Re: physics without math, a reality?
From: George Jones (george_llew_jones_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/11/04
- Next message: pete: "Re: Another startling conclusion!"
- Previous message: Morituri-Max: "Re: Where is Invariant Mass?"
- In reply to: walketd: "physics without math, a reality?"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: physics without math, a reality?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:26:15 -0400
"walketd" <tans_taafl@hotmail-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:4169fd77$1_2@127.0.0.1...
> So, I am a Senior Physics Major and I have been seriously considering
> a topic for a paper which is can physics be understood without math,
> and I would like people's opinions to my statements or just in
> general, so here we go:
>
> Math was inherently produced by man, so therefore any constructs
> assisting physics were produced by man as well. Could man understand
> physics before math was invented?
Not everyone would agree with this. For example, consider the words of
the great English pure mathematician G. H. Hardy, taken from his classic
book A Mathematician's Apology, which I finished rereading yesterday.
"and there is no sort of agreement about the nature of mathematical
reality among either mathematicians or philosophers. Some hold that it
is 'mental' and that in some sense we construct it, others that it is
outside and independent of us ... I believe that mathematical reality
lies outside of us, that our function is to discover or observe it, and
that the theorems which we prove, and which we descibe grandiloquently
as our 'creations', are simply our notes of our obeservations."
> Having had advanced mathematics and
> physics courses I could understand how one could say, try explaining
> relativity or quantum oscillators using no mathematics. Well, these
> things seem a lot simpler when you don't use mathematics to be
> honest. But lets take one example, friction in a world without
> mathematics. One would eventually through many observations and
> experiments discover that different surfaces have varying textures
> which inhibit motion more or less than others. One would also
> discover that the opposite and perpendicular to the surface is what
> affects this motion on a certain textured surface, etc. etc.
>
> This sounds laborious because of the wording (because there is no
> math) and I am sure someone else could put it much more eloquently
> but I think with less math people would be less likely to plug and
> chug as the case may be with physics problems. I think
> "understanding" would be at a higher level and that people could
> really see whats going on qualitatively. For instance solving things
> with out numbers makes you realize things sometimes( which I
> understand is not without mathematics). The other day while
> observing a lower level course, something I took for granted but then
> popped right out an bit me was the fact that when you don't have
> friction the same amount of work is done moving a 1 kg box as it is a
> 100000000 kg box a distance with the same force. Which blew my mind
> for a sec...but after thinking about it made since.
>
> Tell me what you think.
How did you arrive at this conclusion about work?
I think that physics, when practised at the highest levels (Newton,
Einstein, Dirac, Feynman, etc.) is a creative art. I think that some
of some of the deepest ideas in physics can be presented in an
intellectual manner without math, and that doing this well is also a
creative art. John Barrow and Paul Davies are good examples. I also
believe strongly that physics is not just mathematics.
However, there is no getting around the fact that a true understanding
of physics requires mathematics.
Regards,
George
PS I agree that physics courses all too often turn into "plug and
chug," but this, unfortunately, often is what students want. When a
test problem is not similar to either a lecture example or an
assignment problem, it is not uncommon to have (freshman) students say
something like "The test was unfair because it contained material that
we didn't cover!"
- Next message: pete: "Re: Another startling conclusion!"
- Previous message: Morituri-Max: "Re: Where is Invariant Mass?"
- In reply to: walketd: "physics without math, a reality?"
- Next in thread: Sam Wormley: "Re: physics without math, a reality?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
