Metamathematical Analysis of Physics Formulae

Geremia
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
http://pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/". Hence the appeal to metamathematics. For example, that the wave equation for light has the same form as the wave equation for sound waves should tell us more than "These are just waves." It should tell us that light and matter are related at an even deeper level than currently proposed light-matter interaction theories like QED would suggest. Basically, we would do the "physics of mathematics" and not the current "physics with mathematics."

Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi Geremia. Welcome to the board. I guess your post is intentionally ambiguous perhaps because you’re looking for some focus. Your concern as I understand it is that there is a strong relationship between physics and mathematics and rather than suggest mathematics is used to describe physics, one might suggest that the reverse might somehow be more pertinent.

In his book “The Road to Reality”, Penrose writes,
It may be noted, with regard to the first of these mysteries – relating the Platonic mathematical world to the physical world – that I am allowing that only a small part of the world of mathematics need have relevance to the workings of the physical world. It is certainly the case that the vast preponderance of the activities of pure mathematicians today has no obvious connection with physics, nor with any other science, although we may frequently be surpised by unexpected important applications.

In other words, physics can be described with mathematics. Anything objectively physical (ie: anything objectively measurable) follows some kind of mathematical rule. Penrose also points out that humans should, in principal, be able to access the entirety of mathematics, but not all mathematics is applicable to physics.

Regarding your point:
For example, many equations in physics take equivalent forms, with different symbols representing their variables and having different interpretations based upon context. … For example, that the wave equation for light has the same form as the wave equation for sound waves should tell us more than "These are just waves." It should tell us that light and matter are related at an even deeper level than currently proposed light-matter interaction theories like QED would suggest.
Certainly there is a fundamental similarity between things that oscilate. Regardless of whether that thing that is oscilating is an electron, or a mass on a spring, the causal influences at work (in this case, forces acting on a mass) will produce analogous phenomena and therefore produce similar mathematical equations. Perhaps that tells us something about the intrinsic nature of forces, such as the linear nature of force (ie: doubling the force doubles acceleration?). I don't know if there's anything worthwhile there or not.

Does that help at all?
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top