Do physicists really need to master mathematical modeling?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the necessity of mastering mathematical modeling for physicists, exploring whether it is an essential skill across various subfields of physics or if it can be considered a separate discipline. The scope includes conceptual and technical aspects of physics and mathematical modeling.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that mathematical modeling is an essential skill for most physicists, as it is generally what they do in their work.
  • Others suggest that physics involves measuring quantities and deducing general laws from those measurements, indicating that mathematical modeling is a fundamental part of this process.
  • A participant notes that while most physicists have mastered a significant subset of mathematical modeling, there may be hypothetical cases of experimentalists succeeding without it, although they cannot identify any real examples.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of mathematical modeling in physics, with some asserting its essential nature while others question whether it is strictly required for all physicists.

Contextual Notes

The discussion does not resolve the extent to which mathematical modeling is necessary across different subfields of physics, nor does it clarify the definitions of mathematical modeling and physics as disciplines.

MOKHTAR
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Summary: Do physicists really need to master mathematical modeling?

Do physicists really need to master mathematical modeling?

As far as I know Mathematical modeling is a separate discipline form Physics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mathematical modelling of physical systems is generally what physicists do. Of course you may do more or less of it depending on your subfield, but it is an absolutely essentiall skill for most physicists.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM
Whatever you call it. Physics is to measure something and put the result into context of other measurements with the goal to deduce a general rule between those measurements. So you have a bunch of numbers representing quantities (variables) and you want to deduce a law (formula) between those quantities.

At school, i.e. in classical physics, those laws are often proportional dependences like ##P\sim T## or ##U\sim R##. In particle physics and cosmology those laws become more complicated and need more framework, but the basic principle is still the same.

What do you think physics is, or how else could it be done?
 
Most physicists have mastered a significant subset of mathematical modeling.

Odds of success in physics are much, much smaller for those who avoid it.

I guess it is hypothetically possible to succeed as some kind of experimentalist without mathematical modeling, but I cannot think of any real examples of physicists who have done it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JD_PM

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K