Why don't you physicists just call yourselves mathematicians?

Because physics is also experimental and observational.
Physicists take measurements of the real world.

But physicists seemed very tied to mathematical constructs, such that measurements of the physical world maybe taking a back seat. Is physics being highjacked by head in the clouds mathematicians?

But physicists seemed very tied to mathematical constructs, such that measurements of the physical world maybe taking a back seat. Is physics being highjacked by head in the clouds mathematicians?

No, not in the way you seem to be visualizing it. Attempting to do physics without math would be much like trying to design computer components without using electronic engineering skills.

But isn't the theorectical world of mathematicians obstructing real world physics?

But isn't the theorectical world of mathematicians obstructing real world physics?

Why in the world would you say that???

Well, a lot of physicists seemed to dislike M Theory, because there is no real world proof of it. Yet, the mathematicians in physicist's clothing are pushing the theory. Isn't this obstruction?

Only if you believe that M Theory is false.

Well, don't a lot of physicists believe M Theory is false?

Many physicists feel that it's not really scientific, because there's no way to test it.

Exactly. You can show M Theory is mathematically sound, but you can't test it. Isn't this the mathematicians invading physics?

Some theoretical constructs are derived strictly from mathematics. They may look good on paper and are usually supported by other theories (and other mathematical constructs) yet there is no observational evidence to support them, perhaps due to the fact that testing the hypothesis is far too difficult with current technologies.

Why don't you physicists just call yourselves mathematicians?

Simple: We don't do mathematics!

Of course, by "do mathematics" I mean that which mathematicians do, which is producing new mathematical results. That is not what physicists do. There's not a mathematician alive who would accept a physicist as one of his own, and vice versa.

Yeah, you got your neat labels. But, don't you guys really both love mathematics?

Yeah, you got your neat labels.


What are you talking about? Follow around a physicist for one day, and follow around a mathematician for one day. The jobs that you'll see the two of them do will be very different.


But, don't you guys really both love mathematics?

So what if we do? What does that have to do with the question I'm responding to (which is, why don't you call yourselves mathematicians?)

Exactly. You can show M Theory is mathematically sound, but you can't test it. Isn't this the mathematicians invading physics?
I suppose you could say that - but M theory is a pretty tiny aspect of "physics," so I don't think it's really a big deal.

M theory may be a tiny aspect of physics - but it's at the edge of theoretical physics and the most exciting aspect of it.

Physics has also many subdivisions; I think M theory should be considered in mathematical physics, which is at the border between math and physics and considered also a branch of applied mathematics.

I think most physicists are experimental or theoretical physicists which are really in the physics proper.

John---at the heart of every description of Nature is a purely mathematical construct. The same was said about General Relativity...before it was tested. The fact reamins that mathematical consistency is the first step in developing a theory which describes nature.

Said another way, the set of theories which are mathematically consistent includes the set of theories which describe nature.

John:

A physicist needs to have studied, at a minimum, integral and differential calculus, as well as differential equations. Sir Isaac Newton had to invent Calculus, in order to develop Newtonian laws pertaining to gravity.

John J. Bannan:

Why don't you physicists just call yourselves mathematicians?

Because physics is the study of the basic constituents of the physical world and their real-world interactions, whereas mathematics is a construct with no necessary connection to the real world.

But physicists seemed very tied to mathematical constructs, such that measurements of the physical world maybe taking a back seat. Is physics being highjacked by head in the clouds mathematicians?

Maths is a tool physicists use to quantify their understanding of nature. All good physics is an interaction between theory and experiment. All theories in physics must be checked against the real world. No physical theory exists in isolation.

But isn't the theorectical world of mathematicians obstructing real world physics?

Some have argued that, in some limited areas of physics.

Well, a lot of physicists seemed to dislike M Theory, because there is no real world proof of it. Yet, the mathematicians in physicist's clothing are pushing the theory. Isn't this obstruction?

It's arguable. It is certainly possible to view M-theory as a mathematical game. As a physical theory it has its pros and cons.

M theory may be a tiny aspect of physics - but it's at the edge of theoretical physics and the most exciting aspect of it.

That's just your opinion. For me, many areas of physics are far more interesting that string theories.

We could add that Einstein had to study differential geometry in order to formulate general relativity.

bsemak:

Yes, but the conceptual framework of general relativity came long before the maths. Einstein knew what he needed, then set out to learn the relevant mathematics.

Just what I said, wasnt it? (or what I meant at least) :)

Because physics is also experimental and observational.
Physicists take measurements of the real world.

Its engineers who take measurements of the real world.

Ah. Ok bsemak. I wasn't sure.

Its engineers who take measurements of the real world.

Really?
No not really, engineers apply physics.
Physicists are the ones that make (ask for) the measurements.

Really?
No not really, engineers apply physics.
Physicists are the ones that make (ask for) the measurements.

Exactly. Thats what I did at the university (make measurements as a physicist) and now I apply the research of others as an engineer.

Exactly. Thats what I did at the university (make measurements as a physicist) and now I apply the research of others as an engineer.

well I am just saying that engineers are much more important than physicists. engineers actually get to do something.

Now thats fighting talk:)

The roles of engineers and physicists are different. But let me give one example. In the 20's we got quantum mechanics. Pure physics.

This was applied by physicist on solid matter, that is large collections of atoms (solid state physics).

This led to a new understanding of the properties of say semiconductors.

In the 50's, this gave us the first semiconductor transistor.

This was then taken up by engineers who started the development which led to me writing this post (extreme short version of the story).

So who is the most important here? They both are. No physicist, no new knowledge, no engineers no new products

well I am just saying that engineers are much more important than physicists. engineers actually get to do something.

And if physicists didn't do the initial measurements and divine the principles engineers would still be working to rules of thumb and empiricism.
Engineers are not more importanat than physicists, in my opinion.
That's an opinion of someone with 30+ years of engineering... :D

mathematics deals in principles, physicists deal with practical and all auxilliary mechanics. By the way, I have never passed physics, I don't know why. I have aced all other sciences but physics. I need the God of physics. Its not that I don't understand the subject, I even undertand basics of QM, but I just spend too much time fascinating with chemistry. Chemistry is unpredictable.

The roles of engineers and physicists are different. But let me give one example. In the 20's we got quantum mechanics. Pure physics.

This was applied by physicist on solid matter, that is large collections of atoms (solid state physics).

This led to a new understanding of the properties of say semiconductors.

In the 50's, this gave us the first semiconductor transistor.

This was then taken up by engineers who started the development which led to me writing this post (extreme short version of the story).


Right, engineers are just applied physicists who are a few decades behind. The slow kids in the class, as it were. :D

Just kidding, of course. I have degrees in both engineering and physics, and wouldn't insult either discipline.

Mathematics deals exclusively in abstractions. Its theories are derived entirely from reasoning, and therefore can be proven true. Physics is a science. Like all sciences, Its theories are derived from observations of the universe and can only be proven false, never true. Mathematics is just a tool that scientists use. Physicists use it rather heavily, arguably much more than, say, biologists. But of all the sciences, I'd say astronomy is most closely tied to mathematics. If you want to make a case for scientists being indistinguishable from mathematicians, you should pick on the astronomers. :)

Did (nature) use maths to evolve us, or was it trial and error, if maths can describe nature why can it not make it, will maths ever be able to be used to make nature?
I think maths is a wonderful tool for describing nature, but was nature the first mathamatician, or just a trial and error mechanic?

Mathematics deals exclusively in abstractions. Its theories are derived entirely from reasoning, and therefore can be proven true. Physics is a science. Like all sciences, Its theories are derived from observations of the universe and can only be proven false, never true. Mathematics is just a tool that scientists use. Physicists use it rather heavily, arguably much more than, say, biologists. But of all the sciences, I'd say astronomy is most closely tied to mathematics. If you want to make a case for scientists being indistinguishable from mathematicians, you should pick on the astronomers. :) Plus there is a branch of physics that deals fairly less with maths- Quantum.

Did (nature) use maths to evolve us, or was it trial and error, if maths can describe nature why can it not make it, will maths ever be able to be used to make nature?
I think maths is a wonderful tool for describing nature, but was nature the first mathamatician, or just a trial and error mechanic?

I think this is one of the biggest mysteries of Nature (or human brain).

... I'd say astronomy is most closely tied to mathematics. If you want to make a case for scientists being indistinguishable from mathematicians, you should pick on the astronomers.That depends upon upon whether or not "geometry" is part of "math." It certainly was in Newton's day. In fact it was the ONLY acceptable form* of math for proofs. Newton's Principles of Mathematics in which he proves all the laws of astronomy** and many other aspects of what was then math is pure "geometery" as we would call it today. Every one interested in science, should at least briefly look at Principles of Mathematics (probably the most important science / math book ever written) if only to see what a powerful tool geometry is in the hands of genius.
-------------
*Today some mathematiciand do not consider an exhaustive demonstration of a postulate by computer tests of all possible cases to be a "suitable proof" of the postulate. In Newton's day even analytical geometry (Not sure it was known - I.e. Descartes made if popular, but I forget when.) would not have been considered a proof of anything, so Newton made only "proper proofs" with what we call geometry now.
**All of keppler's three, of course, such as the period of planet depends only on the length of the major axis of it eliptic orbit, not on how excentric the orbit is, and dozens of others .

Also, I'd say it depends on what you mean by ``physics'' as well. If you want to make qualitative predictions about nature, then you probably don't need much math. But to make quantitative predictions, there's no way to escape it.

Why don't you physicists just call yourselves mathematicians?

Physics is impossible without language too... so why don't physicists call themselves linguists?

Maths is the fundamental language of reality.

well I am just saying that engineers are much more important than physicists. engineers actually get to do something.

You might want to rephrase that to say ...'engineers get to do something physical'. Otherwise you would be implying that a theoretical physicist does not do anything.

And since the physicist is the experiment creator and designer, I would disagree that his contribution is less important than that of the engineer.
-----------------------------
As to the thread topic ....
Mathematics is the Language of Science.

John---at the heart of every description of Nature is a purely mathematical construct. The same was said about General Relativity...before it was tested. The fact reamins that mathematical consistency is the first step in developing a theory which describes nature.

Said another way, the set of theories which are mathematically consistent includes the set of theories which describe nature.Sure, but not necessarily the other way around. You can't just mathematically construct something that is self-consistent and think that it exists as a real phenomena.