Unknown mathematical methods in Physics?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the exploration of mathematical methods that are not commonly utilized in physics but could potentially be applied if further developed. Participants consider the implications of projective geometry in physics and the broader question of what constitutes 'unknown' mathematical methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the coherence of asking about 'unknown' mathematical methods while simultaneously seeking specific methods, suggesting a title change to focus on projective geometry in physics.
  • Another participant discusses string theory and graded Lie algebras, noting that while these have known methods, their physical significance remains unclear.
  • There is mention of cosmological investigations related to de Sitter and anti-de Sitter spaces, which can be framed within algebraic topology, but again, these involve known methods with unresolved questions in physics.
  • A participant raises concerns about the limitations of physics being conducted within specific frames and coordinate systems, questioning the necessity of these restrictions in relation to mathematical objects that lack such structures.
  • One participant reflects on the predominance of semisimple Lie groups and algebras in physics, pondering why solvable subalgebras are not considered and whether this reliance on measurements is a physical requirement or merely a habit.
  • Another participant expresses doubt about the feasibility of listing mathematical areas or techniques that have not been applied in physics.
  • One participant expresses regret about the perceived inadequacy of their question, indicating a desire to retract it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the original question, with multiple competing views and uncertainties remaining regarding the applicability of various mathematical methods in physics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in defining 'unknown' methods and the dependence on established mathematical frameworks in physics. There are unresolved questions about the role of certain mathematical structures and their physical implications.

Pi-is-3
Messages
49
Reaction score
13
What are streams of mathematics that are generally not used by Physicists but you think can be used successfully provided they become more developed? I want to know about such things cause it is quite interesting. Also, can Projective Geo be used in physics?
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: nuuskur
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a contradiction within your question. 'Unknown' and 'which methods' cannot be answered simultaneously. Maybe we should change the title and directly ask for projective geometry in physics?!

String theory which is based on graded Lie algebras are an open problem, but it has known methods, whereas the physical significance is missing.

The cosmological investigations of de Sitter and anti-de Sitter spaces can be seen in the context of algebraic topology, but it is again known methods with open questions in physics.

So how should an answer look like? As soon as we can accurately describe a problem in physics, as soon do we have methods at hand, namely those the problem is described by. Whether such a problem can be dealt with new mathematics is per definition unknown, so cannot be answered.

There are some fundamental limitations and it is unclear whether they are necessary or only the usual way. Physics is done in frames, that is we have coordinates and we can measure quantities. These are strong restrictions since many mathematical objects have neither a coordinate system nor a metric, and I'm not aware of a physical question which doesn't expect them.

I remember that I once asked on PF why the Lie groups and Lie algebras in physics are always (I know, Heisenberg and Poincaré are exceptions here) the semisimple ones? Why don't their big solvable subalgebras play a role? Why do we always need to consider operators which walk the ladder up and down? The best answer I received was, that those semisimple cases bring along a metric, something to measure with geometric methods. Now does this mean we are simply used to rely on measurements and do not consider other possibilities, or is it a physical requirement? This is hard to answer, if at all. But it is basically a version of your question.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pi-is-3
fresh_42 said:
. 'Unknown' and 'which methods' cannot be answered simultaneously.

I was once asked "...and how many more unanticipated problems do you expect to have?"
 
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: MathematicalPhysicist, davenn and Dale
It would be hard enough to list areas/techniques of mathematics that haven't been used in physics.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Pi-is-3
Sorry, I have realized my question is very stupid. I'll flag it to the moderator.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
10K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K