty good musicians as well.

[shasta]

I am, although I crack up at the term "scientist" - - - seems overly professional, like we know what we're doing!  "Researcher" is more like it.   

[prometheus]

Pointless question.

But let's expore it nonetheless.

You seem to think you can confirm the connection if a lot of people will answer 'yes'. Maybe then you will conclude that good musicians are good scientists(or I guess rather science students/graduates) and vice versa.

Maybe people that are either good musicians or good scientists both have similar interests and thus share similar skills. I mean, people that are stupid, really busy, prefer ignorance, let's throw out all the stereotypes, generally have no interest in neither of these things. So people that are potential good musicians or good scientists come from the same pool of already a limited amount of people.

As for researchers, I am sure there has been research done on this topic. It's probably quite worthless sociology stuff but it may still be interested.

Just remember people are too strange, or irrational/stupid, to deserve to be a subject of research. Really, because people are not logical you cannot really make laws of behavior. Therefore sociology is a worthless science and questions like these are worthless.

[gyzzzmo]

i am

[Waldszenen]

I come from a friggen dynasty of scientists - my dad is a chemical engineer, my mum's a microbiologist, an uncle is a genetic engineer and another uncle is a biochemist.

And I'm studying Biology and Chemistry at school right now... >_>

[jehangircama]

what sort of research are you'll doing? bioinformatics, molecular biology, proteomics, string theory,....?

[prometheus]

No research in string theory is possible. String theory isn't part of science.

[e60m5]

Just remember people are too strange, or irrational/stupid, to deserve to be a subject of research. Really, because people are not logical you cannot really make laws of behavior. Therefore sociology is a worthless science and questions like these are worthless.

 

[e60m5]

No research in string theory is possible. String theory isn't part of science.

 

[prometheus]

Applying scientific method to sociology doesn't give you any theories. So it is not a science.

As for string theory, no one can concieve of an experiment that one can execute to test some of the hypothesis. So it cannot be science either.

[jehangircama]

then you would have told Einstein that General Relativity is not possible because at the time it could not be experimentally verified. you are effectively saying that theoretical physics is not valid!! there are many things which cannot be verified by current technology. that doesn't mean they can't be verified in the future. black holes were 'discovered' theoretically years before they were observed. to say string theory is not science is just ridiculous. in any case there are indirect ways to check various observations made by string theory. if any of them had been proved wrong, a few thousand physicists would not be devoting their lives to working out the theory, which does have the potential at least to be the ultimate theory (when you incorporate supergravity, ie, M-theory). and remember that people before this century would never have believed we would one day reach the moon. science has the capability to do many many things.

[shasta]

what sort of research are you'll doing? bioinformatics, molecular biology, proteomics, string theory,....?

Cardiovascular physiology, specifically heart failure and artificial heart devices.

[prometheus]

The case of string theory is unique in the history of physics.

Though the really accurate experiments on general relativity only started in 1953 by 1919 there were already strong suggestions based on observations that supported the theory.
Also, Einstein pointed out in his texts where he proposed GR how it could be faslified. He proposed three experiments.

Black holes were a prediction made by GR. People didn't know if this was an anomaly in the theory of GR or that they really existed. So the fact that they weren't observed has nothing to do with it.
When black holes were observed this was proof for the theory of GR.

In the 36 years long history of string theory there hasn't been any observation that supports the theory. Not only that but up to today there still isn't any proposed experiment that can be done in the future. We cannot even be sure if there will ever be a theory that can falsify it. The point is not that it is fundamentally unfalsible, it has been unfalsifable up to today, for a long time. That just means it is not science because it does not fit the definition of science. This means string theory should not be part of a basic physics textbook or a book on science.

This doesn't mean it will remain useless and that it should be disgarded, though one can make a case for that. First of, almost all the people in the field are mathematicians. They have no experience with real physics science. So they will just lack the critical edge to understand nature. They have no feel for nature.
I have seen many physicists make comments about the lack of sceptism. With so many numbers it seems to me it is so easy to delude onceself. These people have really sacriificed their lives for string theory. If the theory is utterly wrong their life has been thrown away. These people cannot believe their theory is false. Feynman for example has made some criticism on adjusting numbers to fit the model.

And even if all concieved experiments were possible tomorrow, the formula's today are still very flawed and only a shadow of the 'real ones'. So the formula's will be way too inaccurate to do any science.

But maybe string theory will finally manage to match with reality. String theory predicts supersymmetry. In the near future it will probably be possible to find out of supersymmetry exists or not. For example when the LHC at Cern is finally finished in 2007, should provide some exiting new experiments.

The fact remains that all the people in the field of string theory will admit their theory isn't part of science yet. That was the point.

[jehangircama]

ok point taken, btw why did the americans stop the superconducting supercollider project? too expensive? and also btw, the field of string theory doesn't only have mathematicians, its just that it requires a lot of mathematical modelling etc. i believe Veneziano, Witten etc are all physicists. greene also, though he teaches maths as well. its just that here the theorists are leading the experimentalists onward, for the first time (apart to some extent in Einstein's case). if the theory is to be proved true, sooner or later some experiment will be described to test it.
and the true theory should have no anomalies. so if black holes hadn't been discovered GR could not have been the true theory in any case, so they do still become in a way a test for GR and they were discovered later.
and i do agree that string theory has no place in any low to middle range textbk, obviously. the maths required to solve the equations must be understood, that in itself is very very advanced.
i know that feynmann had reservations about the theory. and btw do you know how feynmann's sum over histories theory was proved? again by those probability distributions?

[pianolearner]

The idea of a 'Black Hole' was first contemplated more than two hundred years ago in the late 1700s. Long before the geometrical theory of gravitation was published by Albert Einstein in 1915.

A paper written by the Rev John Michell in 1783 was discovered in the 1970s. This is the first known discussion of the concept of a black hole, or "Dark Star".

Michell pondered a body so massive that the escape velocity at its surface was equal to the speed of light. In his 1783 paper to the Royal Society Michell wrote:

"If the semi-diameter of a sphere of the same density as the Sun in the proportion of five hundred to one, and by supposing light to be attracted by the same force in proportion to its [mass] with other bodies, all light emitted from such a body would be made to return towards it, by its own proper gravity."

In the early 1800's experiments on optical interference led to the predominance of the wave theory of light and the end of the corpuscular theory. Since light waves were thought to be unaffected by gravitation interest in the hypothetical "dark stars" ceased.

In 1905 Albert Einstein published his Special Theory of Relativity and in 1915 his General Theory of relativity. The General Theory was a new theory of gravitation and one of its fundamental predictions was the effect of gravity on light. According to the theory matter causes space-time to curve. The paths followed by light rays or matter is determined by the curvature of the space-time and allowed a modern scientific proof of Michell's hypothesis.

[douxtigress]

Well, I wouldn't say 'scientist' rather 'researcher'.

I hope to do a double major in piano performance, and a science field (I haven't decided yet between microbiology, genetics, or environmental science)...

But, it's funny because I have my classical piano lessons on wednesdays at the university (I'm still in high school) and then I walk down a couple buildings to their science laboratory, forget about music and think about what I'm going to do with antibiotic resistance...

And yes, I think musicians can be scientists... 

[contrapunctus]

No research in string theory is possible. String theory isn't part of science.

It is part of theoretical physics, and how can call theoretical work not science?

String theory use mathematical expirimentations.

Even so, It is beginning to fall apart because the formula the encompasses all 12 dimensions has not been found.

[stevie]

Well, I wouldn't say 'scientist' rather 'researcher'.

I hope to do a double major in piano performance, and a science field (I haven't decided yet between microbiology, genetics, or environmental science)...

But, it's funny because I have my classical piano lessons on wednesdays at the university (I'm still in high school) and then I walk down a couple buildings to their science laboratory, forget about music and think about what I'm going to do with antibiotic resistance...

And yes, I think musicians can be scientists... 

i study biology, im an expert on the human anatomy, and baby, you get an A+.

made haha no sense that

[douxtigress]

i study biology, im an expert on the human anatomy, and baby, you get an A+.

made haha no sense that

I actually really laughed out loud at that... haha.
You study biology? Ahh my favorite subject.  I love the human anatomy as well, I'm taking that class next... the body is such a fascinating thing. 

[prometheus]

It is part of theoretical physics, and how can call theoretical work not science?

String theory use mathematical expirimentations.

Even so, It is beginning to fall apart because the formula the encompasses all 12 dimensions has not been found.

Uuh, no.

Yes it is part of theoretical physics. But that doesn't mean it fits the definition of science. Just look up the definition of science and you will know why string theory is not science.

You can't do experiements based on math. You need to make calculations, predictions, and then compare them with reality. Because we don't have the 'real formula', only a derivation of a derivation (not in the mathematical sense of the word of course), so we cannot get numbers out of them. Some constants are even adjusted to make the formula work. And even if we got the accuterate numbers, we still can't do the measurements needed to compare the results with that observed.

It is not breaking down as far as I know. It is just really stuck. And I though Witten solved the dimention problem. There was a formula for every dimention and Witten solved it by creating a formula that worked in all dimentions. He called it M-theory.

[jehangircama]

witten solved a major problem by incorporating something known as duality, which has something to do with the accuracy of approximate calculations. greene has explained it well in the elegant universe. though i don't know whats happened after he wrote that.

[contrapunctus]

Uuh, no.

Yes it is part of theoretical physics. But that doesn't mean it fits the definition of science. Just look up the definition of science and you will know why string theory is not science.

You can't do experiements based on math. You need to make calculations, predictions, and then compare them with reality. Because we don't have the 'real formula', only a derivation of a derivation (not in the mathematical sense of the word of course), so we cannot get numbers out of them. Some constants are even adjusted to make the formula work. And even if we got the accuterate numbers, we still can't do the measurements needed to compare the results with that observed.

It is not breaking down as far as I know. It is just really stuck. And I though Witten solved the dimention problem. There was a formula for every dimention and Witten solved it by creating a formula that worked in all dimentions. He called it M-theory.

I didn't think the basic formula for M-theory was complete, but, then again, I may be behind the times.

[lilypiano]

I guess I'm sort of a researcher.  I work in an entomology lab.  Right now I'm tearing the legs off of moths to be sent off to be DNA sequenced.  the professor is trying to find new species.

[m]

i wanted to see how many scientists there are on this forum as it seems that there are some scientists who are pretty good musicians as well.

I guess, I am a scientist...

or am I

Besides playing piano (lately only sometimes), I am an electronic engineer, currently developing and designing a few new models of microphones for one big company.

Also, I am a sound and recording engineer and so far produced about 10 commercial CDs for Camerata Tokyo and Summit labels.

All these, plus some students keep me busy all the time 

[living_stradivarius]

Really, because people are not logical you cannot really make laws of behavior. Therefore sociology is a worthless science and questions like these are worthless.

People are so illogical that they even reply to questions they think are worthless 

Working with incomplete data is still useful, especially if subsequent findings help with deductive reasoning.

[timothy42b]

Pointless question.

But let's expore it nonetheless.

You seem to think you can confirm the connection if a lot of people will answer 'yes'. Maybe then you will conclude that good musicians are good scientists(or I guess rather science students/graduates) and vice versa.

Yes, let's go  back to the original question for a second, as there's no way pianistimo can get the bible into this one so it's going to die quickly otherwise.  <g>

I'm an engineer, and I play piano and trombone.  But you can't tell from there how good I am at either engineering or music, other than to know I'm obviously not famous.  So from the evidence we could possibly connect the interest but not necessarily the talent.

I think there are probably many amateur musicians within professional occupations in general for two reasons. 

One is general competence.   A lot of people can't get admitted to engineering or physics schools, and of those that do a lot flunk out.  The ones that succeed did so because of effort, persistence, efficiency, intelligence, etc. - some combination of factors that worked for them.  Likely the same combination allows them to be at least minimally competent at any instrument. 

The other is time.  If you don't have to hold down three low paying jobs to make a living, you have more leisure time to devote to various hobbies.

Now on the other hand if you wanted to claim there was a connection with virtuoso talent, you would be hard pressed to find any examples.  Einstein played violin at a high amateur level, but real musicians said he was "pretty good for a physicist."   

[mycrabface]

It dosen't mean anything if you're a scientist or not. I know a chemist, and she's also a runner. I am a student, and I'm also a musician. "Musician". I know a businessman, and he's also an artist. I'm sure there are many more instances. An average person doesn't have to be able to do only ONE thing.

[timothy42b]

It dosen't mean anything if you're a scientist or not.

I see that I did not read the original post carefully enough, and I must change my answer.

But first, mycrabface claims there is no correlation whatsoever, and offers no support beyond a couple of isolated examples.  I dispute that, and will explain why. 

I think there is a positive correlation in one direction, and none (or even negative) in the other.

I think the correlation is from science to music.  People who are scientists would more likely have musical hobbies than the population as a whole.  This is because they are people who chose to make their living by thinking about concepts;  they have by nature an intellectual approach to life.  This is not going to be true of a skilled craftsman or an athlete, for example.  Scientists are going to tend to also pay attention to literature, art, and music, because those activities just go along with people who like to think, analyze, discuss, debate, etc.  Of course not all of them will, and plenty of factory workers are into classical music and hate NASCAR, but I'm talking about general trends.

But the original poster asked the reverse question:  are musicians more likely than average to be interested in science?  I think this correlation may actually be negative:  musicians as a group are less likely to have a science background or science interests.  My opinion is based on quite a few debates on various musical forums.  But I think there is actually a reason for it.  Musicians are people primarily interested in the creative process.  The creative process exists in science, but is greatly restricted by the nature of reality, so science only attracts people comfortable with that limit.  In art, that restriction disappears, and in fact the act of doing critical thinking and problem solving probably interferes with success.  This also suggests musicians as a whole may be more likely to have religious leanings and be uncritically accepting of fringe ideas such as crystal healing, herbal medicine, UFOs, conspiracy theories, etc.  And I think the evidence is that is somewhat true.  Of course we can all think of some counterexamples, but again I think the trend is there. 

Scientists can be good musicians because they are smart competent people, but are rarely if ever great musicians because being good at thinking interferes with being really creative.

And musicans can be okay thinkers if they're intelligent enough, but are rarely going to be great thinkers for much the same reason. 

[usahockey]

String "theory" has made a lot of mainstream news, just because it sounds cool and fascinating, and is touted as being a possible "theory of everything" that can explain "it all".  Within the scientific community though, more and more scientists are dropping out of the field (although many younger ones, urged on by what they think is a great field with much potential are joining up).

String "theory" is not even an actual theory yet, as it has yet to be accepted by most people in the scientific community (it has its enthusiastic followers, but is nowhere near being a theory), and has absolutely no experimental data to support it.  It is more like the string hypothesis.  It is not "science" because it cannot be tested or proven (yet) using the scientific method.  At the moment, it just involves some very elaborate mathematical equations, which have implications for the universe that even Star Trek couldn't dream up. 

Another problem is that there are so many different versions of this "theory", and once again, none can be tested.  And whenever a "problem" has come up, someone reworks the mathematics in order to make it work again, by adding new dimensions to the universe and so forth.  The ideas of the string "theory" universe have already been set in place, and now some of the people are just trying to work it out in any way that they can, in order to fit their image of how it "should" be.  This is usually called pseudoscience...the only thing that string "theory" has is the mathematics, which mean almost nothing without experimental data.  Someone mentioned relativity and gravitation as being comparable, which is complete nonsense, as those true theories have been proven correct in experimental settings time and time again...until strings and their mathematics can be proven by experiment, then no, it is not science, and it is not even a theory.

[prometheus]

Einstein was also a good chess player.