Mathematics plays a central role in Physics, but this doesn't happen in other disciplines. I'd like to see your opinions on these questions: 1) Why is Mathematics so successful in Physics? 2) Can that success be expanded to other disciplines? 1) I think it's because Physics problems have few variables. In classical gravity for example, the variables of gravitational force exerted by a particle in another particle are the masses and a distance. In terms of the differential formulation, the only variable is mass density. In classical EM, what causes an electric field is either a charge or a variable magnetic field. And what causes a magnetic field is a variable electric field. In mechanics, defining what an acceleration is in terms of position, and with a simple law with mass and acceleration as variables, it's possible to describe all the events. I'm not saying it's easy to derive physical laws (without knowing what they are already), these are just examples that show that the fundamentals of classical Physics are only based on a few quantitative variables. And by knowing the fundamentals quantitatively, it's possible to describe physical systems mathematically and to derive solutions to complex problems. I think this is the fundamental difference that separates Physics and Chemistry (where this still applies I think) from other disciplines. In Economics, for example, there aren't so few variables in any problem. In Biology and Psychology, among others, I think it's also the lack of quantitative significant variables that doesn't make it possible for Mathematics to play a big role. So in essence, I think that there are 2 significant factors that make Mathematics have a central role in Physics: few variables and quantitative variables. 2) First of all, not every discipline needs Mathematics as being central. In Biology, many problems are solved by observation and don't need quantitative analysis, because many times it's not a quantitative problem. But in Economics, there's plenty of quantitative data, so there are quantitative variables. The problem here is the huge amount of variables... If an economy could be fully described by the GDP, unemployment and savings for example, it would be easy to make a function GDP(Unemployment, Savings). Then it would be "easy" to investigate what causes an economy to be described by this function, and derive the macroeconomic model from the microeconomic model, like in Thermodynamics. But there are too many variables, so this isn't possible... It's also not possible to consider problems in isolation. I'd like to see your opinion, especially if you know more about this than I do. Sorry if my arguments aren't very good, I never read anything about this, so I'm just expressing the opinions I formed myself about this.