In her essay, Natalie Paquette argues that the flow of ideas from mathematics to physics has been reversed in recent years due to string theory. While there is indeed some truth to such a sentiment, it does not fully capture the complex relationship between mathematics and physics. Not only was the contemporary division between mathematics and physics non-existent at the dawn of classical physics, but ideas from physics guided mathematics for centuries to come.
How did mathematics and physics drift apart prior to their modern day reunion? And how did mathematicians gain an edge over physicists, if this was ever the case at all? In this letter, I would like to address these questions from a shamelessly revisionist point of view. I will argue that the deepest and most far-reaching ideas of physics are not the most elegant or beautiful, but the ideas that are confusing, not rigorous, improperly formulated, or, in fact, utterly incomprehensible to mathematicians.
As string theorists march on in their quest for the theory of everything, whilst also leaving a trail of mathematical gems along the way, some traditional physicists were outraged: “Is physics no longer rooted in observations of nature? Or is this theology?” Was the kind of mathematics that could never be exhibited with real objects actual mathematics, or was it theology? With the benefit of hindsight, we now know that the mathematics flourished like never before during the twentieth century. One can only hope the same thing happens with string theory in the decades to come.
Yeah, but there's pure mathematics and then there's physics. Mathematics doesn't necessarily have to be true; physics does. As far as I can tell, the only physicists who think string theory has a good approach are string theorists. If you can't measure ideas against observations, you're not even doing theology... you're doing mathematics.
http://inference-review.com/article/an-ode-to-ugly-physics
Excellent. Thank you. ☺
ReplyDelete