Understanding without using math

  • Thread starter Philip b
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the difficulty of understanding physics for non-scientists and the role of mathematics in understanding complex theories. Some argue that technology and visual simulations make it easier to grasp concepts, while others believe that true understanding comes from a solid foundation in mathematics. The conversation also touches on the importance of rigorous testing and experimentation in determining the validity of theories. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of both mathematical knowledge and practical application in understanding physics.
  • #1
Philip b
7
0
[Mentor's note - the posts in this thread have been split out from the thread https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...ctromagnetism-in-simple-laymans-terms.807607/ so that we can answer the original poster's question in that thread]

Seriously, can we wait until physicists actually understand and agree on a bit more to declare that there is "no way" for a "layperson" to understand the pieces of physics? Don't give me the "it's impossible" argument because we all know that one does not often hold up for very long. If the recent breakthroughs in quantum physics have reminded us of anything, it's just that

Quote: I agree that it seems that way, and I sympathize, but don't be fooled: that is a path ensnared with pitfall and djinn. You can get a hand-wavey pop-sci type of description that may begood enough for entertainment purposes but there are already lots of those so why not just use one of the others?

Sounds a bit too "hand wavey"

a belief exists that true understanding of anything is only obtainable through restraint or dissolution of ego which leaves more room for appreciation of beauty. No need to ask "why" when complete picture is seen. Many instances where complex systems interact and result in a something like a simple, beautiful shape we are already familiar with.

Linguistics, for example, may prove to be a historically neglected gateway to new insights into physics. Mathematics can be communicated using many different systems and I believe that the most efficient have yet to be discovered.

Having said that, I, on behalf of the scientifically interested members of the human race, if I may, commend the suggestion of Feynman's descriptions. Pretty spot on from what I and almost all of my trusted sources have gathered.

Mathematics, by nature, relies on encoding reality. Gauss is also the said by some to be father of cryptography. :) Imagine if we had to spell out the quantity C's real name every time we wrote it. Hundreds of extra years needed. I also totally agree that effort or at least attention and time is a prerequisite for understanding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I'm not sure where the 'dissolution of ego' comes into it, although I'm sure there can be cases of a person having a hard time accepting a theory which is contrary to some cherished intuition which they have.
Fred Hoyle, highly respected in many fields, insisted that his notion of a static Universe was true, despite mounting evidence that BBT was consistent with observation, while his steady state Universe was not.

Then again you can have a proposition which is easily understood both mathematically and literally.
2+2 = 4 (mathematically).
(:)):)) + :)):)) = :)):)):)):))) literally/figuratively.I can't see anyone having ego problems with that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes gracy and berkeman
  • #3
In these days of incredible technology I see no reason to "have to know" the math as someone who uses it in their field regularly would. It is actually easier in my opinion to see images for which you can manipulate variables and see "simulated" results almost instantly. The next better system I could imagine would somehow know your weaknesses and determine the best way to emphasize your faults and correct them through visual stimulation. Oh, but that's PF's member's jobs. :-p Plenty of threads emphasizing exactly how difficult I as many others have proven that task can be! With quantum physics there really isn't any clear way to depict what occurs because it is best described as "purely mathematical relationships", EMR being the obvious example.
 
  • #4
Philip b said:
Seriously, can we wait until physicists actually understand and agree on a bit more to declare that there is "no way" for a "layperson" to understand the pieces of physics?
We don't have to wait to discover if someone does or doesn't get the meaning of a piece of modern Physics. It will be pretty clear if they don't understand a particular model. It is another issue as to whether that model is a good one, of course.
A 'lay person' is defined as someone who doesn't have 'the knowledge' so, by definition, they will not understand stuff as well as someone with the knowledge. Many people have their own private theories and think they have sussed out parts of Science. The acid test is whether a particular theory actually stands up to the scrutiny of observation and experimental results; can it actually predict things? That's not being elitist; it's being rigorous.
 
  • Like
Likes jerromyjon
  • #5
jerromyjon said:
In these days of incredible technology I see no reason to "have to know" the math as someone who uses it in their field regularly would. It is actually easier in my opinion to see images for which you can manipulate variables and see "simulated" results almost instantly. The next better system I could imagine would somehow know your weaknesses and determine the best way to emphasize your faults and correct them through visual stimulation. Oh, but that's PF's member's jobs. :-p Plenty of threads emphasizing exactly how difficult I as many others have proven that task can be! With quantum physics there really isn't any clear way to depict what occurs because it is best described as "purely mathematical relationships", EMR being the obvious example.
It is true to say that you can 'use' the results of advanced mathematical theory - as you can use a piece of software to help design a bridge or a circuit. But whether that constitutes 'understanding', is questionable and can depend on the particular case. There are many mathematical tricks that people use (solving fancy integrals, for instance) that are usually done by 'turning the handle' of an analytical procedure. They don't necessarily know how it's done but they are doing a lot more than just arm waving and they can claim to have good knowledge and understanding of the topic. However, the Maths-phobic or Maths-Averse will struggle from the very start and is unlikely to get very far with even the most basic bits of first degree Physics.
 
  • #6
sophiecentaur said:
We don't have to wait to discover if someone does or doesn't get the meaning of a piece of modern Physics. It will be pretty clear if they don't understand a particular model. It is another issue as to whether that model is a good one, of course.
A 'lay person' is defined as someone who doesn't have 'the knowledge' so, by definition, they will not understand stuff as well as someone with the knowledge. Many people have their own private theories and think they have sussed out parts of Science. The acid test is whether a particular theory actually stands up to the scrutiny of observation and experimental results; can it actually predict things? That's not being elitist; it's being rigorous.
Great but you missed my point. Maybe I was not clear enough. I am saying that it cannot be deemed impossible to explain physics to a layperson without using mathematics. Right now some of the explanations are complicated for many pieces of the grand puzzle but don't be surprised if a simple theory pulls it all together. Not yet possible... Better... Impossible is a word we should use with care these days

Also, as we learn more about nerves and build smaller and smaller chips, we are clearly getting closer to having the ability to just download info into the mind. Who would have thought that green pulsed lasers would stimulate infrared vision in humans a few years back... Nerves are possibly sound waves now? Magnetism and sound and heat linked in unforeseen ways... Gimme a break. Telling people they can't do something without our prescription for maths is... You decide. Please just look up that talk by the kid on Ted... Was it "forget everything you know"? before Feynman diagrams, do you know what it took to describe particle collisions?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
rootone said:
I'm not sure where the 'dissolution of ego' comes into it, although I'm sure there can be cases of a person having a hard time accepting a theory which is contrary to some cherished intuition which they have.
Fred Hoyle, highly respected in many fields, insisted that his notion of a static Universe was true, despite mounting evidence that BBT was consistent with observation, while his steady state Universe was not.

Then again you can have a proposition which is easily understood both mathematically and literally.
2+2 = 4 (mathematically).
(:)):)) + :)):)) = :)):)):)):))) literally/figuratively.I can't see anyone having ego problems with that.

Also hard time accepting a theory that says what we spent four years of uni getting drilled into our heads or twenty years after that is flawed. Or even worse, what if it's easy to understand for everyone?
 
  • #8
Philip b said:
what if it's easy to understand for everyone?
I tried explaining how -2 times 2 is -4 to my wife a few days ago. I had a very clear example... I take 2 apples from you, that is -2. Now I do that twice... that is times 2. She didn't get it.
 
  • #9
Philip b said:
I am saying that it cannot be deemed impossible to explain physics to a layperson without using mathematics.
Since math is the language of physics, it most certainly can be.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes davenn
  • #10
Philip b said:
I am saying that it cannot be deemed impossible to explain physics to a layperson without using mathematics.

How seriously would you take a student of French literature who neither spoke nor read French and had studied no European history? There's a minimum amount of background that is needed to approach any subject. Just as some minimal competence in Elizabethan English is required to discuss Shakespeare, some minimal competence in mathematics is required to discuss physics.
 
  • #11
Math is the most accurate and limited bias language but it is not the only factor in understanding physics. You can plot forces and trajectories all day long and still not be able to shoot a 3 point shot. Would an NBA all-star benefit on the court from a physics lesson? It's easy to calculate frequency change from doppler shift and plot the change as a horn passes by but it doesn't seem to capture the essence of the experience...the crest of the intensity and the pitch rising, the "smear" of the tone changing lower, more quickly as it passes closer, almost like you can "feel" the doppler wave crashing by you. I don't even think I could write yet when I heard it the first time.
 
  • #12
jerromyjon said:
Math is the most accurate and limited bias language but it is not the only factor in understanding physics. You can plot forces and trajectories all day long and still not be able to shoot a 3 point shot. Would an NBA all-star benefit on the court from a physics lesson?
Are you really suggesting NBA players understand physics?
 
  • #13
russ_watters said:
Are you really suggesting NBA players understand physics?
I'm sure they understand how inflation pressure of rubber spheres affects collision elasticity, perhaps just not in a mathematical respect. All I'm trying to emphasize is that zero math does not equal zero understanding of physics. Physics usually hits everyone the same way the first time. A cold slap and a dry breath.
 
  • #14
jerromyjon said:
I'm sure they understand how inflation pressure of rubber spheres affects collision elasticity, perhaps just not in a mathematical respect. All I'm trying to emphasize is that zero math does not equal zero understanding of physics.
Not zero, but not much.
 
  • #15
I guess the more I think about it any "game" with isolated conditions only emphasizes certain characteristics of physical properties so it is not easily applied to other situations. A true understanding of collision physics, like in weapons for example, requires a ton of math and physics these days. Celestial collisions, I couldn't imagine the math involved yet at this point, not much to say without it!
 
  • #16
Philip b said:
Great but you missed my point. Maybe I was not clear enough. I am saying that it cannot be deemed impossible to explain physics to a layperson without using mathematics. Right now some of the explanations are complicated for many pieces of the grand puzzle but don't be surprised if a simple theory pulls it all together. Not yet possible... Better... Impossible is a word we should use with care these days

Also, as we learn more about nerves and build smaller and smaller chips, we are clearly getting closer to having the ability to just download info into the mind. Who would have thought that green pulsed lasers would stimulate infrared vision in humans a few years back... Nerves are possibly sound waves now? Magnetism and sound and heat linked in unforeseen ways... Gimme a break. Telling people they can't do something without our prescription for maths is... You decide. Please just look up that talk by the kid on Ted... Was it "forget everything you know"? before Feynman diagrams, do you know what it took to describe particle collisions?
I think you are allowing your Maths-Averse attitude to cloud the issue. The fact is that Maths is a language that is tailored well to Physical (and many other) problems. In one line of Maths, you can say as much as with a whole paragraph of conventional language. Why do you think Maths has been developed in the way it has? Scientists in the past had to invent their own notation for the purpose. It wasn't just a smartarse exercise to put the above other mortals. Can people really justify avoiding simple Calculus to describe the way things change with time, just because you find Maths is a bit difficult? Maths makes things simpler, not more complicated.

Your example of the Feynman diagram is not relevant to the argument against Maths. That diagram is only a very shorthand description and has frequently been misinterpreted (many times on PF, actually) and used to come to all sorts of wrong conclusions about the nature of the particles involved. Very useful but not enough to 'explain' anything, in fact.
 
  • #17
sophiecentaur said:
Your example of the Feynman diagram is not relevant to the argument against Maths.
I agree. Scientists very often use all kinds of diagrams to visualize the underlying math. But you need the math to create the diagrams
 
  • #18
jerromyjon said:
I'm sure they understand how inflation pressure of rubber spheres affects collision elasticity, perhaps just not in a mathematical respect.
This seems like a semantic quibble about the word "understand". You could also say an ostrich "understands" very effectively the bio-mechanics of biped locomotion, just not in a mathematical respect. But this type of "understanding" is not what physics is about, because it's not general enough to be applied to other situations.
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Philip b said:
I am saying that it cannot be deemed impossible to explain physics to a layperson without using mathematics.

That is far too broad. Some physics can be described by natural language, but not all physics. Quantum mechanics and relativity in particular stand out. Our languages and the common sense encoded in our neurons are tuned to ordinary experience. Quantum mechanics and relativity are too far removed from ordinary experience to visualize linguistically.
 
  • #20
Impossible. You're right... The case is closed. Education, neural interfaces, notation of mathematics, and the human race in general have all peaked. No more progress. Thanks for the reminder. Why don't yu teach children that too? I'm maths averse. Being good at maths is not how I got through my physics degree
 
  • #21
sophiecentaur said:
I think you are allowing your Maths-Averse attitude to cloud the issue. The fact is that Maths is a language that is tailored well to Physical (and many other) problems. In one line of Maths, you can say as much as with a whole paragraph of conventional language. Why do you think Maths has been developed in the way it has? Scientists in the past had to invent their own notation for the purpose. It wasn't just a smartarse exercise to put the above other mortals. Can people really justify avoiding simple Calculus to describe the way things change with time, just because you find Maths is a bit difficult? Maths makes things simpler, not more complicated.

Your example of the Feynman diagram is not relevant to the argument against Maths. That diagram is only a very shorthand description and has frequently been misinterpreted (many times on PF, actually) and used to come to all sorts of wrong conclusions about the nature of the particles involved. Very useful but not enough to 'explain' anything, in fact.
Great I guess that in 1000 years we won't have completely revised the way we see and do maths. I've got a physics degree from a top uni but didn't get a phd because I went into primary education so I'm not that maths averse. It must feel good, Sophie, to be able to make statements saying that things are impossible. Probably almost as good as the church felt saying that it was impossible for the Earth to be round. If I have any questions on the future of mathematics, I'll be sure to ask you, Sophie. I actually am adopting a maths averse attitude where it's appropriate(the purpose of this thread being to explain things to the layman) Sophie. I haven't been convinced on the impossibility of anything. Just that you certainly can't do it. Thank you very much
 
  • #22
what does everybody think about downloading the whole of algebra into our brains in a hundred years? Impossible too? How will we see it? Still the Greek alphabet?
 
  • #23
Philip b said:
Impossible too?
Note that nobody, except you, is using the word "impossible" in this thread.
 
  • #24
A.T. said:
Note that nobody, except you, is using the word "impossible" in this thread.
Well considering my original post was taken out of context I can't argue with that. Know this, A.T. that the trolls who took my quote out of its original context are responsible for that. It most certainly was a response to the exact assertion.
 
  • #25
Thread locked, pending moderation.
 
  • #26
Since this thread seems to have devolved awfully close to name calling, I see no reason to open it back up. Thread will remain locked.
 

What is "understanding without using math"?

"Understanding without using math" refers to the ability to comprehend and make sense of concepts and ideas without relying on mathematical equations or calculations. It involves using other forms of reasoning and critical thinking to grasp concepts and solve problems.

Why is it important to have understanding without using math?

Having the ability to understand without relying on math is important because it allows for a more well-rounded approach to problem-solving and decision-making. It also allows for individuals who may struggle with math to still be able to comprehend and make sense of complex concepts.

What are some examples of understanding without using math?

Some examples of understanding without using math include being able to follow and interpret written instructions, understanding abstract concepts, making logical deductions, and using intuition and creativity to solve problems.

Can understanding without using math be learned?

Yes, understanding without using math can be learned through practice and exposure to different forms of reasoning and critical thinking. It is a skill that can be developed and improved upon over time.

How can understanding without using math be useful in daily life?

Understanding without using math can be useful in daily life in a variety of situations, such as making decisions, solving problems, and interpreting information. It can also help individuals to think critically and make connections between different ideas and concepts.

Similar threads

  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
12
Views
881
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Thermodynamics
Replies
28
Views
1K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top