Can (New) Physics Exist Without Mathematics?

[Nicholas Kang]

Almost all physics we learnt in high school and university rely on Mathematics formulae and principles. Can Physics exist as a pure complex idea without Maths but just visualization?

[StringJunky]

No because you would be reduced to communicating with pictures and there are abstractions - which are legion in physics - that can't be communicated that way.

[Nicholas Kang]

Examples?

[physica]

Sciences like biology are becoming more mathematical. I say that if you can't apply maths to something you don't stand a chance in properly understanding it. This can be mistaken for arrogance but it's the opposite. I know that my brain is not amazing enough to work out that we orbit the sun when I see the sun rise and fall in the sky. Mathematics led us to this. I know that my brain can't deduce that the earth is round just by looking at my surroundings, again mathematics leads us to this. My brain isn't amazing enough to comprehend probability accurately (look at the monty hall problem), again mathematics leads us. Mathematics gave us justification to look for anti-matter. Mathematics demonstrates when ideas are consistent and logical from previous findings and also highlights reasonable gaps where we can look to improve. Many people shy away from maths because it's hard and there's right a wrong answers. Because of this a student learning maths will be shown multiple times that they are wrong or what they thought was logical is illogical. Most people don't like looking upon this harsh mirror of reality so they waste their time telling people that they don't need to learn maths even though they don't understand maths because they didn't learn it. You need maths to understand reality, only the arrogant think that their brain is amazing enough not to need the guidance of maths.

[swansont]

Sciences like biology are becoming more mathematical. I say that if you can't apply maths to something you don't stand a chance in properly understanding it. This can be mistaken for arrogance but it's the opposite. I know that my brain is not amazing enough to work out that we orbit the sun when I see the sun rise and fall in the sky. Mathematics led us to this. I know that my brain can't deduce that the earth is round just by looking at my surroundings, again mathematics leads us to this. My brain isn't amazing enough to comprehend probability accurately (look at the monty hall problem), again mathematics leads us. Mathematics gave us justification to look for anti-matter. Mathematics demonstrates when ideas are consistent and logical from previous findings and also highlights reasonable gaps where we can look to improve. Many people shy away from maths because it's hard and there's right a wrong answers. Because of this a student learning maths will be shown multiple times that they are wrong or what they thought was logical is illogical. Most people don't like looking upon this harsh mirror of reality so they waste their time telling people that they don't need to learn maths even though they don't understand maths because they didn't learn it. You need maths to understand reality, only the arrogant think that their brain is amazing enough not to need the guidance of maths.

 

You can go in the other direction, too. My brain can easily picture an overbalanced wheel, always turning and generating energy. It requires math to show that this is not possible.

[Nicholas Kang]

I hope that Maths assists but not resists. You Lorentz Transform to calculate Maths involving Einstein`s Theory of Relativity but it resist you from going beyond c, speed of light. So, the only possible solution is working out new Maths. So, what if new Maths couldn`t be found? How far are we from the new Maths? It seems to me that physicist work more on Maths instead of experimental physics. Maths somehow have "captured" Physics. I don`t mean not to learn Maths, it helps us a lot in calculations but you see things always have both sides-pros and cons. Maths have prons but cons are not less too. So, Maths, somehow, it s power should be restricted to prevent outpacing Physics.

 

I mean physicist are more focusing on Maths than logic Physics now a days.

 

Most people don't like looking upon this harsh mirror of reality so they waste their time telling people that they don't need to learn maths even though they don't understand maths because they didn't learn it. You need maths to understand reality, only the arrogant think that their brain is amazing enough not to need the guidance of maths.

 

I hope that you don`t mean I am part of them(y).

[physica]

I hope that you don`t mean I am part of them(y).

No your asking the question do we need maths. It's always OK to ask questions. I do not go to bed in anger because 100% of the world doesn't understand maths. People are not second class life forms because they don't truly understand physics. I'm glad that other people pursue arts etc otherwise this would be one boring world. You can even read physics casually as a hobby it's fine. The arrogance comes in when someone wants to be acknowledged for understanding physics but they do not bother understanding the maths. In previous conversations I've always noted that you're open minded and you seem interested in what others say. That isn't a sign of arrogance.

Edited July 25, 2014 by physica

[Nicholas Kang]

Thanks. Going for Piano class now. Bye.

[sunshaker]

I agree understanding math does play an important role in understanding physics etc,

 

But then you look at some of these people who have autism, They are genius in certain areas, Quite a few in math, but they still do not "understand math" they just KNOW, Some brains just work different, Some brains work by visualization, And what some of them "know" would baffle and be beyond a mathematician.

We still do not yet understand the potential of the human brain enough to say that "new physics cannot exist without mathematics".

[Nicholas Kang]

I agree understanding math does play an important role in understanding physics etc,

 

But then you look at some of these people who have autism, They are genius in certain areas, Quite a few in math, but they still do not "understand math" they just KNOW, Some brains just work different, Some brains work by visualization, And what some of them "know" would baffle and be beyond a mathematician.

We still do not yet understand the potential of the human brain enough to say that "new physics cannot exist without mathematics".

 

I actually looked up my Oxford Advanced Learner Dictionary International Edition to search for the meaning of "sunshaker", sadly, I couldn`t find it. I respect people who have autism. They are like savants and genius. Understanding Maths is the key to understanding Physics, but there is a limit. Physics should based on Facts upon observations that have been done, and Maths just acts as a secondary tool to help in calculation and counting, but it should not restrict Physics.

 

From your words, I can extrapolate that you are dealing with consciousness and the mind. If you are a Kaku fan, I recommend you to read his book "The Future of The Mind."

 

BTW, what do you mean by:

 

We still do not yet understand the potential of the human brain enough to say that "new physics cannot exist without mathematics".

[timo]

Physics is commonly understood (amonst physicists) as a discipline that tried to quantitatively describe nature. That is, "all apples are attracted by earth, which is why they fall down" is not the description of nature that physics is about. The description that physics is about is "each apple is subject a force of F=mg due to earth attraction, where g is a universal constant. Since F=ma, the apples are accelerated towards earth as a consequence, unless a counteracting force exists" (in case it is not clear: the quantitative aspect comes in when you plug numbers in for the letters). Consequently, physics in the sense of today's understanding of the term is not possible without mathematics.

[Nicholas Kang]

Dear timo,

 

I understand what you mean. But it seems like today`s Physics are restricted to Maths. Should we let Physics take a breath for a while? I mean, really, all Physics must based on Maths? Do you know of any Physics that can be explained without Maths?

Edited July 25, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[sunshaker]

It is said that math is the language of physics, So are we saying physics only has one language, What if physics is bilingual?

So we must then be saying if there is other intelligent life they must use math, Or do not understand the universe they live in,

So we are implying that intelligent life must be like us, A few billion beings stuck on a small planet on the outskirts of a medium size galaxy who think our way is the only way.

 

Perhaps other advanced life forms never had a written or spoken language, but something we cannot yet comprehend, Perhaps math takes us so far but then comes something completely new that will take us to the next level of understanding.

 

I think our minds should always be open to new possibilities not limit ourselves and say math is the only way,

 

It as been helpful up to yet but may one day hold us back if we are unable to grasp new concepts, And rely on a hand full mathematicians to tell us how they think the universe works, Which in the end may be wrong.

[physica]

Dear timo,

 

I understand what you mean. But it seems like today`s Physics are restricted to Maths. Should we let Physics take a breath for a while? I mean, really, all Physics must based on Maths? Do you know of any Physics that can be explained without Maths?

 

no. How would we be able to understand the relationship between forces without mathematics? In fact mathematics accelerates science. This is why biology is becoming more mathematical.

 

It is said that math is the language of physics, So are we saying physics only has one language, What if physics is bilingual?

So we must then be saying if there is other intelligent life they must use math, Or do not understand the universe they live in,

So we are implying that intelligent life must be like us, A few billion beings stuck on a small planet on the outskirts of a medium size galaxy who think our way is the only way.

 

Perhaps other advanced life forms never had a written or spoken language, but something we cannot yet comprehend, Perhaps math takes us so far but then comes something completely new that will take us to the next level of understanding.

 

I think our minds should always be open to new possibilities not limit ourselves and say math is the only way,

 

It as been helpful up to yet but may one day hold us back if we are unable to grasp new concepts, And rely on a hand full mathematicians to tell us how they think the universe works, Which in the end may be wrong.

Yes there may be more advanced ways to problem solve. Show me where maths breaks down and how you can improve it. If you can't then you're just wasting time with directionless speculations.

Edited July 25, 2014 by physica

[studiot]

There are some at Science Forums who seem to have elevated mathematics to the state of a religion with the catechism.

 

Mathematics is necessary and sufficient for all Physics.

 

I have challenged several of this view and each has so far failed to meet that challenge for the circumstance proposed.

For instance no one has yet offered a mathematical formula for the production of concrete of guaranteed specific properties, whilst I can offer a practical Physics procedure to achieve this.

 

 

Mathematics and Physics are different, if they were not there would be no point separating the disciplines, and there is not doubt that good mathematics is of the utmost importance in good Physics.

 

But is it either necessary or sufficient? (Do you know the difference?)

 

Well consider the number 10.3572 (any number will do) but I like that one.

 

A simple contrast might be: Physics is about process, Mathematics is about result. Mathematics doesn't care about Physics cares about how you got there, but less or naught about the result, Mathematics cares about the result and its difference from 10.3571 or 10.3573. Together that is a powerful combination.

 

That is why it is easy to construct examples where there is no mathematical definition/description of the process, but there is a Physics one.

Similarly Physics couldn't care less if there is a difference between the the empty set of sequences and the sequence of a single term '0'.

[swansont]

Physics is commonly understood (amonst physicists) as a discipline that tried to quantitatively describe nature. That is, "all apples are attracted by earth, which is why they fall down" is not the description of nature that physics is about. The description that physics is about is "each apple is subject a force of F=mg due to earth attraction, where g is a universal constant. Since F=ma, the apples are accelerated towards earth as a consequence, unless a counteracting force exists" (in case it is not clear: the quantitative aspect comes in when you plug numbers in for the letters). Consequently, physics in the sense of today's understanding of the term is not possible without mathematics.

 

I agree. You can talk about physics without math, but you can't do physics without math.

[Bignose]

Do you know of any Physics that can be explained without Maths?

There is a lot of physics that can be 'explained' without math. But without an objective metric, such as accuracy between prediction and measurement, how do you decide what explanation is more correct?

 

This is what you keep missing. The math is way to figure out objectively and without worrying how smart, clever, eloquent, authoritative, or closest to the deity of choice the person giving the explanation actually is.

 

This is absolutely smashing. Because no longer does your credentials or pedigree or influence matter. All you have to do is be able to demonstrate that your ideas make better predictions than everyone else's.

 

But, the kicker is that mathematics is that language of predictions. It is extremely precise.

 

A favorite example of mine: imagine I walk into your room there carrying a box. I set the box down and remark "Whew! That box is heavy." Now what so that really mean? What is I was young? Old? An Olympic weightlifter? A ballerina? A toll booth attendant? Male? Female? And so on. The point is that words take on very different meanings to different people. What I consider heavy, you may consider light.

 

Now, let's say I come in, set the box down, and say "Whew! That box weighs 50 kg." Now, because we've used the very precise language of mathematics, we have something that everyone knows what it is. Regardless of if you are an Olympic weightlifter and 50kg is light to you, or a young child where 50 kg would be very heavy to you.

 

Let's stretch this analogy further. Let's say we each had a physics model of how much that box weighs. My model predicts the box is 38.6 kg. Your model predicts 47.9 kg. Your model is significantly closer to what the actual measurement is, and is therefore better scientifically. It doesn't matter how many degrees I had, how old I am, how many papers I've published -- your model is objectively better. And we get that objectivity via math. And, if a third person comes along with a model that predicts the box is 50.2 kg, well then their model is even better.

 

This is why the maths are needed. To ensure that everyone is speaking the same language. Not the written or spoken word where words take on different meanings to different people. But a language where you can make very precise statements and then compare those statement to measurements and quantitatively judge how good those statements are.

 

Many, many people have come on here and denounced mathematics as not needed, much like you have in this thread. But, when asked, none have come up with an objectively measurement of accuracy that comes even close to mathematics today.

 

Here is the really great part about science -- and I've already mentioned it above several times. If you do have a better way of objectively measuring the accuracy of ideas -- better than math -- then let's hear it. And if it is truly better, then it will replace mathematics. Because science strives for the greatest accuracy at all times. I should conclude here that I'm not going to hold my breath until something else comes along, because mathematics have been supremely successful. But, I am open minded enough to listen to any alternative suggestions you have.

[Nicholas Kang]

Many, many people have come on here and denounced mathematics as not needed, much like you have in this thread. But, when asked, none have come up with an objectively measurement of accuracy that comes even close to mathematics today.

 

Ok, thanks for reprimanding me. I understand what you mean. Good example and anology. I like it. Basically, your meaning is Maths provides objectivity to Physics, so Physics needs Mathematics to function well.

 

Here is the really great part about science -- and I've already mentioned it above several times. If you do have a better way of objectively measuring the accuracy of ideas -- better than math -- then let's hear it. And if it is truly better, then it will replace mathematics. Because science strives for the greatest accuracy at all times. I should conclude here that I'm not going to hold my breath until something else comes along, because mathematics have been supremely successful. But, I am open minded enough to listen to any alternative suggestions you have.

 

I have heard that there was once a Mathematician in history. I have forgotten his name but he was a spoiler and mischevious person. he dared to prove that logic may fail in one sense and created chaos in both science and Maths field. Once he said:

 

If you say I am a liar, I am a dishonest person. Ok, that`s fine. But wait a minute, if I am a liar, then what I said was unbelievable, you can`t trust what I have said, so I just said I am a liar, so I am not a liar. My question is, am I a liar?

 

You are a Maths expert, please explain this. Thanks.

 

I am just 15 years old. So, you see, I am of course not as good as a Maths Expert, and therefore no comment over any way better than objectively measuring the accuracy of ideas.

 

Maths proves that hyperspace exists, why no scientific experiment found any traces of hyperspace?

Maths proves a lot of thing, but they are too abstract. Maths is the language of science.

 

Maths leads science. We first have the maths, then science is a step behind, chasing it by proving it. when Maths fail, then science tells you it is wrong.

For example, Lorentz Factor in equation tells you cannot go beyond speed of light, so some news reported that several scientists tried to avoid Einstein`s GR and proposed inventing faster-than-light spacecraft. Don`t you think this is ridiculous. Just because of Maths. we are playing with Maths tricks.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[ajb]

For example, Lorentz Factor in equation tells you cannot go beyond speed of light, so some news reported that several scientists tried to avoid Einstein`s GR and proposed inventing faster-than-light spacecraft. Don`t you think this is ridiculous. Just because of Maths. we are playing with Maths tricks.

When the mathematics suggests there maybe a loop-hole to the speed of light being a barrier then it should be explored. I don't know exactly what you are talking about, but general relativity gives us possible ways of going faster than the speed of light globally which locally not violating special relativity.

[Nicholas Kang]

What/which mathematics suggest that we can go faster than light? Equations please?

[ajb]

What/which mathematics suggest that we can go faster than light? Equations please?

You will have to read up on general relativity to really understand this. However, what general relativity says is that locally the speed of light is c and that you cannot go faster than that locally. It is quite possible via the geometry of space time, for example using a wormhole or by warping space-time, that you can globally go faster than a light signal. Locally however you never travel faster than the speed of light.

[Nicholas Kang]

Do you have Einstein`s article website/pdf? I mean his GR and SR theory arxiv.

[ajb]

Do you have Einstein`s article website/pdf? I mean his GR and SR theory arxiv.

This I think all came well after Einstein was dead.

 

A good introduction to general relativity is Carroll's lecture notes, but I don't recall if he talks about faster than light and time-machines etc. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019

 

However, they are intended for beginning graduate students and so I don't know if you will find them at all useful.

[Nicholas Kang]

I have heard before Sean Caroll`s name. I like it. Thanks.

[studiot]

 

What/which mathematics suggest that we can go faster than light? Equations please?

 

 

There are many wild statements about the speed of light and the mathematics of relativity. You should beware of them.

 

The mathematics of relativity does not prohibit superluminal speeds (faster than light).

 

What is does is contain a singularity as a result of division by zero at the the speed of light for any massive object

(a massive object, in Physics, is an object with (not necessarily large) rest mass).

As you probably know division by zero is not defined in the normal system of mathematics that we use.

 

There is no singularity in the equations at greater than light speeds.

 

This is not an uncommon situation in the mathematics of physics. But what we don't know is if the same equations apply at these greater speeds.

 

If they do there are consequences, not least being that we cannot communicate with anything travelling at these speeds, or even see them.

 

Two examples of other situations where the equations have a barrier like this.

 

Firstly consider the thermal expansion of chocolate, placed in an oven at 15 degrees centigrade and slowly heated.

 

We have an equation that describes the expansion of said chocolate as it heats up, until the chocolate temperature reaches the melting point.

 

At this point the equation fails as the chocolate melts.

 

We can, however, continue to raise the chocolate temperature and the now liquid chocolate expands edit nearly as before, but with a different equation.

 

Secondly there is a quantity known as the specific energy of a flowing liquid described by an equation along the flow surface.

Under certain conditions this equation results in a singularity and the flow surface changes abruptly.

We do not have a mathematical desciption of the fluid motion in this region.

Beyond this region the equations reassert themselves and the flowe surface is again predictable, and the same equations apply again.

The phenomenon is known as the hydraulic jump and is used to slow water down at the base of dams to prevent channel scouring.

Edited August 2, 2014 by studiot