Talk:Relationship between mathematics and physics

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Philosophy: Science Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of science

"This article is written like a a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts."

Seriously? Look the names in the references: Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Vladimir Arnold, Michael Atiyah, John von Neumann, Henri Poincaré, G. H. Hardy, Eugene Wigner, Edward Witten... The part about history is fully referenced... And if the opinions presented in the article are not in accordance with what is written in the references, you should cite specific excerpts of the article that seem to be just my "particular feelings about the topic"... I do believe that the article is not good yet, but to say that what is presented are personal opinions is just plain wrong. Ariel C.M.K. (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the user who placed the tag, the article as is reads like a short essay with quotes from those people. The title of the article pigeonholes you into a topic that may not be appropriate for an encyclopedia in my opinion. Zeus^u|c 18:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly is it not appropriate for an encyclopedia? It was discussed by many celebrated thinkers, and there are entire books dedicated to this matter. Although in the list of references there is only one such book (The Role of Mathematics in Physical Sciences, by Boniolo, Budinich and Trobok), I can add more to the list if you find it necessary. So, I think the theme is encyclopedic, and if there is a problem about this article, then it is not due to appropriateness but due to its current state (which I agree can be improved a lot). Best wishes, Ariel C.M.K. (talk) 18:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot this part: "Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style.". I totally agree that it needs to be rewritten, but please don't delete it, as I'm sure that what I did is not totally useless. Ariel C.M.K. (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Off-topic) I've made a copy of this text for my personal use (being unsure about its fate here). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

I think this article was the victim of some lazy drive-by tagging. You have made a good start. In particular, you have assembled a fine collection of secondary sources (now in Further reading). Now you need to make more use of them and make this more of a critical survey of the subject. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - I don't think there is any danger of the article being deleted. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about that conic section drawing

Unless the axis of the orange hyperbola is parallel to the axis of the cone (doesn't seem to be), that orange section is not a hyperbola, but just another parabola.

This needs fixed. Hooya27 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rasch?

@MathKeduor7 in this [1] you added :

In 1960, Georg Rasch noted that no models are ever true, not even Newton's laws, emphasizing that models should not be evaluated based on truth but on their applicability for a given purpose.^[1]

But I could not find anything in that source about Rasch or Newton. What source did you intend?

References

^ Skogen, M.D.; Ji, R.; Akimova, A.; Daewel, U.; and eleven others (2021), "Disclosing the truth: Are models better than observations?" (PDF), Marine Ecology Progress Series, 680: 7–13, Bibcode:2021MEPS..680....7S, doi:10.3354/meps13574, S2CID 229617529.

Johnjbarton (talk) 02:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As described in my edit summary, I've just copied the information from the article All models are wrong (I did not check the reference, I've trusted the editor or editors who wrote it there). Thank you. Best regards! MathKeduor7 (talk) 02:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did some Google Searches now, and I could find no evidence for it. Maybe it should be removed from both articles? MathKeduor7 (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from All models are wrong. I think the ref might be useful in scientific models, but not for these two articles. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Role of rigor in physics

If physicists were required to be as rigorous as mathematicians, there would be almost complete stagnation in the progress of physics due to rigor mortis. There would be no time to check all the arguments and also do the experiments. The lack of rigor in physics is healthy and necessary. However, the philosopher Alfred Korzybski controversially disagreed with this, advocating for the same level of rigor in physics as in mathematics. Soprusside (talk) 04:56, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics is physics

According to Vladimir Arnold, mathematics is physics: "Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap" is a famous phrase of his. It's a rather unorthodox view I must say, but that must be mentioned in this article (stating that it's controversial and unorthodox). 2804:14D:4CD8:423A:3551:6B55:269F:5B4B (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a secondary reference for the claim that this is a "A famous, controversial, and rather unorthodox view". Johnjbarton (talk) 14:50, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found these on the Arnold page.

Done Johnjbarton (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great source to expand the article

A great (free access) source to use for expanding the article : https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9307227 2804:14D:4CD8:423A:3551:6B55:269F:5B4B (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed source was published as

Jaffe, A., & Quinn, F. (1993). “Theoretical mathematics”: toward a cultural synthesis of mathematics and theoretical physics. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 29(1), 1-13.

and is well cited. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another great source (not yet used here)

This one talks about the ideas of Willard Van Orman Quine: https://philarchive.org/archive/CARLAT-13 MathKeduor7 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The content

In the framework of Quine's natural realism, our beliefs, even in mathematics, are subjected to the "tribunal of experience", just like in physics.

currently has 5 citations. In my opinion this is not helpful. One ref to Quine's pub and one of secondary analysis is best. 5 citations muddy the tracks. Johnjbarton (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll follow your advice (I agree with it!), but please give me some time to find the "best" of the secondary sources. I am busy right now, but I'll fix it in a few days! Thank you. MathKeduor7 (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a cleanup, there are now only two secondary sources left. I need to check my wording to see if the info follows from what they say. MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only one secondary source is left now. I'll see what I can do with it alone. MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the original Quine's pub, only about what many secondary sources say about it... MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done! MathKeduor7 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[:0-1] Skogen, M.D.; Ji, R.; Akimova, A.; Daewel, U.; and eleven others (2021), "Disclosing the truth: Are models better than observations?" (PDF), Marine Ecology Progress Series, 680: 7–13, Bibcode:2021MEPS..680....7S, doi:10.3354/meps13574, S2CID 229617529.

[1]