Can Calculus Perfectly Model Nature?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter GRB 080319B
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Average
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Calculus is not intended to perfectly model nature; rather, it serves as a powerful tool for approximating complex physical phenomena. The discussion highlights that while equations like the volume of a sphere (V=(4/3)pi(r^3)) are mathematically precise, they do not account for the irregularities found in natural objects. Scientists utilize calculus to derive equations that describe natural objects, such as meteorite surface areas, despite the inherent limitations of measurement and the need for assumptions. The conversation emphasizes that no mathematical model can perfectly capture physical reality, and the use of calculus is justified by its effectiveness in providing useful approximations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic calculus concepts, including differentiation and integration.
  • Familiarity with geometric formulas, such as volume and surface area calculations.
  • Basic knowledge of physics principles, particularly those related to motion and measurement.
  • Awareness of the limitations of mathematical modeling in representing real-world phenomena.
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore the concept of mathematical modeling in physics, focusing on real-world applications.
  • Study the differences between calculus and numerical methods, such as difference quotients and sigma summation.
  • Investigate the role of approximation in scientific measurements and how it affects modeling accuracy.
  • Learn about the Planck length and time, and their implications for the limits of measurement in physics.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students of calculus and physics, educators seeking to clarify the relationship between mathematics and natural phenomena, and anyone interested in the limitations of mathematical modeling in scientific contexts.

GRB 080319B
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
I have taken what is equivalent to 1 semester of college calculus in high school. I differentiated and integrated functions like the volume of a sphere V=(4/3)pi(r^3). However, as I understand it this is a function of a geometrical object that doesn't exist in nature. In fact, most of the equations from the textbook we used were "perfect" equations, instantaneous rates or exact functions that the didn't match their real life counterparts, which I assumed was for the sake of making it easier on the author and student. My first question is how are scientists derive equations modeling natural objects, like the surface area of a meteorite, using calculus to describe them perfectly? If enumerating all of the irregularities is impossible, which I would assume is so, then why is calculus used at all if you have to make assumptions and averages and can't create a definitive equation to model nature perfectly? Why would calculus be used instead of difference quotient for derivative and sigma summation for integral? Calculus seems so definitive (existing in a perfect reality) as opposed to physics (assumptions, averages and approximations based on empirical data from nature) and I don't understand how the two mesh so well. Also, aren't there limits to exactness in nature (Planck length and time) and shouldn't these prevent calculus from creating equations exactly modeling nature?

I think my confusion can be blamed on one of two problems:
1. I don't have a firm foundation on physics (just equations and things like harmonic motion and acceleration from calculus)
2. The course was AP Calculus AB and was geared toward passing the AP test, instead of thoroughly covering each topic, so I think I may have missed some key concepts.

Feel free to make any corrections in my understandings or assumptions. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
A word that comes to mind is approximation.
 
No mathematical model describes a physical situation perfectly. No one has ever claimed that calculus modeled nature perfectly! But that doesn't really matter. Any physical problem is going to have values based on measurement- and the measurement is not perfect.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K