World Science Scholars

3.5 Unification of Mathematics and Physics

discussion Discussion
Viewing 11 reply threads
    • It took mathematicians 300 years to solve the mystery of why a general algebraic solution did not exist for polynomials of degree 5 and higher. The discovery of a bigger framework was required to push the boundary of our understanding. Do you think a unification of mathematics or physics requires yet another reformation of our current framework?

    • Yes, inasmuch as much new physics will need new mathematics to be developed, and some new and existing mathematics will enable new physics to be developed.

    • Sometimes it takes time of mathematics to catch physics, but sometimes it’s other way around. As we saw earlier, in the case of relativity, mathematics was there first and it physics needed to catch it.

    • I believe that over the years, both mathematics and physics will expand to be able to explain processes that we do not yet know, or prove theorems, give us answers … A hybrid may even emerge between the two! A new branch of STEM

    • I feel that fundamental physics will definitely need reformulation in terms of better notions of the origins of space and time. The foundations of mathematics as formulated in terms of set theory has been an ongoing project, and now category theory is also being put forward as a foundation. However, I’m not sure that the basic objects and tools of mathematical analysis will have to be reformulated. Addition will always be addition. Numbers will retain their properties of oddness and evenness, etc.

    • For physics I’d expect that the unification of quantum field theory and general relativity needs a novel input, and probably by someone without a reputation to lose. Another patent clerk perhaps …… the interesting question is how to test such a unified theory in some scenario though.

      For mathematics I’d be more positive about unification because it lacks the constraints of real world measurement. The greatest burden here is to maintain logical consistency.

    • Or maybe we need to use a different paradigm altogether. For example, we could go the route touted by Stephen Wolfram: the computational route as an alternative of sorts to mathematics (at least in the way of thinking). This won’t invalidate mathematics, of course, but maybe we need a new perspective to unify quantum mechanics with relativity, for one.

    • Yes, we need a reformation on general theory of relativity. Then we can think about unification of mathematics or physics to give a big push on quantum manipulation.

    • it’s a possibility. I think there’s something that we haven’t been able to see, and that doesn’t mean is not here, so a reformation of current frameworks could indeed open the doors to new knowledge as it has done in the past.

    • A fundamental theorem of mathematics would be a powerful thing to have in your toolkit. This course makes a good case that symmetry, which plays important roles in both math and physics, may be a key concept that gets us closer to such a theorem.
      A basic but powerful truth that unites much of mathematics is a seductive idea. Certainly worth setting as a goal for 21st century mathematics. Never know what you’ll discover.

    • Perhaps, the unification of this will be completed with quantum computers. being able to solve all possibilities at once and choosing the correct one.
      Or maybe we already have the answer hidden in the world around us, the equal symmetry of cause and effect, action and reaction? I need to do study more math <#

    • Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

      The unification of math or physics can aquire another reformation.

      It is the dawn of the computer age. It is the dawn of robotics and their explorations. It is the dawn of Astronomy, so we see with new tech we have new borders.

      Old computational ranges have been transcended and so new borders, new symetries, new groups, and new Galois groups can duel to the death. 🤺

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend