48

While browsing the Net for some articles related to the history of the Whittaker-Shannon sampling theorem, so important to our digital world today, I came across this passage by H. D. Luke in The Origins of the Sampling Theorem:

However, this history also reveals a process which is often apparent in theoretical problems in technology or physics: first the practicians put forward a rule of thumb, then the theoreticians develop the general solution, and finally someone discovers that the mathematicians have long since solved the mathematical problem which it contains, but in "splendid isolation."

Other interesting examples?

(Matrices and Bohr's Quantum Mechanics of course. Someone could elaborate on the sampling theorem if they wish.)

Tom Copeland
  • 9,937
  • 1
    The General Theory of Relativity almost fits this, except for the fact that somebody pushed Einstein into the direction of Riemannian Geometry before he could reinvent it. I remember reading that Einstein was pleasantly surprised that mathematicians already had developed a general theory in which his ideas fitted, exactly the "splendid isolation". Of course, this was used to develop his general solution to the problem, so it's not strictly an example. – Jan Jitse Venselaar May 21 '12 at 11:54
  • 1
    @Tom: I think that the tale of Minkowski and Einstein was on Special Relativity (Minkowski died in 1909, 6 years before Einstein published his General Theory of Relativity). By Einsteins college buddy you probably mean Marcel Grossmann, who indeed pointed him to Riemannian Geometry (along with Levi-Civita), and probably was more attentive in math classes, becoming a full professor of Mathematics. The way I understood it, Einstein was never taught differential geometry during college. As I said, it isn't a good example, but Einstein commented that there was a good theory waiting for him. – Jan Jitse Venselaar May 21 '12 at 12:52
  • @Tom: I think http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/genrel.html gives a good general impression. The "splendid isolation" is the work of Riemann and others, which turned out to be exactly what Einstein needed to formalize his intuitive ideas about a relativistic theory of gravity. Probably more a case of "non-mathematician finds that his problem can be solved by using mathematical theory created decades ago". This could also make an interesting though probably very long list. – Jan Jitse Venselaar May 21 '12 at 14:45
  • 2
    This is too far of a hearsay, but maybe someone can give more (accurate) details: while having coffee with a friend whose does something related to representation theory he told that recently some folks discovered some properties of p-adic integrals after a long and hard work, only to find out that model theorists knew that for quite some time. If true, this is not exactly the splendid isolation, but rather a scale model of this phenomenon. – Asaf Karagila May 21 '12 at 22:38
  • 1
    @Jan, also read the last two paragraphs of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kingdon_Clifford. – Tom Copeland May 22 '12 at 05:45
  • Michelson and Morley as practicians. Lorentz with his rules of thumb and maybe even special relativity as an attempt to develop a general solution. Then the "re-discovery" of Riemann's math with the added twist of time as a fourth dimension. (?) – Tom Copeland May 29 '12 at 01:33
  • 6
    Why does the question have a link on the term "splendid isolation" that has nothing to do with mathematics? – KConrad May 29 '12 at 04:30
  • 1
    @KConrad : The original article has quotes around the expression splendid isolation. I googled it and came up with the Wikipedia article and assumed that was where the author got it. Do you have another source? – Tom Copeland May 29 '12 at 14:38
  • 1
    I doubt that is where the author's got the phrase from, but in any case the original quote has no direct reference to that non-mathematical wikipedia page, so I don't think it is adding value to have that unusual link. – KConrad May 29 '12 at 22:40
  • 2
    @KConrad : The article was written in 1999 and Wikipedia was launched in 2001, so obviously .... The author clearly is interested in historical perspectives; why wouldn't he choose to show his erudition and highlight a famous and relevant phrase (at least the relevance is obvious to me from the content of both articles and more appropriate than say "ivory tower")? BTW, I wasn't able to contact him at his old e-mail address to confirm my suspicions. – Tom Copeland May 30 '12 at 03:41
  • 2
    (cont.) My words "that was where the author got it" was a quick way of saying "from the historical usage as presented in the Wiki article." The Wiki article has a reference to Splendid Isolation? Britain and the Balance of Power 1874-1914 published in 1999. The question mark suggests there are nuances to the meaning and context (that may be evading you). For me it adds meaning to his choice of words. Until you have a more substantive argument .... – Tom Copeland May 30 '12 at 03:57
  • @KConrad asks: Why does the question have a link on the term "splendid isolation" that has nothing to do with mathematics? -- No problem: *splendid isolation* is a point $\ x\in X\ $ of a metric space $\ (X\ d)\ $ such that $\ \forall_{y\in X\setminus{x}}\ d(x\ y) > 1$. – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Jan 05 '15 at 01:12
  • 1
    @AsafKaragila, that sounds like motivic integration. (It's also reminiscent of, though doesn't exactly fit, the Ax–Kochen theorem.) – LSpice Jul 21 '20 at 01:41
  • 5
    There is a famous quote of Feynman: “If all of mathematics disappeared, physics would be set back by exactly one week.” – Gerry Myerson Aug 22 '20 at 01:26
  • 19
    @GerryMyerson There is also Mark Kac's famous immediate rejoinder: "Precisely the week in which God created the world." – Terry Tao Aug 22 '20 at 02:32
  • The Feynman-Kac interchange was all in good humor, but when serious tribal instincts take over, well ... it' s the proverbial fan. – Tom Copeland Aug 25 '20 at 23:46
  • 1
    Hooke, Newton (opposite Hooke), Huygens, Cayley, Hamilton, Riemann, Euler, Fourier, Lagrange, Laplace, Gauss, Green, Stokes, Maxwell, Klein, Dyson, Neumann, Ulenbeck, Kac, Feynman are probably in some ethereal Starbucks chuckling over the somewhat misguided artificial dichotomy "math versus physics" some try to impose, with the Barista Himself laughing the loudest and Pythagoras strumming on some strings in the corner, shaking his head. – Tom Copeland Sep 01 '20 at 14:05
  • “The problems of mathematics are not problems in a vacuum. There pulses in them the life of ideas which realize themselves in concreto through our human endeavours in our historical existence, but forming an indissoluble whole transcending any particular science.” -- Weyl – Tom Copeland Mar 30 '21 at 03:34
  • 1
    "Hilbert called mathematical physics 'a vital nerve' of mathematics, and Weyl inherited the interest in cross-fertilization of mathematics and physics from his teacher ... .The willingness of Gottingen mathematicians to get their formulas dirty by engaging physical problems set them apart from the obsessive purism of the Berlin mathematical school." -- from a text on representation theory by Etingof et al. – Tom Copeland Mar 30 '21 at 06:50
  • 2
    I am led to these remarks by the consciousness of a growing danger in the higher educational system of Germany—the danger of a separation between abstract mathematical science and its scientific and technical applications. Such separation could only be deplored; for it would necessarily be followed by shallowness on the side of the applied sciences, and by isolation on the part of pure mathematics. -- Klein – Tom Copeland Sep 22 '21 at 12:46
  • Exemplar: Chebyshev https://bhavana.org.in/pafnuty-chebyshev-1821-1894/ – Tom Copeland Sep 27 '21 at 06:11
  • A nice presentation of the push and pull between the mathematicians and physicists, regarding special and general relativity, is given in "From the Rise of the Group Concept to the Stormy Onset of Group Theory in the New Quantum Mechanics. A saga of the invariant characterization of physical objects, events and theories." by Bonolis, pp. 20-33. "Theoretical physics, whose methods were undergoing a radical epoch-making change, was finding its own way between mathematics, physics and mathematical physics." – Tom Copeland Mar 16 '22 at 22:12
  • It is positively spooky how the physicist finds the mathematician has been there before him or her.—Steven Weinberg, 1979 Nobel laureate in physics, at a 1986 math conference – Tom Copeland Oct 10 '22 at 02:36
  • "A topologist marvels at Physics". What there is to marvel at from the perspective of the geometer and topologist is, that the equations which the physicists after many "supple confusions" arrive at for their description of the fundamental particles, make such good sense in topology and geometry — and are indeed so inevitable that it is a scandal that the mathematicians had not studied them in their own right years ago. -- Raoul Bott – Tom Copeland Oct 20 '22 at 18:55
  • Ya gotta love historical narratives--such variety, the spice of life – Tom Copeland Oct 20 '22 at 19:04
  • On "splendid isolation" again: https://www.jointmathematicsmeetings.org/meetings/national/jmm/1067-01-521.pdf – Tom Copeland May 08 '23 at 15:38

11 Answers11

80

Cormack and Hounsfield received the 1979 Nobel prize in medicine for their work on CT scans. Cormack, a physicist, published his mathematical work on this in 1963, to essentially no response. Hounsfield, an engineer, built the first CT scanner in 1971 unaware of Cormack's work. Cormark included the following in his Nobel prize speech: "If a fine beam of gamma-rays of intensity $I_0$ is incident on the body and the emerging intensity is $I$, then the measurable quantity is $g = \ln(I_0/I) = \int_L f ds$, where $f$ is the variable absorption coefficient along the line $L$. Hence if $f$ is a function in two dimensions, and $g$ is known for all lines [...], the question is: Can $f$ be determined if $g$ is known? This seemed like a problem which would have been solved before, probably in the 19th century, but a literature search and enquiries of mathematicians provided no information about it. Fourteen years would elapse before I learned that Radon had solved this problem in 1917."

Fourteen years after Cormack's work means 1977, so Radon's work was rediscovered by the people involved with creating CT scan technology only after CT scan's had been around for several years. (Search on "Radon transform" for more information.)

Radon's work was rediscovered multiple times:

  1. Cramer and Wold (1936) in probability theory,

  2. Ambartsumian (1936) in astronomy,

  3. Bracewell (1956) in astronomy,

  4. De Rosier and Klug (1968) in chemistry.

In fact, Radon's basic idea was worked out before Radon, by Funk (1916) and Lorentz (1905). This work of Lorentz was unpublished, but a formula he found is mentioned in a paper by Bockwinkel in 1906. More on this history is in Cormack's survey paper Computed tomography: some history and recent developments, pp. 35--42 in "Computed tomography: Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics" 27, AMS, 1983.

Shortly before the work of Cormack, Oldendorf (a medical doctor in LA) published a paper in 1961 describing a crude CT scanner he had built out of household parts, such as model railroad tracks (!) but it went unnoticed. Hounsfield acknowledged it, but Oldendorf was not included in the Nobel prize list with Cormack and Hounsfield. He once said in an interview "I think Professor Cormack was selected [for the Nobel prize] because he worked out all the line integrals mathematically. [...] I didn't provide any mathematical treatment of it, and that apparently carried a lot of weight with the Nobel committee. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Oldendorf for more on his story.

The mathematical and engineering concepts in CT scan technology, with applications to medical imaging, were worked out in an obscure journal in Kiev by S. T. Tetelbaum in 1957-58, before Oldendorf!

KConrad
  • 49,546
41

One example that springs to mind are the Dirac equation and Clifford algebras. Dirac wanted to take the square root of the Klein-Gordon equation, and calculations showed that he needed 4 "numbers" $\gamma_i$ such that $\gamma_i \gamma_j + \gamma_j \gamma_i = 2\eta_{ij}\text{Id}_4$ with $\eta$ the $4\times 4$ diagonal matrix of the Minkowski metric. He found 4 complex $4\times 4$ matrices which satisfied these equation. Later physicists found that a general theory of such matrices was given in the 19th century, the theory of Clifford algebras.

  • 1
    Another nice example. What motivated Clifford? – Tom Copeland May 21 '12 at 12:40
  • 1
    @Tom: Wikipedia says that Clifford used it to study motions in non-euclidean spaces and on the Clifford-Klein space. Maybe it also arose as a generalization of the quaternions, which were quite trendy at the time. – Jan Jitse Venselaar May 21 '12 at 14:21
  • 2
    There is a related, earlier example, which is the Pauli spin matrices, which are isomorphic to quaternions. –  Dec 14 '16 at 19:39
  • 1
    Atiyah in his lecture series "From quantum physics to number theory" credits W. R. Hamilton with first developing the Dirac operator. Many math mages of the caliber of Newton, Hamilton, Gauss, and Riemann did both pure math and mathematical physics. Riemann even did experiments in electromagnetism. Maybe a subtitle to the Q should be Groundhogs for ideas appearing before their time and hibernating until the spring, until being invigorated by fundamental applications in physics or engineering. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lvuSsg0Aqw – Tom Copeland Jan 28 '21 at 02:44
  • 1
    ‘Mathematical discoveries, like springtime violets in the woods, have their season, which no human can hasten or retard." -- Gauss – Tom Copeland Dec 03 '21 at 22:38
32

In 1954 Chen-Ning Yang and Robert Mills discovered nonabelian gauge fields in a physical context (in order to understand the strong force), only to realize later that the same notion has been discovered in 1950 by Charles Ehresmann in a purely mathematical context. Related notions, e.g., Cartan connections, has been known to mathematicians for many years before 1950.

Dmitri Pavlov
  • 36,141
  • Although according to M. E. Mayer: "The more interesting nonabelian gauge theories made their first sporadic appearance in an obscure paper by Oscar Klein [1938] (a paper which went unnoticed by the physics community and was forgotten even by its author, to surface only in the 1970s, when gauge theories were honored by three Nobel prizes). // O. Klein, On the theory of charged fields in "New Theories in Physics" (Proc. of a Conf. held in Warsaw, May 30th-June 3rd 1938). International Institute for Intellectual Collaboration, Paris – Tom Copeland May 30 '20 at 04:11
  • See also "Oscar Klein and guage theory" by David J. Gross https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9411233 – Tom Copeland May 30 '20 at 04:24
  • 1
    @TomCopeland: Link to Klein's paper: https://doi.org/10.1080/01422418608228775 – Dmitri Pavlov May 30 '20 at 04:30
  • Also "Gauge theory: Historical origins and some modern developments" Lochlainn O’Raifeartaigh (Irish flair for names) and Norbert Straumann and a very similar paper by the same authors https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9810524 – Tom Copeland May 30 '20 at 13:21
22

Quantum mechanics of Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan.

From Physics in my Generation (Springer, 1969) by Max Born:

"In Gottingen we also took part in the attempts to distill the unknown mechanics of the atom out of the experimental results ... The art of guessing correct formulas ... was brought to considerable perfection ...

This period was brought to a sudden end by Heisenberg ... He cut the Gordian knot ... he demanded that the theory should be built up by means of quadratic arrays ... one must find a rule ... for the multiplication of such arrays ...

By consideration of known examples discovered by guesswork, Heisenberg found this rule ...

Heisenberg's rule left me no peace, and after a week of intensive thought and trial, I suddenly remembered an algebraic theory that I had learned from my teacher, Rosanes, in Breslau. Such quadratic arrays are quite familiar to mathematicians, and are called matrices ...

(Born writes down the now iconic [p,q]=pq-qp=iħ.)

My excitement over this result was like that of the mariner who, after long voyaging, sees the land from afar..."

Edit (Mar 2014): In addition, according to Harold Davis in The Theory of Linear Operators (Principia Press, 1936, pg. 199), the commutator [q,p]=1 "was apparently first studied by Charles Graves as early as 1857." Davis goes on to use the commutator to get some "normal ordering" results obtained by Graves and to expand on them.

Edit (Jan 2015) Charles' brother John Graves discovered the octonians (octaves, see Wikipedia) in 1843 and is credited by Hamilton in encouraging his search for the quaternions.

Edit (Jul, 2020) Kwaśniewski cites the relations constructed by Charles Graves

$$[f(a),b] = c f'(a)$$

with $[a,b] = c$ and $[a,c]=[b,c]=0$.

[From "How the work of Gian Carlo Rota had influenced my group research and life" in which Kwasniewski cites O.V. Viskov "On One Result of George Boole" (in Russian), who, in turn, attributes these to Charles Graves in "On the principles which regulate the interchange of symbols in certain symbolic equations," Proc. Royal Irish Academy vol. 6, 1853-1857, pp. 144-15. This pops up in the umbral Sheffer calculus as the Pincherle derivative (circa 1933) with $a=L$, a lowering/destruction/ annihilation and $R=b$, a raising/creation op, or vice versa. Think of the prototypical $R=x$ and $L=D$ acting on $x^n$. The Pincherle derivative is a delta op, which lowers the degree of polynomials by one. Graves also published a generalized Taylor series shift op which can serve as an umbral substitution, or composition operator in the umbral, Sheffer-Rota finite operator calculus. This all precedes the ladder operators of quantum mechanics by two generations.]

(Edit Oct. 2020) From the biography of Dirac by Helge Kragh via Michael Fowler, Graduate Classical Mechanics:

Dirac made the connection with Poisson brackets on a long Sunday walk, mulling over Heisenberg’s uv vu − (as it was written). He suddenly but dimly remembered what he called “these strange quantities”—the Poisson brackets—which he felt might have properties corresponding to the quantum mathematical formalism Heisenberg was building. But he didn’t have access to advanced dynamics books until the college library opened the next morning, so he spent a sleepless night. First thing Monday, he read the relevant bit of Whittaker’s Analytical Dynamics, and saw he was correct.

(Interesting that Hamilton was in possession of pretty much the full mathematical apparatus to develop basic quantum mechanics. Of course he had no inkling of quantum phenomena and died when Boltzmann was only 21, so probably did not even suspect the deep role of probability in explaining classical physical phenomena.)

Tom Copeland
  • 9,937
  • 2
    Very surprising and interesting story! It means that great physicists like Bohr and Heisenberg were not completely familiar with multiplication of matrices. Or do I understand wrongly this passage ? In general relativity for example, multiplication of matrices (and tensors) is everywhere... – Joël Jan 05 '15 at 14:54
  • 1
    And in classical mechanics with the non-commuting Euler-angle matrices for rotations in 3-D, with which they must have been familiar, so, looking at the notes in the Wikipedia article on matrix mechanics, maybe the difficulty was in making the connection between what was initially regarded as an infinite "Fourier" series expansion for transition spectra and a pair of infinite matrices representing non-commuting ops. It seems Born was prepared by earlier work to make the explicit connections to algebraic manipulations of infinite matrices. – Tom Copeland Jan 17 '15 at 17:12
  • See this reference http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0404009 from the Wiki article. – Tom Copeland Jan 17 '15 at 18:10
  • 1
    The arxiv paper is "Understanding Heisenberg's 'Magical' Paper of July 1925: a New Look at the Calculational Details" by Aitchison, MacManus, and Snyder (pg. 4-5). – Tom Copeland Apr 27 '15 at 21:52
  • Note also "The many avatars of a simple algebra" by Coutinho. – Tom Copeland Jun 15 '16 at 20:09
  • 6
    @Joël: It means that great physicists like Bohr and Heisenberg were not completely familiar with multiplication of matrices. In 1925, even vector notation was quite new. In Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ , he writes out every vector equation as three equations involving components. In the 1922 edition of Millikan's Practical Physics, the word "vector" does not appear in the index, and a force is represented as a directed line segment, with a notation like AB. (Segments differing by a displacement are considered inequivalent.) –  Dec 14 '16 at 19:35
  • For an excellent presentation on the development of QM , see Darrigol, Olivier. From c-Numbers to q-Numbers: The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft4t1nb2gv/ (see p. 277 on for Born's commutator) – Tom Copeland Aug 16 '20 at 13:15
  • On the history of matrices, see "Cayley, Sylvester, and Early Matrix Theory" by Higham https://archive.siam.org/meetings/la09/talks/higham.pdf – Tom Copeland Sep 19 '20 at 17:15
  • Apparently, the portrayal of matrices as two-dimensional arrays began first with Cayley's 2-D array for determinants in 1843, which he later used to represent matrices for matrix operations. See "The Rise of Cayley’s Invariant Theory (1841-1862)" by Crilly (pg. 242) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0315086086900911. Higham refers to the first book to introduce matrices to applied mathematics as "Elementary Matrices & Some Applications to Dynamics and Differential Equations" by Collar et al., published in 1938. – Tom Copeland Sep 19 '20 at 20:12
  • Gibbs and Heaviside promoted vector notation circa 1890. See the abstract of the letter to Nature by Heaviside "Vectors versus Quaternions" https://www.nature.com/articles/047533c0 – Tom Copeland Sep 19 '20 at 20:16
  • The development of concepts, notation, calculi for 2 dimensions, 3-D, 4-D, and n-D proceeded at differing paces and not in the order you might expect. In addition to Higham and Crilly above, see "History of vector analysis" by Crowe (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Vector_Analysis), – Tom Copeland Oct 18 '20 at 12:54
  • (cont.) https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/608/origin-of-the-concept-of-dimension, "The concept of manifold 1850-1950" by Scholz (http://www2.math.uni-wuppertal.de/~scholz/preprints/Concept-of-manifold.pdf), ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(mathematics) ), "The tangled web of phase space" by Nolte (https://www.physics.purdue.edu/nlo/NoltePT10.pdf). – Tom Copeland Oct 18 '20 at 12:55
  • See also the article "On the History of Vector Calculus" by Crowe (https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/MAT21D/SUPPLEMENTARY-ARTICLES/Crowe_History-of-Vectors.pdf). Seems a popular book on modern vector analysis appeared in 1901 by Wilson, a student of Gibbs, but "in 1893 Heaviside publishes the first volume of his Electromagnetic Theory, which contains as Chapter 3, 'The Elements of Vectorial Algebra and Analysis,' a 173-page presentation of the modern system of vector analysis." – Tom Copeland Feb 27 '21 at 03:15
  • Rosanes is mentioned in The Mathematics of Frobenius in Context by Hawkins. – Tom Copeland May 19 '21 at 21:23
  • "Quantum Field Theory 1" by Zeidler has a brief account beginning on pg. 60 (The emergence of quantum mechanics) of some of the history. – Tom Copeland Aug 22 '21 at 21:30
  • Also see pgs. 447-8 of "Quantum Field Theory Ii" by Zeidler (7.3.3 Quantization of Energy). – Tom Copeland Oct 25 '21 at 07:54
  • Most historical narratives focus on the Weyl algebra from the perspective of its role in the development of the mathematics of QM, neglecting pre-QM work by Scherk, Graves, Sylvester, Cayley, Tait, Stokes, Pincherle, and others related to normal ordering of diff ops--again, splendid isolation. One such limited yet very nice brief narrative is "The Many Avatars of a Simple Algebra" by Coutinho. – Tom Copeland Jan 15 '22 at 01:56
  • "From the Rise of the Group Concept to the Stormy Onset of Group Theory in the New Quantum Mechanics. A saga of the invariant characterization of physical objects, events and theories" by Luisa Bonolis has a good review of a lot of the history noted in the previous comments and more detail, including a little more on Rosanes. – Tom Copeland Mar 08 '22 at 13:30
18

When Kepler was trying to work out the orbits of the planets, he wrote something to the effect of, "If only they were ellipses!" as he knew the Greeks had worked that theory out 1500 years earlier. Of course, eventually he convinced himself that they actually were ellipses. Is this the kind of thing you have in mind?

Gerry Myerson
  • 39,024
  • 3
    Maybe close enough (?). The ancient astronomers had observed the orbits of the planets and had come up with rules of thumb to predict them long before the theoreticians (Kepler and his predecessors) came along and tried to give some conceptually accurate mathematical rules. Greek/Egyptian mathematicians worked on the conics without applying the ellipses to the planets. Kepler struggled with the numbers and math until he realized the relation to ellipses. Newton connected the physics with the ellipse. Shall we say the Greek mathematicians worked in "splendid isolation?" – Tom Copeland May 21 '12 at 10:06
  • On the other hand, Kepler's laws of motion were really "rules of thumb." It took a Newton to prove them mathematically with his newly created calculus and inverse square law of gravitation. – Tom Copeland May 21 '12 at 14:53
  • 1
    @TomCopeland -- Richard Feynman quoted Newton's proof about ellipses in one of his books. Newton didn't use calculus but only the pure ancient Greek method. – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Jan 05 '15 at 01:23
  • Newton had to conform to the tradition of mathematical proof of his times (and perhaps was hoarding his new method). Anyway, read more deeply about Newton and the calculus. I believe, he, like many innovators, had already tasted the backlash of conservatism and was not so naive to believe he could use a new mathematical method to introduce his modern science, not both at the same time. That's my recollection from readings years ago. – Tom Copeland Jan 05 '15 at 01:46
  • @Wlodz: See also the comments in the preface of Needham's "Visual Complex Analysis" on geometry and Newton's calculus. – Tom Copeland Jul 06 '15 at 00:04
  • @WłodzimierzHolsztyński, on Newton, see more in depth (and more accurate) analysis, in particular, the Whiteside reference, at https://hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/6093/best-books-papers-on-newton-and-his-mathematical-physics. – Tom Copeland Jun 05 '17 at 16:33
  • See also "Isaac Newton: Man, Myth, and Mathematics" by Rickey in the book Sherlock Holmes in Babylon. – Tom Copeland Oct 02 '21 at 23:23
  • Needham in the preface to his new book on differential geometry makes further remarks about Newton, calculus, and the Principia. – Tom Copeland Oct 11 '21 at 04:27
  • I would say that Newton's calculus is based upon notions of the interplay between the infinitesimal and geometrical presented by Archimedes, notions Newton borrowed and fruitfully extended in the Principia and other work even though the notation for fluxions post dates the publication of the Principia. See my MSE link above for Whiteside's and Truesdell's perspectives on this and Truesdell's allusion to the confusion of some of notations with notions. – Tom Copeland Dec 13 '22 at 01:45
  • From The Role of Mathematics in the Rise of Science by Bochner: Conics, and their theory, were in no way Kepler's private mathematical invention and discovery. They had been in the public domain for nearly 2,000 years for anybody to find and use. Also, in point of literal fact, Kepler did not find his ellipses in the tables of Tycho or the "revolutionary" writings of Copernicus or the "learnedly ignorant" utterances of Cusanus. He found them by searching, untiringly, in the work of Apollonius, and by being, apparently, also thoroughly familiar with the second half of Apollonius' treatise, – Tom Copeland Jan 02 '23 at 19:16
  • (cont) which by then had not yet been translated from the Arabic into Latin, as far as is known. Apollonius knew astronomy and Ptolemy undoubtedly knew conics, but they did not use conics as celestial orbits. Kepler did so, and the mathematics which he pre-required should have been readily available to Apollonius and Ptolemy. Therefore, from a certain pragmatic approach, Kepler was a direct successor to Apollonius and Ptolemy. – Tom Copeland Jan 02 '23 at 19:17
12

Rooted trees and numerical methods for differential equations.

Excerpt from "What are Butcher series, really? The story of rooted trees and numerical methods for evolution equations" by McLachlan, Modin, Munthe-Kaas, and Verdier:

"Robert Henry ‘Robin’ Merson (1921–1992) was a scientist at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, UK, who was invited along with more senior numerical analysts to a conference on Data Processing and Automatic Computing Machines at Australia’s Weapons Research Establishment in Salisbury, South Australia. It seems like a long way to go for a conference in 1957. However, the UK was still performing above-ground atomic bomb tests in South Australia at that time and the Australian government was very keen to be a part of the emerging era. Merson’s work is bound up with one of the most significant events of 1957, the launch of Sputnik 1 on 4 October 1957, and the tale of Farnborough’s involvement is told in detail by one of the key participants, Desmond King-Hele, in his book A Tapestry of Orbits. The short version is that with the aid of a large radio antenna hastily erected in a nearby field, and some calculations of Robin Merson, within two weeks they had an accurate orbit for Sputnik 1. This allowed them to estimate the density of the upper atmosphere and (after Sputnik 2) the shape of the earth. Robin Merson became an expert in practical numerical analysis and orbit determination.

Merson’s paper explains clearly the structure of the elementary differentials ... and, crucially, shows how they are in one-to-one correspondence with rooted trees. He also introduces various basic operations on rooted trees. This development, perhaps regarded initially as a bookkeeping device for finding and keeping track of the different terms, has over time become central to the combinatorial and algebraic study of B-series.

As it happens, the required mathematics and structures had already been discovered a century earlier by Arthur Cayley in 1857.

... Cayley needed trees for exactly the purpose we are using them here—to keep track of how vector fields interact when applied repeatedly to one another—and this purpose was then forgotten for a hundred years. The need for better numerical integration methods arose quite soon, towards the end of the 19th century, and the required tools for a complete theory were already present, but they had been forgotten."

The paper goes on to explain the connections to pre-Lie algebras and work by Vinberg, Gerstenhaber, and several other contemporary researchers. However, it doesn't mention the work of Charles Graves in 1857 on iterated operators of the form $g(x) \frac {d}{dx}$ (see page 13 in The Theory of Linear Operators ... (Principia Press, 1936) by Harold T. Davis).

Tom Copeland
  • 9,937
  • Actually, Grave's work, published in "A generalization of the symbolic statement of Taylor's theorem" in the Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 5, (1850-1853), p. 285-287, preceded Cayley's. – Tom Copeland Dec 16 '16 at 01:04
  • As testimony of the continuing interest in rooted trees in mathematical physics, see the table on p. 39 of "Wilsonian renormalization, differential equations and Hopf algebras" by Krajewski and Martinetti (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4309) and a companion presentation "Wilsonian renormalization and Connes-Kreimer algebras." – Tom Copeland Dec 16 '16 at 02:48
  • See also http://mathoverflow.net/questions/168888/who-invented-diagrammatic-algebra/260016#260016 – Tom Copeland Jan 20 '17 at 21:40
  • See also Blasiak, "Combinatorial Route to Algebra: The Art of Composition & Decomposition" https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4685 – Tom Copeland Apr 06 '18 at 14:56
  • Also note "Lessons from Quantum Field Theory: Hopf Algebras and Spacetime Geometries" by Connes and Kreimer https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9904044 – Tom Copeland Jan 04 '19 at 19:40
  • See also "Trees, renormalization, and differential equations" by C. Brouder for some history and other refs in https://oeis.org/draft/A145271. – Tom Copeland Dec 17 '19 at 14:27
  • See "Left-symmetric algebras, or pre-Lie algebras in geometry and physics" by Dietrich Burde https://arxiv.org/abs/math-ph/0509016 – Tom Copeland Apr 03 '20 at 23:36
  • @‍TomCopeland's OEIS reference is now out of the draft edit: A145271. It links to Brouder - Trees, renormalization, and differential equations (DOI). – LSpice Jul 23 '20 at 21:06
  • On Gerstenhaber's contributions: https://www.ams.org/news?news_id=6474 – Tom Copeland Nov 24 '20 at 20:02
  • See also "The odd origin of Gerstenhaber brackets, Batalin-Vilkovisky operators, and master equations" by Ralph M. Kaufmann, Benjamin C. Ward, J. Javier Zuniga https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5543 – Tom Copeland Nov 24 '20 at 22:22
  • Related history on trees and railroad and power lines: "Networks and Spanning Trees" (https://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/images/upload_library/46/Pengelley_projects/Project-12/12-networks-trees.pdf) and "Networks and Spanning Trees: The Juxtaposition of Prüfer and Borůvka" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511970.2014.896835) both by J. Lodder (circa 2014). – Tom Copeland Aug 27 '22 at 18:54
9

Heaviside's operational calculus, used by electrical engineers to work with differential equations, predates its mathematically accepted justification by decades. The same can be said about Dirac's delta function, which is used together with it. Of course, to some extent the operational calculus is a repackaging of the Laplace transform, but that is not all there is to it.

One might argue that in this case mathematicians' splendid isolation worked the in the opposite direction.

Pait
  • 773
  • 1
    Does his work on induction fit the sampling theorem scenario? – Tom Copeland May 21 '12 at 23:46
  • You mean the equations of transmission lines? I do not know. – Pait May 23 '12 at 18:34
  • 1
    Actually, Heaviside's successes influenced Bromwich, who corresponded with Heaviside, to investigate the Laplace transform and its inverse as a means of interpreting Heaviside's methods. – Tom Copeland Mar 09 '14 at 17:34
  • 1
    More on Bromwich's thoughts on the Heaviside op calc: https://archive.org/stream/theoryoflinearop033341mbp#page/n29/mode/2up – Tom Copeland Feb 27 '16 at 20:59
  • 1
    Some more on the history of op calc and the Laplace transform in "Some highlights in the development of algebraic analysis" by Synowiec http://eudml.org/doc/209068 – Tom Copeland Aug 19 '16 at 12:03
  • 1
    See also the section "Development of the operational calculus and its applications in electrical circuits" beginning on p. 195 in the book History of Control Engineering, 1800-1930 by Stuart Bennett. – Tom Copeland Mar 30 '20 at 18:06
  • 1
    More on Heaviside and colleagues of Steinmetz (Electric City, GE), who were familiar with Heaviside and promoted the op calculus (yet Steinmetz never mentioned him): "Steinmetz and the Concept of Phasor: A Forgotten Story" by A. E. A. Araújo & D. A. V. Tonidandel – Tom Copeland Jul 24 '20 at 20:08
  • 1
    To be fair to Steinmetz, his colleagues Carslaw, Carson, and Berg wrote about the op calc only near or after Steinmetz's death. – Tom Copeland Sep 20 '20 at 22:55
  • 1
    See also the MO_Q "Earliest use of deconvolution by Fourier transforms" https://mathoverflow.net/questions/355869/earliest-use-of-deconvolution-by-fourier-transforms/355988#355988 (Heaviside was idiosyncratic and fascinating as well as Tesla and the less idiosyncratic Steinmetz. I wonder if Da Vinci was similar. Read this abstract by Heaviside to "Vectors vs. Quaternions" https://www.nature.com/articles/047533c0) – Tom Copeland Sep 24 '20 at 20:08
  • See a justification independent of the Laplace transform in "On the continuation of the ideas of Heaviside and Mikusinski in operational calculus" by Prudnikov. – Tom Copeland Oct 17 '20 at 12:40
  • E. T. Whittaker: Looking back on the controversy after thirty years, we should now place the Operational Calculus with Poincare's discovery of automorphic functions and Ricci's discovery of the Tensor Calculus as the three most important mathematical advances of the last quarter of the nineteenth century. – Tom Copeland Sep 12 '21 at 22:27
  • Although Steinmetz apparently never referenced Heaviside, from "Oliver Heaviside: Maverick mastermind of electricity" by Mahon (pg. 139): ... Steinmetz, had been a great admirer of Heaviside, so was the current head, Professor Ernst J. Berg. ... In 1924, Berg made the long journey to Torquay to visit the great man . – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '21 at 17:25
  • Heaviside can be regarded as both a mathematician in the tradition of Euler and as a practical electrical engineer and experimentalist, who developed the op calc initially to solve problems in signal propagation along telegraph cables. Certainly didn't act in isolation from applications and others; in fact, others were motivated to study his op calc due to his success in solving circuit problems. Also the first symbolic rep of a Dirac delta function should be credited to H (comments to https://mathoverflow.net/questions/127601/does-the-derivative-of-log-have-a-dirac-delta-term/364456#364456). – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '21 at 17:54
1

Berry's Phase--quantum physicists re-discover holonomy again (see D. Pavlov's answer):

Berry's geometric phase in quantum phenomena, described in his survey article "The Quantum phase five years after", one instantiation of which is the striking Aharonov–Bohm effect, was instantly recognized by Barry Simon as facilely characterized by Hermitian line bundles and Chern classes as described in Simon's "Holonomy, the Quantum Adiabatic Theorem, and Berry's Phase":

It is shown that the "geometrical phase factor" recently found by Berry in his study of the quantum adiabatic theorem is precisely the holonomy in a Hermitian line bundle since the adiabatic theorem naturally defines a connection in such a bundle. This not only takes the mystery out of Berry's phase factor and provides calculational simple formulas, but makes a connection between Berry's work and that of Thouless et al. This connection allows the author to use Berry's ideas to interpret the integers of Thouless et al. in terms of eigenvalue degeneracies.

Vector bundles and their integral invariants (Chern numbers) are already familiar to theoretical physicists because of their occurrence in classical Yang-Mills theories. Here I want to explain how they also enter naturally into nonrelativistic quantum mechanics, especially in problems connected with condensed matter physics.

For a prior technical application and verification of the initially controversial A-B effect, see Tonomura's review "The Aharonov-Bohm effect and its applications to electron phase microscopy".

Some history from "The Adiabatic theorem and 'Berry’s Phase'", notes on a lecture by B. I. Halperin:

The name of Sir Michael Berry has been attached to the phase concepts described above because of the influence of his article: M. V. Berry (1984), ”Quantal Phase Factors Accompanying Adiabatic Changes”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 392 (1802), which described the issues involved in a very clear way, in a a quantum mechanical context. However, as Berry himself has pointed out, the basic concepts have a much longer history, some dating back to work by Darboux, in 1896. An important earlier reference is S. Pancharatnam (1956),”Generalized Theory of Interference, and Its Applications. Part I. Coherent Pencils”, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. A 44: 247262. Sometimes the Berry phase is referred to as the “Pancharatnam-Berry phase”. More often, it is simply referred to as the “geometric phase.” The importance of geometric phase as a way of characterizing integer quantized Hall states in a periodic potential was discussed by D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 405 (1982), some time earlier than Berry’s 1984 article.

(The article "Berry Phase and Holonomy" by Syed Moeez Hassan is a succinct review of the math underlying the physics.)

Tom Copeland
  • 9,937
0

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned general relativity and Lorentzian manifolds.

Einstein needed a general geometric theory of curved manifolds of arbitrary dimension in order to be able to model spacetimes in general relativity, only to find that Riemann had sorted all this out many years ago. Riemann's work on Riemannian manifolds carries over to Lorentzian and pseudo-Riemannian manifolds with some minor mathematical modifications, although these modifications have important physical consequences (see here, for example).

0

My recollection is that the Finite Element Method was invented and used by engineers (civil engineers?) long before the functional analysts got involved and gave it a rigorous mathematical basis.

Hannay
  • 1
  • 1
  • 3
    Kind of the reverse circumstances addressed by the question. Typically practical exploration preceeds rigorous axiomatics, actually motivating the mathematician as noted in Pait's contribution. – Tom Copeland Oct 24 '21 at 04:10
  • 2
    In the other cases, it's the recognition of important physical applications that reinvigorates the math. – Tom Copeland Oct 24 '21 at 04:13
  • 1
    Usually, Courant is cited as providing one of the earliest work relevant for finite elements and he was certainly a mathematician. – Lennart Meier Aug 24 '22 at 06:55
  • Take a look on https://mathoverflow.net/questions/421769/mathematicians-learning-from-applications-to-other-fields/421795#421795 – Jorge Zuniga Mar 22 '24 at 21:58
0

I was once told that robotic engineers rediscovered and studied articulated systems, a feat already accomplished by Italian geometers 100 years earlier if I am not mistaken.

Perhaps somebody can confirm this? (Wikipedia's article on 'articulated robots' is of not much use.)

Roland Bacher
  • 17,432
  • Perhaps you could query the MO user Joseph O'Rourke on this. He has written on similar topics with coauthors, e.g., "Motion planning amidst moveable square blocks" and "Efficient constant-velocity reconfiguration of crystalline robots." – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '22 at 20:22
  • Another potential lead: "Mathematical techniques in solid modeling" by Bjaj https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~bajaj/papers/1988/conference/TR88-764.pdf. – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '22 at 20:39
  • "Algebraic Geometry and Kinematics" by Manfred L. Husty & Hans-Peter Schröcker (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-0999-2_4) has some refs to fin-de-siècle papers by Bennet, Blaschke, Grunwald, Study. Another paper by Husty "E. Borel's and R. Bricard's Papers on Displacements with Spherical Paths and their Relevance to Self-motions of Parallel Manipulators" discusses related work by Borel and Bricard in the same time frame. – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '22 at 21:18
  • See also Threefold-symmetric Bricard linkages for deployable structures"" by Chen, You, and Tarnai for some related history (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0020768304005050). – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '22 at 21:56
  • Certainly, circa 1900 the exploitation of mathematics in practical applications was well established, e.g., in surveying and cartography, manufacture of apparel, ballistics, telegraphy. This seems to be true in industry and the arts in general in that époque, so the question is perhaps whether mechanical engineers in much later decades were initially oblivious of this earlier work on linkages related to articulation of mechanical structures, but it isn't clear to me how distinct applied and pure math related to differential and algebraic geometry were at the turn of the 19th century. – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '22 at 22:45
  • See, e.g., "Kinematics of Mechanisms from the Time of Watt" by Eugene S. Ferguson https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/27106/pg27106-images.html. – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '22 at 23:28
  • Was the work of the Italian algebraic geometers significantly isolated from that of the differential geometers of Europe and applications to kinematics so that the relevant work in AG was rediscovered by later generations of MEs? – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '22 at 23:36
  • +1 for a thought-provoking premise. – Tom Copeland Nov 11 '22 at 23:40