Hi Tim On 29 November 2014 at 10:16, Tim Gruene <[email protected]> wrote:
I want to improve > crystallographic methods because people who solve crystal structures > want an answer to a biological or chemical or physical question rather > than because they enjoy watching the realisation of a mathematical > definition. Surely it's not case of either/or? You need both a sound mathematical grounding of the methodology and a relevant real-world problem to apply it to. I think this is why crystallography, being such a cross-disciplinary subject, works so well. However you need to ensure that your maths is valid before you try to apply it to real-world problems, otherwise you obviously won't get a sensible answer to your biological question. I like Ken Follett's definition of a physicist, for whom > reality is a poor approximation to theory, but the motivation for my research runs the other way round. Really? The theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED), i.e. the theory of the interactions between radiation and matter, which is of course highly relevant to X-ray crystallography if not to just about every other branch of science requiring measurements, has been established with the incredible degree of agreement of 1 part in 100,000,000 between theory and experimental data. It's the most accurate theory ever devised by man to explain physical phenomena. Follett studied philosophy at University College London before taking up fiction writing. Tell me about the degree of agreement between philosophical theories and experiment! I would prefer to quote Richard Feynman who received the 1965 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on QED: "The theoretical broadening which comes from having many humanities subjects on the campus is offset by the general dopiness of the people who study these things." and “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.”. Cheers -- Ian
