The question seems to be whether mathematics is necessary or not, but the question mark is that if mathematics is essential for physics, chemistry and almost all other subjects, then they should change their methods and language to something understandable for teachers of these subjects.
Which makes sense.
Classical mathematical language and formations are redundant, in many cases illogical and contradictory, and they furthermore have the structural appearance of a heroglipic language.
Personally, I and too many of my mathematician and physicist friends find ourselves paralyzed when faced with the simplest mathematical situation.
So what !?
This is just an introductory answer to shed light on the question and its expected answer.
1-nature can only be described in a unitary four-dimensional x-t space, which means that the formulation of PDE and other mathematical topics in 3D geometry plus real time t as a parameter or external or controller is incomplete.
2-It follows that the classical description of nature via classical 3D+t -PDE and many other mathematical topics is only a subset of any proposed modern 4D statistical theory.
3-A detailed theoretical and numerical study of almost all situations in the fields of electromagnetism, the heat diffusion equation, the Schrödinger equation, statistical integration formulas and the summation of integer series infinite shows that classical partial differential equations in 3D+t space are defeated everywhere (in classical physics as in quantum physics) by the superiority of modern numerical statistical theories
4-A revolutionary conclusion is that partial differential equations and many other mathematical topics are only a subset of modern numerical statistical theories and not the other way around.
5- If there are no immediate corrective measures for current mathematics in 3D+t space, it is predicted that the West will enter a bleak future in science research and education within the next few 10 years .
"nature can only be described in a unitary four-dimensional x-t space"
There's no basis for this statement.
Normally we do not comment on the answers of our fellow contributors but when the answer ("nature can only be described in a unitary four-dimensional x-t space"
There is no basis for this claim.)
comes from our friend Professor John Francis Miller, this should be different.
You can't ask Mother Nature if she lives and performs her functions in 3D+t space or in 4D unitary space?
But when you model nature in a 4D unit space and the numerical results in solving problems in all areas of mathematics and physics are precise and breathtaking, we consider that a respectable baseline.
We remind you that the real proof of the Schrödinger equation only comes from its exact and diverse applications.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude