Which Technology Relies on Calculus for its Creation and Functioning?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter mpnolan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculus Technology
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around identifying specific technologies that rely on calculus for their creation and functioning. Participants explore the necessity of calculus in engineering and technology, considering examples such as bridges, spacecraft, and semiconductors. The conversation touches on the broader implications of mathematics in practical applications and the role of trial and error in technological development.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of calculus in engineering, suggesting that intuitive understanding could suffice for building technologies like bridges.
  • Another participant argues that modern engineering structures are fundamentally based on scientific principles expressed mathematically, implying that calculus is essential for advanced designs.
  • Some participants propose that technologies like spacecraft trajectory plotting and semiconductors rely heavily on differential equations derived from calculus.
  • There is a discussion about whether computer simulations of physical processes can be conducted without calculus, with some arguing that calculus concepts are inherently used in such simulations.
  • One participant distinguishes between using calculus to derive equations and applying those equations in programming, suggesting that calculus is not necessary for execution but is crucial for understanding relationships between variables.
  • Another participant reflects on the definitions of geometry, algebra, and calculus, noting that even simulations can embody calculus principles through the computation of changes over intervals.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of calculus in technology. While some assert that calculus is indispensable for certain technologies, others suggest that it may not be strictly necessary for all engineering practices, leading to an unresolved debate.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining the role of calculus in technology, with discussions on the limitations of intuitive engineering versus mathematically grounded approaches. The conversation also touches on the historical development of technologies and the evolution of mathematical understanding.

mpnolan
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
OK. Weird question.

What is a technology that couldn't exist without calculus?

Like, a specific engineered artifact -- a bridge, a segway, a waterjet cutter -- that couldn't have come into being without calculus.

Not necessarily a hard question, just something I'm pondering for fun. Trying to get a better grasp on the real value of things like mathematics. (One thought I'm having is that if you were intuitive enough, you could engineer anything without explicit math/science. Say, if you started building small bridges as a kid, and by the time you were an adult you had gotten a good "feel" for it, and could do it without any book learning. So I'm thinking about whether math is truly necessary.)

But... that's kinda off the deep end :D. Let's keep it as "What is a technology that couldn't exist without calculus?"
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Freeman Dyson on the role of failure:

"You can't possibly get a good technology going without an enormous number of failures. It's a universal rule. If you look at bicycles, there were thousands of weird models built and tried before they found the one that really worked. You could never design a bicycle theoretically. Even now, after we've been building them for 100 years, it's very difficult to understand just why a bicycle works - it's even difficult to formulate it as a mathematical problem. But just by trial and error, we found out how to do it, and the error was essential."

I got this from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson) and the original quote is supposedly from:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/6.02/dyson.html
 
mpnolan said:
Say, if you started building small bridges as a kid, and by the time you were an adult you had gotten a good "feel" for it, and could do it without any book learning.

Have you ever seen bridges built by pre-scientific societies? Sure, you could probably build something that can be called a 'bridge' just by trying out random things and seeing what works best, but no matter how long you do that, you will not be able to get even close to something like a modern bridge. All modern engineering structures are based on scientific principles (expressed in the language of mathematics). In fact, if what you're interested in is the question of whether math is truly necessary as you say, then a bridge is a bad example. Can you build a computer without a knowledge of science? A television? A Plane? A Satellite?
 
He didn't say "science" he just said "calculus". A lot of science (experimantal method, etc.) doesn't need calculus.

Plotting trajectories for spacecraft ... differential equations are used.

Perhaps semiconductors (transistors and such devices used within electronics) would not have been invented without predictions from differential equations describing quantum mechanics.
 
g_edgar said:
Plotting trajectories for spacecraft ... differential equations are used.

Is this the thing about a rocket's mass changing as it burns fuel, changing its fuel usage?

Although, just to be difficult: what if you made a computer simulation of that process to determine the trajectory? Could you do it without calculus then?

Perhaps semiconductors (transistors and such devices used within electronics) would not have been invented without predictions from differential equations describing quantum mechanics.

Huh. I know next to nothing about QM, but it's interesting it's needed (or, might be needed) for transistors.

What I'd really like is to find a handy little example of some specific device that needs calculus...
 
mpnolan said:
Is this the thing about a rocket's mass changing as it burns fuel, changing its fuel usage?

Although, just to be difficult: what if you made a computer simulation of that process to determine the trajectory? Could you do it without calculus then?

The thing is you would be using concepts of calculus within your computer simulation. If you weren't using calculus, then there is no way you can be certain with your simulation.

What I'd really like is to find a handy little example of some specific device that needs calculus...

Antennas, Transmission Lines (The Telegraphist Equations), Modern Communication Systems, Etc. There are many more examples, but those are just a few that I'm familiar with.
 
ravioli said:
The thing is you would be using concepts of calculus within your computer simulation. If you weren't using calculus, then there is no way you can be certain with your simulation.

Hmm... I suppose it depends on what you mean by calculus.

Let's say we're trying to figure out the rate the fuel is burning, and that it depends on the mass of the craft.

Now, if you knew an equation to relate fuel usage, speed, and mass, you could just have your program change the MASS and FUEL_LEFT variables every second the program is running.

I would say that isn't using calculus. We don't have a concept of "limit" or "derivatives", some way to get an equation "a priori" for the craft's fuel usage rate. Only a simulation, done over small intervals, using an equation (aka, algebra).
 
mpnolan said:
Hmm... I suppose it depends on what you mean by calculus.

Let's say we're trying to figure out the rate the fuel is burning, and that it depends on the mass of the craft.

Now, if you knew an equation to relate fuel usage, speed, and mass, you could just have your program change the MASS and FUEL_LEFT variables every second the program is running.

I would say that isn't using calculus. We don't have a concept of "limit" or "derivatives", some way to get an equation "a priori" for the craft's fuel usage rate. Only a simulation, done over small intervals, using an equation (aka, algebra).

The methods of calculus are used to get a new equation from knowledge of another equation. In particular, it is mostly used in physics to get equations for dynamics from empirical equations of static phenomena (differentiation) or to get an equation for a static entity from knowledge of how a system evolves (integration; solving differential equations). Once you have these equations, you can program them into your computer, or apply them directly. The calculus simply generates the equations; calculus is not necessary to actually carry them out.
However, knowledge of calculus means you need only know one equation and you immediately have access to an entire family of related equations. It also allows you to approximate complicated relationships using numerical analysis.
 
slider142 said:
The methods of calculus are used to get a new equation from knowledge of another equation. In particular, it is mostly used in physics to get equations for dynamics from empirical equations of static phenomena (differentiation) or to get an equation for a static entity from knowledge of how a system evolves (integration; solving differential equations). Once you have these equations, you can program them into your computer, or apply them directly. The calculus simply generates the equations; calculus is not necessary to actually carry them out.
However, knowledge of calculus means you need only know one equation and you immediately have access to an entire family of related equations. It also allows you to approximate complicated relationships using numerical analysis.

OK, I see. Wikipedia says geometry is the study of shape, algebra the study of equations, and calculus the study of change. From that definition, I can see how even the program/simulation would be the calculus.

I guess it seemed odd to me (and still does), to call it calculus when you're not using equations. What the program is doing isn't a complex concept: it's just computing differences across small intervals. Then again, I guess the idea isn't said to be complex. It's just that it took awhile for anyone (Newton/Leibniz) to actually work out how to do it formally (e.g. differentiate a general function like x*sin(x), rather than working it out numerically at every point).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
8K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K