The math is not always relevant

To any physics use

I agree, but only in situations related to theoretical principles, design, experimentation ect. I'm more speaking of when it is applicable, to any field of physics in general. Which branches or what type of physics were you thinking of when you wrote this, so I can understand your view-point? To me, any application of physics beyond design, theoretics, writing on the concept of, ect math is a factor. I see all of physics as a physical extension of abstract math.

Fizikte gerçekleşen her durum matematik için geçerli olmayabilir. Aynı durumun tersi de olabilir. Bunlar o dalların gelişmesine bağlıdır.

Şükrü Aktaş I wish to understand your perspective. I understand this issue may be, in fact, a non-binary truth. I find that often in scientific endeavors a limiting factor is viewing things in terms of "yes" and "no". I believe the largest capacity for innovation and discovery lies within the realization that viewing things in a non-binary fashion often results in one coming to the conclusion that there were truths between options largely represented as binary. Every theory and idea in science has the capacity for elements of the truth as well as possibly incorrect conclusions. Approaching science from a multi-disciplinary perspective I wish to understand your viewpoint, as I realize that although I have expertise in physics,math and engineering a limiting factor of my perception in terms of this may be my tendency to view almost everything as mathematical in some way, but most especially science. This may be erroneous and if it is I wish to understand why.

In todays physic we are trapped in theoretical speculations without any real experimental proof.

For example; there is no explanation concerning the value of any constant used within any formula, model, theory...

JES

“…The math is not always relevant To any physics use…..”

- that isn’t so. Despite that mathematics and physic are principally different sciences – physical objects/event/effects/processes in majority aren’t some formal mathematical objects/operation, and so practically no any physical objects/event/effects/processes don’t follow directly just from mathematics,

- however, since, as that is rigorously proven in the philosophical 2007 Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception, recent version of the basic paper see

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363645560_The_Information_as_Absolute_-_2022_ed

that there exist nothing else than some informational patterns/systems of the patterns that are elements of the absolutely fundamental and absolutely infinite “Information” Set,

- there is nothing surprising in that the purely non-material product of fundamentally non-material informational systems “humans’ consciousnesses” “mathematics” can adequately relate to what exists and happens in the other, absolutely for sure also informational, system “Matter”.

Moreover, as that rigorously shown in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0707.4657 ,

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics , and

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force ,

- it is rigorously shown that Matter is rather simple logical system that is based on simple binary reversible logics, so everything in Matter exists as some disturbances in the Matter’s ultimate base – primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice, which is placed in the Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct),

- while the propagations and interactions of the disturbances in the lattice are governed by a few completely fundamental and universal logical links and constants, first of all – main Planck constants,

- and so mathematics turns out to be extremely effective tool at description and analysis of what exits and happens in Matter.

So really in principle the application of mathematics at least essentially, and at least on fundamental level [say, in high energy particle physics] can be reduced to some version of Boolean logics for (at least) “[4+4]D Fredkin-Toffoli gates”, though on macro levels more “traditional” mathematics can be – and was/is, of course, applied.

That is another thing, that mainstream physics theories are based on fundamentally transcendent – and really wrong – postulates, so on one hand – in the mainstream many, if too, physicists frankly believe that all what is in mathematics exists also in physics, and so in the mainstream the tenet “shut up and calculate” is rather popular; and so in then mainstream there exist numerous publications with rather perfect mathematical constructions, which are claimed as physical ones, while are nothing else than some fantastic ones that fundamentally have no any relation to physics.

Including such things as

“…I see all of physics as a physical extension of abstract math. ….”

- really exist in the mainstream; say, “delta functions”, etc., which really are vague mathematical objects, but introduced by physicists as some “physical extensions of abstract math”. However it looks as would be not too surprising that these till now useful “physical-mathematical” tricks really will be replaced at physics development by more adequate to the reality and not so exotic math.

Cheers

I have been observing for the past 25 years that physics theoreticians seldom even own a pocket scientific calculator to numerically validate the equations that they use to justify their developments. Some of them even mentioned that they were proud of the fact.

Fortunately, engineers still know how to numerically validate the equations that they use.

In my view, failure to numerically validate all equations meant by theoreticians to describe physically observed processes and interactions is the main cause of the stagnation of fundamental physics for the past half century.

I agree with André Michaud that math is to realize counting no matter how complicate the algorithm or method is. That said math for physics should obey the counting need whose underlying principle is conservation laws. Thus numerical confirmation is necessary.

Jixin

André Michaud A sensible man indeed! And perhaps we share this outlook because I tend to look at physics through an engineering lens. To me, if one cannot prove their theoretical words with actual equations, it doesn't hold much of a basis at all. I do believe that mathematics and physics are intimately entertained and that physics is simply the study of emergent properties of physical mathematics. It's interesting and quite hillarious you say that you barely have seen a theoretician pick up a calculator in 25years. Unfortunately that used to be me, and you are very right that a more stagnating thing does not exist. With perspective on that I can say my theoretical physics, although thought provoking, rarely had any use, either practical or academic that anyone even wanted to see, cared about, or even could get employed off of. I started getting a lot of success when I realized that the math is fundamental and that I was deluding myself into thinking it wasn't because I wasn't good at it. To be quite honest I found I thought I "wasn't good" at typical mathematics because it was just too abstract for me. "1+1=2." Okay, one what plus one what equals Teo WHAT? Distance? Amount of friends? Weight. It was just way too theoretical for me, abstract numbers with no unit, basis or story attached. Basically unreal axiom that help us understand things. Humans kinda forgot this abstraction is simply a tool to help understand things, not an actual representation of Universal constants. It can indicate those things via representation but that's it. Once I started dealing with physics and engineering in a less theoretical sense, I realized my problem with why I thought I couldn't do math was that pure mathematics (Shoutout Doom) Was just far too abstract. I think a lot of people who are convinced math and physics aren't always intimately entertwined have this problem, a kind of innate fear and of their own competency with math that affects the logic of this assumption. I'm also relatively sure as well that looking at these things I have said here, a lot of people afraid of their mathematic ability would find they are actually very good at it when abstraction is removed. But maybe that is just me. Jixin Chen I also hate to keep referencing back to my paper (if anyone has any info on this let me know) but there are many examples in the mathematics and quantum physics sections that show how mathematical equations are proven to be able to represent absurdly complex quantum physics principles and constants of nature in a neat "package".

Physics uses math in part.

It almost always requires an extensive description in words of what the concepts are, what

the problem is and so forth. Then the applicable math to the problem at hand is very specific.

Im most into Solid State Physics problems.

Some work that is in higher dimensios, string or M theory, is I think far too speculative, disconnedted.

Mathematical Physics is somewhat in between needed math and concrete reality.

You by pass a important component in physics, empirics, experiment.

The basis is 3, empirics, computation, mathematics. Mathematicians do not as a rule have a good

enough basis in empirics or systems of units. Thats why we sweat in labs, long hours.

Dear Alex Wolf III

So you have experienced both sides of the fence, so to speak – without numerical confirmation, and then with numerical confirmation.

I have also been giving quite a bit of thought to these issues that you are raising.

I also observed that few in the community actually perceive math for just what it is, a mutually intelligible "symbolic language", but only a language really, but a language that allows clearly describing and measuring physical processes when rationally applied to what has clearly been understood, which is the language of engineering, that led to the development of all applications that we now benefit from.

But as with articulated languages, with which we can also describe these physical processes – minus the measuring ability that the mathematical language provides – as well as write completely fictitious sci-fi stories or novels, the same ability is offered with the mathematical language.

But suffices that even one grounding assumption or axiom of the starting set of any theoretical development be involuntarily incorrectly grounded in physical reality for the whole mathematically derived structure to very logically stray from describing physical reality. The inescapable logic of mathematical derivations is then a double-edged sword.

If the starting set is totally consistent with confirmed correctly described physical processes, then the derived mathematical conclusions stand a high chance to hit the mark correctly, otherwise, failure to harmonize with reality is a given. A typical telltale that I observed to generally characterize ill grounded theories, is the high complexity of the derivations in the obvious attempt to account for observed processes, typically going astray because at some point, an incorrect formula slips in that was not numerically confirmed to match known values.

I also observed as you did that a lot of people are wrongly afraid that their mathematics ability would be below par, when in reality, they are contrariwise very good at it when abstraction is removed. So, it is not "just you", as you say.

I also found that the general use of derivative and integral formulations in derivations to cover all possible cases, without putting in clear perspective a few resolved instantaneous cases also contributes to make mathematical descriptions relatively abstract. On my part, I took on the habit of resolving equations in my derivations and ended up observing that except for a few very special cases, integrals and derivative formulations could be skipped without affecting clarity, since these all encompassing formulations are all over the place anyway and are understood by most. I indulged in this habit after seeing it applied in an old general synthesis about physics that I found particularly easy to work through.

I downloaded a copy of your "Theory of Everything" to read at leisure.

Best Regards, André

Physicists now adays dont only know how to use calculators, but must know some

scientific programming language and put it on computers, to solve most complex problems, that are

beyond purely analytic solutions.

Still, you dont want to loose usual technical skills like doing integrals.

The use of math in physics depends on many factors.

If you are talking about rational mechanics (newton, Euler, lagrange, hamilton) it is extensive and successfull,

largly completed in the time of "Classical Physics" up to 1900. Its the most successfully understood and mathematicised

area. Even todays books will just repeat that stuff. Vector analysis is heavily used.

Now, if you talk about Statistical Mechanics, its also highly mathematical, but with less relative success.

Because problems with many bodies are harder, especially for interacting bodies. Computers become more important then.

If you talk about the strong force, one knows several general characteristics, but not detail. When the Physics is not clear,

the application of math is harder. Quantum calculation is most common here.

QM is of course studied with specific branches of math, matrices, functional analysis, partial differential equations,

computational methods.

A book by Arfken will help one to grasp the major applied methods.(mathematical Physics)

Then decide if you are up to theory of everything, would not advise it. Physics is far from "unified", even

the very best know this Hawkings, Weinberg, Einstein,etc.

iSpace theory and it’s nothing but stunning results from pure simple integer geometric first order multiplicative results to derive 50+ constants of nature by exact value and geometry is the proof so called „higher math“ is not (or at least not always) required to properly describe even - or especially so - quantum physical properties by no need for any quantization whatsoever as everything is already geometrically quantized.

GoldenRatio iSpaceAmpere - the Quantum of Ampere. 1/6961 iSpaceSecond - the Quantum of time (!). (10*(1+111111+1) - or 11111130 the Integer Quantum of electron mass (in iSpace-IQ unit system, the first able to do away with all human artefacts whatsoever).

Aside of above, only Pi (3.14…) and FSC alpha - the finestructure constant - is required to calculate all 50+ constants of nature from simple, iSpace integer geometric first principles, which happens to be likewise exactly available in iSpace theory:

Method iSpace - Quick check of α and Φ0 from Markoulakis & Antonidakis

Article New novel physical constants metric and fine structure const...

Preprint Hubble constant H0 is derived from Newtonian gravitational c...

Preprint iSpace - Quantization of Time in iSpace-IQ Unit-System by 1/...

Conference Paper iSpace - Deriving G from α, e, R∞, μ0 and Quantum of Gravita...

Conference Paper iSpace - Exact Symbolic Equations for Important Physical Con...