Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why do people that like Maths usually like Physics? watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    Lol maths is a bit dumb if you're doing it for the sake of doing maths. In physics there's a reason you learn the mathematics - to apply it to situations in real life. If you do physics at university level there is A LOT of maths. Don't call physics "cancerous" just because you're doing bad in it and you're just mad. :rolleyes:
    :facepalm:

    If people never bothered being dumb and 'doing maths for the sake of maths' we wouldn't have public-key cryptography, certain aspects of engineering, general relativity, aspects of chemistry, physics and biology, some of the medical technology we have today, the extent analysis can be applied to certain areas of physics/finance through PDEs, and the list goes on.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    It is dumb if you maths for the sake of doing maths. Physics and engineering etc has revolutionised how we live, and of course those are based on mathematics, but you aren't gonna get much out of learning maths unless you apply it - which as far as I know, pure mathematicians don't.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    applied maths uses mathematics learnt from pure maths anyway. We wouldn't have general relativity if it wasn't for pure mathematicians like Riemann and Lorentz.Pure maths is the most accurate form of science ever made by man, theres a reason maths is used heavily in physics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    It is dumb if you maths for the sake of doing maths. Physics and engineering etc has revolutionised how we live, and of course those are based on mathematics, but you aren't gonna get much out of learning maths unless you apply it - which as far as I know, pure mathematicians don't.


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Revolutions in Pure maths always have led to revolutions in Science.Look at how imaginary numbers and Hilbert space, which are purchasing mathematical concepts, have revolutionised physics.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    Actually, the real reason behind this is the fact that physics at GCSE and A-Level is taught far too qualitatively. A-Level Physics for me was 90% needing to memorise material and 10% of rearranging equations and substituting values into equations, which isn't representative of degree level physics.

    Also, I'm not quite sure what you think (proper) maths involves if you've managed to separate 'maths skills' and 'theory and deep thought'.
    I was talking about understanding concepts in physics and when and where to apply them in the exam. Maths skills is more about problem solving skills involving numeracy.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    :facepalm:

    If people never bothered being dumb and 'doing maths for the sake of maths' we wouldn't have public-key cryptography, certain aspects of engineering, general relativity, aspects of chemistry, physics and biology, some of the medical technology we have today, the extent analysis can be applied to certain areas of physics/finance through PDEs, and the list goes on.
    Einstein had the theory first and then used mathematics to explain it, he wasn't just doing maths and happened to stumble across equation whilst he was doing maths for fun. People use mathematics to models things and have the theory and goal first. I do understand how mathematics is extremely important thanks, considering I'm doing a university degree in physics, no need to facepalm.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Raymat)
    I was talking about understanding concepts in physics and when and where to apply them in the exam. Maths skills is more about problem solving skills involve numeracy.
    At GCSE and A-Level
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    At GCSE and A-Level
    Yeh I was talking about A level.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    Einstein had the theory first and then used mathematics to explain it, he wasn't just doing maths and happened to stumble across equation whilst he was doing maths for fun. People use mathematics to models things and have the theory and goal first. I do understand how mathematics is extremely important thanks, considering I'm doing a university degree in physics, no need to facepalm.
    But the maths he used to explain it is from an area of pure mathematics and Albert Einstein was thought the maths by many pure mathematicians.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    Einstein had the theory first and then used mathematics to explain it, he wasn't just doing maths and happened to stumble across equation whilst he was doing maths for fun. People use mathematics to models things and have the theory and goal first. I do understand how mathematics is extremely important thanks, considering I'm doing a university degree in physics, no need to facepalm.
    That's alright, I've heard people studying (applied) maths at university say equally stupid things. The point is, in the vast majority of those things I listed they were initially studied in a pure way and was later applied to real world problems. In reality, only a tiny amount of problems are able to be studied/solved using current mathematical methods and the only likely way that this is going to be combated is via mathematical research and the development of new areas of mathematics. The idea that the 'mathematical toolkit' currently available is sufficient to solve even a fraction of the problems mathematicians/physicists would like to solve is pretty laughable.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kadak)
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    Revolutions in Pure maths always have led to revolutions in Science.Look at how imaginary numbers and Hilbert space, which are purchasing mathematical concepts, have revolutionised physics.
    Yeah, imaginary numbers are useful in this world because physicists et al thought of how the area of mathematics could be useful. Mathematics were just like "omg this is cool" and continued to do maths with it (not sure if this is true but from the pure mathematicians I've met it wouldn't surprise me)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    Yeah, imaginary numbers are useful in this world because physicists et al thought of how the area of mathematics could be useful. Mathematics were just like "omg this is cool" and continued to do maths with it (not sure if this is true but from the pure mathematicians I've met it wouldn't surprise me)
    Yeah to be fair pure mathematicians want their maths to be useless, they like maths for the sake of maths.That's just what pure maths is all about,solving maths problems invented by mathematicians for mathematicians.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    That's alright, I've heard people studying (applied) maths at university say equally stupid things. The point is, in the vast majority of those things I listed they were initially studied in a pure way and was later applied to real world problems. In reality, only a tiny amount of problems are able to be studied/solved using current mathematical methods and the only likely way that this is going to be combated is via mathematical research and the development of new areas of mathematics. The idea that the 'mathematical toolkit' currently available is sufficient to solve even a fraction of the problems mathematicians/physicists would like to solve is pretty laughable.
    Nah it's alright, I know pure mathematicians (which I assume you are) are a bit defensive when their subject is scrutinised. I'm saying that if there were only pure mathematicians in this world and no physicists/engineers etc the world wouldn't be advancing the way it is, pure mathematicians don't apply the mathematics which is a bit pointless to me, but I guess I'm just quite a goal-orientated person :rolleyes: Sorry to break it to you, but I think that computers are more useful than pure mathematicians.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kadak)
    Yeah to be fair pure mathematicians want their maths to be useless, they like maths for the sake of maths.That's just what pure maths is all about,solving maths problems invented by mathematicians for mathematicians.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Yeah, this exact reason is why I think it's a bit dumb to spend so much time learning things and not learning how to apply it. You're just doing maths for the enjoyment which is meh..
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dalek1099)
    To find the turning points you had to solve algebraic equations so you definitely did some Maths in a way a lot of Maths is Numeracy with letters, especially at A Level where it is extremely repetitive.Differentiating x^2 and x^3 exposed the general pattern(some people don't even get taught this far one person at the Cambridge Summer School did not know that definition of a derivative and had just been given the formulas I think at college) accepting that is good enough for me, I don't think in A2 you generally get taught proofs for most things like product and chain but I got taught them at the Cambridge Summer School.
    This was basically my point. If you don't do work beyond the syllabus, the A level is rather boring. Maths A level does not require you to do much problem solving, but has a lot of plug-and-chug exercises which simply need you to memorise formulas. It does enable you to do problem solving, however.

    The same is true of physics- the A level involves little that is really interesting, because it doesn't teach that qualitatively. But it teaches enough of the principles that you can combine it with some maths and then do some actual physics. If you just learnt what's on the syllabus for either maths or physics, you'd probably be bored out of your mind.

    A nice example is that you get taught Fermat's principle of least time when dealing with refraction, this gives you the principle from which you can derive important results, but you'd never be asked to show it in an exam because A level physics doesn't contain that much maths.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    Yeah, this exact reason is why I think it's a bit dumb to spend so much time learning things and not learning how to apply it. You're just doing maths for the enjoyment which is meh..


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    That's the point.Pure mathematicians enjoy maths for the sake of maths, they are the ultimate numberphiles.The more useless the maths, the better.Which is why mathematicians loved topology and hyperdimensions which was until recently only used by pure mathematicians.By my the shock they got when string theory led to a new development in low order topology😎 hehe.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    Nah it's alright, I know pure mathematicians (which I assume you are) are a bit defensive when their subject is scrutinised. I'm saying that if there were only pure mathematicians in this world and no physicists/engineers etc the world wouldn't be advancing the way it is, pure mathematicians don't apply the mathematics which is a bit pointless to me, but I guess I'm just quite a goal-orientated person :rolleyes: Sorry to break it to you, but I think that computers are more useful than pure mathematicians.
    I heavily prefer to study pure maths, but I have no intention on going into academia so no, I wouldn't call myself a pure mathematician. I don't disagree that you need physicists and engineers to properly take advantage of the mathematical content, but this is a bit of a circular discussion because if there weren't pure mathmos doing the hard work in the first place the physicists and engineers would still be busy scratching themselves.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Noble.)
    I heavily prefer to study pure maths, but I have no intention on going into academia so no, I wouldn't call myself a pure mathematician. I don't disagree that you need physicists and engineers to properly take advantage of the mathematical content, but this is a bit of a circular discussion because if there weren't pure mathmos doing the hard work in the first place the physicists and engineers would still be busy scratching themselves.
    I guess so, I have no idea why I even debated in the first place since I'm studying theoretical physics which is heavily mathematically inclined..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Serpentine111)
    Nah it's alright, I know pure mathematicians (which I assume you are) are a bit defensive when their subject is scrutinised. I'm saying that if there were only pure mathematicians in this world and no physicists/engineers etc the world wouldn't be advancing the way it is, pure mathematicians don't apply the mathematics which is a bit pointless to me, but I guess I'm just quite a goal-orientated person :rolleyes: Sorry to break it to you, but I think that computers are more useful than pure mathematicians.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Computers aren't more useful than mathematicians. there's no point using a computer to calculations if you don't understand the underlying themes. Computers aren't going to solve the Riemann hypothesis. and the example of the Merten conjecture where a computer seemed to showed the conjecture was true but later proved false by mathematicians.Computers are only useful as mathematical models and not replacements for pure mathematicians.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kadak)
    Posted from TSR Mobile

    That's the point.Pure mathematicians enjoy maths for the sake of maths, they are the ultimate numberphiles.The more useless the maths, the better.Which is why mathematicians loved topology and hyperdimensions which was until recently only used by pure mathematicians.By my the shock they got when string theory led to a new development in low order topology😎 hehe.
    It is definitely a bit disturbing seeing how excited a pure mathematician can get talking about their subject, I love mathematics but I could never endure doing it for the sake of it and not knowing why I'm learning it
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lerjj)
    disagree. Physics would look very different if the universe weren't mathematical, but as long as it's predictable (not necessarily deterministic but at least so much so that you can draw a probability distribution), physics will always exist.

    Mathematics encodes physics. If it didn't exist, physics would be less compact, but still there. (Oh, and maths relies on philosophy surely?)
    Yeah, I see what you mean. So algebraically Maths is the function while Physics is the input 'x'.
    In a way, Maths does depend on philosophy at least in for historical purposes. Our current sexagesimal system of telling time would not exist without religious philosophy.
    This reminds me of a radio podcast I heard yesterday, it was about how the number zero would not exist if it were not for business and trading between the Eastern and Western World in the time of Babylonian and Greek mathematicians.
    Maths would probably still exist without philosophy and trading, but I dare say it would be a fair bit more dull.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 2, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.