Bad at maths but good at experimental physics ?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between mathematical proficiency and success in experimental physics. Participants explore the evolving requirements for experimental physicists and the relevance of mathematics in contemporary practice, with a focus on historical examples and personal experiences.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration with the thread's direction and question its usefulness.
  • One participant argues that the requirements for experimental physicists have changed over the last 200 years, emphasizing that modern experimentalists need mathematical skills.
  • Another participant references Thomas Edison, suggesting that while he lacked mathematical knowledge, he still made significant experimental contributions, raising questions about the nature of experimental physics versus invention.
  • Historical examples are provided, such as Edison's work and the contributions of astronomers like Milton Humason, to illustrate that experimental work can sometimes be conducted without advanced mathematics.
  • Some participants suggest that while mathematics is important, practical experience and understanding physics concepts may take precedence in their education choices.
  • There is a mention of citizen science projects that allow for experimental contributions without requiring extensive mathematical knowledge.
  • One participant contrasts Edison with Nikola Tesla, who emphasized the importance of mathematics in his work, leading to a discussion about the varying degrees of mathematical necessity among experimentalists.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of mathematics for experimental physics, with multiple competing views presented regarding its importance and relevance in different contexts.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects a range of personal experiences and historical perspectives, highlighting the subjective nature of the relationship between mathematics and experimental physics. There are unresolved questions about the extent to which mathematical skills are essential for success in the field.

If someone is bad at maths, then can that person be good at experimental physics?

  • Yes. Experimental physics isn't too heavy on mathematical stuff.

    Votes: 3 50.0%
  • No. Because Physics is Math's boyfriend (or girlfriend, whichever you want to look at it).

    Votes: 3 50.0%

  • Total voters
    6
JWHooper
I want to see some results.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This is getting to be highly annoying. Is there a useful purpose of this thread?

Zz.
 
Faraday -- end of thread.
 
We cannot go backwards in time. The requirements to be a experimental physicist have changed a bit in the last 200yrs. Since we live NOW and not 200yrs ago we must gauge the level of math required by TODAYS needs. Experimentalists need math.
 
ZapperZ said:
This is getting to be highly annoying. Is there a useful purpose of this thread?

Zz.

Yes. Are these poll options even serious? Physics boyfriend? What kind of BS is this?...

Don't even lock it. Just delete it to nullspace.
 
Last edited:
Edison?

"Upton, who joined the laboratory force in December 1878, provided the mathematical and theoretical expertise that Edison himself lacked. (Edison later revealed, "At the time I experimented on the incandescent lamp I did not understand Ohm's law.""

"I do not depend on figures at all. I try an experiment and reason out the result, somehow, by methods which I could not explain.")

Of course we need to ask was Edison doing physics or "just" inventing? I would argue siome work was experimental physics. e.g., one of the accidental discoveries made in the Menlo Park laboratory during the development of the incandescent light anticipated the British physicist J.J. Thomson's discovery of the electron 15 years later.
-----

What about Hubble's assistant Milton Humason?

What about the astronomers who found/find variable stars through inspecting photographs?

What about the citizen science project at Oxford for determining galaxy types? That's definitely experimental, and you can do that (now!) without using any mathematics. Some very strange objects have already been pointed out by observant citizens, so this might become an important project:

http://www.galaxyzoo.org/

OK some of this work is pretty menial, but so's much of the number/algebra crunching :-)
 
Edison was a hack. You want a good experimentalist you look at Tesla, and he said math is important to his work.

That said, how much math do you need? I've only done enough to understand the physics I'm learning. If I have to choose between math and a physics class, I take physics. If I have to choose between math and an EE or Comp Sci class, I take the latter, too, because those will be more useful for an experimentalist.

That being said, knowing extra math won't hurt, either.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 74 ·
3
Replies
74
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K