Math to Explain Theories: Fundamentals & Calculation

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter darkside00
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain Mathematics
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of mathematics in string theory and the perceived rationality of mathematical models in theoretical physics. Participants explore the relationship between mathematical formulations and their physical interpretations, particularly in the context of string theory, which some find challenging to understand or rationalize.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses skepticism about string theory, questioning the rationality of the mathematics used to model it and seeking fundamental explanations that are calculable.
  • Another participant asks for clarification on what specific non-rational math is being referenced and requests examples.
  • A different participant emphasizes the need for calculated examples to illustrate string theory's physical implications.
  • One reply notes that string theory is still developing, highlighting the absence of calculable predictions at current energy scales and challenges the initial claim about the irrationality of its mathematics.
  • Another participant argues that many mathematical concepts may initially seem irrational until they find application in physics, citing historical examples like the Euler Beta function and Einstein's equations.
  • A later contribution asserts that a lack of understanding does not equate to a lack of rationality in the mathematics behind theories, distinguishing between legitimate theories and those considered numerological.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the rationality and clarity of the mathematics used in string theory. There is no consensus on whether the mathematics is inherently rational or if it requires further understanding to be appreciated.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the evolving nature of theoretical physics and the historical context of mathematical concepts, indicating that understanding may develop over time. There are unresolved questions regarding the applicability and interpretation of string theory's mathematics.

darkside00
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Allright, looking at at a bunch of string theories and using math to explain, it really looks like nonsense. Calculus is easy math to learn because it means something, eg. explaining and altering functions to make sense fundamentally. What I don't understand, is how people use math to model their theories where the math does not make sense rationally. Wheres the fundamentals to explain their theories on a calculatable basis?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Exactly what kind of non-rational math do you have in mind? :)

Can you give an example?
 
Well String theory is to out there for me. What I like to see is calculated examples to there theories to make sense physically. perhaps just a simple example to give the idea
 
Last edited:
String theory is still a work in progress, and techniques to calculate the theory's predictions about results of experiments at the energy scale of particle accelerators don't exist yet.

The claim you made in post #1 (that the mathematics of string theory "does not make sense rationally") isn't appropriate at Physics Forums. This is a place for people who want to learn about scientific theories, not for people who just want to make absurd claims. (You might want to try forums.randi.org).
 
A lot of math does not make sense "rationally" to someone or other. Who knew that the Euler Beta function would years later be later interpretated to apply to nuclear physics...?

In fact even solutions may not make sense...until someone bright enough comes along to see through the "haze". That was sure true of Einstein's equations, which others had largely developed but did not really "feel"...and some of the later solutions as well...it took about 20 years to gain a "rational" understanding and acceptance of Einstein's GR.

In fact the original math for string theory was developed for understanding the strong force (if I recall) until someone later discovered a massless spin two particle hidden in the details (the graviton) and, voila, real string theory was born.

In other words, we need some crazy mathematicians to develop what appears to be at first some crazy math...
 
What you're missing, darkside, is that just because you do not (yet) understand the math on which the theories are based on does NOT imply that the maths/theories do not make rational sense. In other words, this isn't just dressed up numerology (except for that M. S. El Naschie fellow and his e-infinity "theory").
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 72 ·
3
Replies
72
Views
11K