Is our current math even suited for general relativity ?

In summary: The thing to realize is that math is a language that we use to describe things in a careful way. There is no assumption of existence for any mathematical object, and these idealized objects are very useful for describing reality precisely because of this.
  • #1
feyn
10
0
i have a question, that nobody seems to be able to answer : is math actually suited for reality ? Basically the idea is that reality seems to be granular, for example we have planks time.
Usually the difference is so small, that is doesn't matter, but if you bring things like infinity into the game, it DOES matter. Therefor I believe we do need a new kind of math to solve certain problems, especially in physics. Think of the problem of computing a black hole, where some terms suddenly become infinite, and everything brakes together. What if the real problem is in the math we use ? Math automatically assumes that a point has zero dimensions, but if reality doesn't work that way, then the reason for those infinities doesn't lie in our understanding, but in the math we use.

sorry if I have formulated this a but sloppy, i am neither a scientist, nor a mathematician, just an interested amateur ;)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
feyn said:
i have a question, that nobody seems to be able to answer : is math actually suited for reality ?
short answer: yes.
GR is currently well formulated in the existing math.

Math automatically assumes that a point has zero dimensions, but if reality doesn't work that way, then the reason for those infinities doesn't lie in our understanding, but in the math we use.
Not really - because we can always (and, indeed, do) use that math to work out geometry assuming there is a minimum possible size for a real object.

sorry if I have formulated this a but sloppy, i am neither a scientist, nor a mathematician, just an interested amateur ;)
The question certainly uses very vague terms so it is difficult to know how to answer.
I hope I've covered the crux of the matter: you were concerned that our default way of doing math assumes the existence of objects that may not exist in reality, and may not be well suited to describing reality. However, the opposite is true: there is no assumption of existence for any mathematical object, and these idealized objects are very useful for describing reality precisely because of this.

The thing to realize is that math is a language that we use to describe things in a careful way.
As a result it need not be literally and physically real.

Rest assured, mathematicians are adding more math all the time to account for things which are not easily described by the math we have. The kind of math you got in school is only a small part of the math that is known.

Also take care - the discussion is borderline philosophy: which is banned here.
The fact that reality is so well described by math is subject to some discussion ... elsewhere.
 
  • #3
Hello amateur...
Mathematics is what, we, the humans built up to understand and interpret reality...
Mathematics is not yet complete, nor is any other science.
Prior to GR, Mathematics was not complex enough to understand GR, but, Mathematics was modified from what it was, to theorize GR. So even if present mathematics is not fully sufficient to theorize GR, it is closely modified enough to understand GR.
 
  • #4
feyn said:
i have a question, that nobody seems to be able to answer : is math actually suited for reality ? Basically the idea is that reality seems to be granular, for example we have planks time.
Usually the difference is so small, that is doesn't matter, but if you bring things like infinity into the game, it DOES matter. Therefor I believe we do need a new kind of math to solve certain problems, especially in physics. Think of the problem of computing a black hole, where some terms suddenly become infinite, and everything brakes together. What if the real problem is in the math we use ? Math automatically assumes that a point has zero dimensions, but if reality doesn't work that way, then the reason for those infinities doesn't lie in our understanding, but in the math we use.

sorry if I have formulated this a but sloppy, i am neither a scientist, nor a mathematician, just an interested amateur ;)

I wonder who you have been asking such a thing to?

Perhaps you should start by reading this famous Wigner's essay

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html

Zz.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #5
Wow! I was wondering with the same question for a long time Mr. Amateur... I later found that Basic Mathematics is developed from what is reality! However, Advanced Mathematics is little deviated... One needs a lot of understanding to get what is Mathematics!
 
  • #6
feyn said:
... the idea is that reality seems to be granular, for example we have planks time.

The existence of a particular measure of dimension (one Plank length) or time (one Plank length) has NOTHING to do with whether or not reality is quantized any more than a meter or a second does.
 

What is general relativity?

General relativity is a theory proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915 to explain the force of gravity. It states that gravity is not a force between masses, but rather a curvature of space and time caused by the presence of massive objects.

Why is math important in general relativity?

General relativity involves complex mathematical equations to describe the curvature of space and time. These equations are necessary to accurately predict the behavior of massive objects in space and explain phenomena such as black holes and gravitational waves.

Is current math sufficient for general relativity?

Yes, current math is well-suited for general relativity. The mathematical framework of general relativity is based on differential geometry and tensor calculus, and these tools have been successfully used to make accurate predictions and calculations in the field.

What challenges arise when using math in general relativity?

One of the main challenges in using math in general relativity is the complexity of the equations involved. The mathematics used in general relativity is advanced and can be difficult to understand and apply. Additionally, the equations can become very complicated when studying extreme or highly curved regions of space.

Are there any limitations to using math in general relativity?

While current math is well-suited for general relativity, there are still limitations to what can be accurately described using this framework. For example, the theory does not fully explain the behavior of subatomic particles, and a unified theory of gravity and quantum mechanics is still being sought after by scientists.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
17
Views
576
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
1
Views
754
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
11
Views
178
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
5
Views
900
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
12
Views
1K
Back
Top