Can physics function without math?

[Dash-IQ]

Can it ever be possible? I know it might make no sense at all, but think about it just a bit.
How could our ancestors study without proper math that we have today...
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it(New here).

 

[ZombieFeynman]

In liu of mathematics, how do you suppose we would model natural phenomena in a way which would yield testable predictions?

 

[Dash-IQ]

In liu of mathematics, how do you suppose we would model natural phenomena in a way which would yield testable predictions?

Possibly using diagrams?
Math is a reasoning method we use, maybe there could be other ways? I don't know... I want to see all your perspectives!

 

[Jorriss]

I'm certainly not clever enough to find a better alternative than mathematics to express physics.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Good luck representing infinite dimensional vector spaces as diagrams.

 

[Evo]

Can it ever be possible? I know it might make no sense at all, but think about it just a bit.
How could our ancestors study without proper math that we have today...

Because their level of understanding couldn't use today's math if it was handed to them.

Is there really a point to what you are asking? Stop and think about what you are asking. Why do you believe that today's physics wouldn't need math and explain your reasoning.

 

[Astronuc]

Can it ever be possible? I know it might make no sense at all, but think about it just a bit.
How could our ancestors study without proper math that we have today...
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it(New here).

One should look at the status of science or 'physics' two, three or four centuries ago. Before 'physics', there was 'natural philosophy'. One should look at the development of calculus in conjunction with the development of physics and astronomy.

Of course, arithmetic and geometry/trigonometry have been around longer, and one can see what was accomplished with those tools.

 

[AlephZero]

Because their level of understanding couldn't use today's math if it was handed to them.

Nearly all the "advanced" math used in physics was invented/discovered nearly 200 years ago, and some of it is a lot older than that. Even the ancient Greeks were doing things that were very close to calculus.

The one big thing that is genuinely modern is non-mechanical computers, and even then the basic ideas were invented before 1850 (and shock horror, some of them were even invented by women!)

Mathematicians have always made a living by getting paid to solve the problems of their own time. Given what people like Gauss, Lagrange, Euler, Laplace, etc achieved, claiming they "couldn't have used today's math if it was handed to them" seems either patronizing or ill-informed IMO.

 

[Evo]

Nearly all the "advanced" math used in physics was invented/discovered nearly 200 years ago, and some of it is a lot older than that. Even the ancient Greeks were doing things that were very close to calculus.

The one big thing that is genuinely modern is non-mechanical computers, and even then the basic ideas were invented before 1850 (and shock horror, some of them were even invented by women!)

Mathematicians have always made a living by getting paid to solve the problems of their own time. Given what people like Gauss, Lagrange, Euler, Laplace, etc achieved, claiming they "couldn't have used today's math if it was handed to them" seems either patronizing or ill-informed IMO.

I guess if it depends on recent ancestors or ancient ancestors, I was thinking ancient ancestors, you're thinking only a couple of hundred years, which I consider the beginning of modern math.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#History

 

[jedishrfu]

I guess if it depends on recent ancestors or ancient ancestors, I'm thinking ancient ancestors, so I'll disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculus#History

How ancient? :-)

 

[Evo]

How ancient? :-)

That's the problem I was pointing out to the OP, he didn't say. How can we have a discussion if he says nothing specific?

What exactly does he mean? What time period? He never said.

 

[Enigman]

Possibly using diagrams?

Geometry is math.

Math is a reasoning method we use, maybe there could be other ways? I don't know... I want to see all your perspectives!

Any method which can be used to reason is math.
Mathematics is the science of numbers, quantities, and shapes and the relations between them. Can you possibly make sense of the physical world without any quantification? Even the statement "a banana is lighter than a water melon" is math http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_(mathematics)‎

 

[dlgoff]

That's the problem I was pointing out to the OP, he didn't say. How can we have a discussion if he says nothing specific?

What exactly does he mean? What time period? He never said.

Maybe the OP is using the word "physics" defined like this:

2. (used with a pl. verb) Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic flight.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physics

Which may not function without math.

 

[ZombieFeynman]

I guess if it depends on recent ancestors or ancient ancestors, I was thinking ancient ancestors, you're thinking only a couple of hundred years, which I consider the beginning of modern math.

I would wager that Archimedes would understand calculus with a tiny bit of time. So, now we're at two thousand years. How ancient is ancient?

 

[lisab]

Can it ever be possible? I know it might make no sense at all, but think about it just a bit.
How could our ancestors study without proper math that we have today...
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it(New here).

Physics without math is like literature without words.

 

[jedishrfu]

I would wager that Archimedes would understand calculus with a tiny bit of time. So, now we're at two thousand years. How ancient is ancient?

Actually Archimedes determined the surface and volume of a sphere using a method suspiciously like Calculus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Sphere_and_Cylinder

and a more involved discussion:

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath343/kmath343.htm

 

[ZombieFeynman]

Actually Archimedes determined the surface and volume of a sphere using a method suspiciously like Calculus

Precisely my point, sir.

 

[1MileCrash]

Geometry is math.


Any method which can be used to reason is math.
Mathematics is the science of numbers, quantities, and shapes and the relations between them. Can you possibly make sense of the physical world without any quantification? Even the statement "a banana is lighter than a water melon" is math http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_(mathematics)‎

ding ding ding

 

[jgens]

Any method which can be used to reason is math.

This is pushing it. I would wager that most mathematicians would disagree with that.

Even the statement "a banana is lighter than a water melon" is math

I am actually not so sure. Yes we now understand words like "lighter" numerically in terms of mass/force, but this is a posteriori. No doubt our ancient ancestors could make sense of a phrase like that without the use of numbers.

 

[1MileCrash]

I am actually not so sure. Yes we now understand words like "lighter" numerically in terms of mass/force, but this is a posteriori. No doubt our ancient ancestors could make sense of a phrase like that without the use of numbers.

Then our ancestors were using math. That they did it "without the use of numbers" doesn't matter at all.

 

[jgens]

Then our ancestors were using math.

I would argue that is a rather liberal usage and again I would wager that most mathematicians disagree with you on this point. But this is getting off-topic so if you want to discuss this further then feel free to PM me.

 

[Evo]

Maybe the OP is using the word "physics" defined like this:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/physics

Which may not function without math.

That's more or less what I was getting at. The study of "physics" certainly has changed from 2,000 years ago. When the OP says "ancestors", what time period does he wish to discuss? His title just says "Can physics function without math?", but then his OP asks "How could our ancestors study without proper math that we have today..." We need more information about what exactly his concern is, based on the time period, so it can be properly addressed.

The OP has never clarified what he meant by his post, so thread is closed.

 

[1MileCrash]

The OP has never clarified what he meant by his post, so thread is closed.

I think you may have broken the lock button due to overuse.

 

[SteamKing]

I think you may have broken the lock button due to overuse.

ChaChing!

 

[collinsmark]

before it's too late ...

I think the real question is why one would want to do physics without math. Math makes the physics easier, not harder.

Consider the ancient Greeks had only a compass and a straight edge as math tools. Algebra hadn't yet been invented. They spent ages trying to Square the Circle, meaning they tried to find the length of square's side such that the area of the square is equal to the area of a circle of a known radius. Similar problems might arise in physics from time to time. They tried to square the circle and failed miserably. But later, with the definition of \pi, and the luxury of using algebra, it was easy to show that a circle of radius 1 has the same area as a square with side \sqrt{\pi}. Algebra saves the day!

Now that we have algebra, what if we wanted to find the area under a curve? Such situations happen in physics all the time. One can approximate it by placing a bunch of rectangles under the curve. But that is a tedious and laborious process. Enter Isaac Newton and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Thank goodness for calculus! With calculus the task is a cinch.

Trying to do physics with only using ancient tools such as a straight edge and a compass would be prohibitively difficult, if even possible at all. (It might not even be possible due to the fact that many important constants are transcendental numbers).

And math is making physics easier even in modern times. Just look at the amplituhedron.

 

[jedishrfu]

It would be an interesting exercise to try to do physics without math. In the case of the Greek problems of trisecting the angle and doubling the cube with a compass and straightedge, they can be solved using origami folding techniques.

The Greeks attempted to understand the nature of light and had several theories on how the eye could see but its hard to see how they could have tested their theories without math.

See 'early history' for Greek theories of seeing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

 

[jgens]

They spent ages trying to Square the Circle, meaning they tried to find the length of square's side such that the area of the square is equal to the area of a circle of a known radius. Similar problems might arise in physics from time to time. They tried to square the circle and failed miserably. But later, with the definition of \pi, and the luxury of using algebra, it was easy to show that a circle of radius 1 has the same area as a square with side \sqrt{\pi}. Algebra saves the day!

This is either a misunderstanding or a gross misrepresentation of the problem. Firstly the Greeks certainly had other techniques aside from straight-edge and compass constructions. Secondly the Greeks defined \pi as the ratio of circle circumference to diameter and furthermore given \pi they definitely knew how to construct \sqrt{\pi} using straight-edge and compass constructions. In any case the "squaring the circle" problem is: Given the unit circle construct a square of equal area using only straight-edge and compass. This turns out to be impossible. However the Greek's inability to show this had nothing to do with lacking good definitions of \pi or \sqrt{\pi}. The issue is considerably more subtle than that.

 

[collinsmark]

This is either a misunderstanding or a gross misrepresentation of the problem. Firstly the Greeks certainly had other techniques aside from straight-edge and compass constructions. Secondly the Greeks defined \pi as the ratio of circle circumference to diameter and furthermore given \pi they definitely knew how to construct \sqrt{\pi} using straight-edge and compass constructions. In any case the "squaring the circle" problem is: Given the unit circle construct a square of equal area using only straight-edge and compass. This turns out to be impossible. However the Greek's inability to show this had nothing to do with lacking good definitions of \pi or \sqrt{\pi}. The issue is considerably more subtle than that.

I accept your criticisms in my oversimplification. I admit to that.

My point is though, that, for example, if you wanted to find the energy eigenstates* of an electron in the hydrogen atom, you'd be hard pressed to do it without math. I can't imagine why one would even want to do it without modern mathematics. It would be too difficult.

*(or however one would refer to this idea without using mathematical terminology).

 

[jgens]

My point is though, that, for example, if you wanted to find the energy eigenstates* of an electron in the hydrogen atom, you'd be hard pressed to do it without math. I can't imagine why one would even want to do it without modern mathematics. It would be too difficult.

*(or however one would refer to this idea without using mathematical terminology).

I can get behind that

 

[Evo]

I think you may have broken the lock button due to overuse.

Many of the locks I do are member requests to shut the discussion down.

 

[consciousness]

Physics as we know it cannot function without maths IMO.
The more interesting question is perhaps- "can maths function without physics?" It can but then what will be its use? It will just become a hobby with no effect on real life (like chess). So maths as we know it can't function without physics either!

 

[jedishrfu]

Physics as we know it cannot function without maths IMO.
The more interesting question is perhaps- "can maths function without physics?" It can but then what will be its use? It will just become a hobby with no effect on real life (like chess). So maths as we know it can't function without physics either!

You're forgetting about government, business, banking, investment and industry that often use math in their daily work much of which is not related to physics.

 

[consciousness]

You're forgetting about government, business, banking, investment and industry that often use math in their daily work much of which is not related to physics.

You are right but I was talking about future advancements in mathematics. The new findings are not likely to be of much use in industries IMO.

 

[ZapperZ]

Can it ever be possible? I know it might make no sense at all, but think about it just a bit.
How could our ancestors study without proper math that we have today...
I'm not sure if this is the right place to post it(New here).

Physics just doesn't say "what does up, must come down". Physics must also say when and where it must come down. In other words, there is a qualitative and quantitative aspect of physics which makes it testable!

Without mathematics, you can't do both.

Zz.

 

[jedishrfu]

You are right but I was talking about future advancements in mathematics. The new findings are not likely to be of much use in industries IMO.

Its good to have an opinion but better to reserve it. Remember when the US supercollider project was closed some of the physicists went to work for Wall St developing trading models.

http://guava.physics.uiuc.edu/~nigel/finance.html

 

[arildno]

Physics just doesn't say "what goes up, must come down".

Zz.

Neither would musicians ever get paid if they merely said those words. They have to sing them, to a nice tune as well

 

[Dembadon]

Physics as we know it cannot function without maths IMO.
The more interesting question is perhaps- "can maths function without physics?" It can but then what will be its use? It will just become a hobby with no effect on real life (like chess). So maths as we know it can't function without physics either!

I'm not quite following. You've implied that something must be practically beneficial in order to function. Mathematics still functions whether there are practical applications for it or not.

 

[Evo]

The question has been answered, closing again.