Advertisement

The Role of Mathematics in Fundamental Physics

  • Jane McDonnell
Chapter
  • 314 Downloads

Abstract

In this chapter, I argue that the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in fundamental physics has become evident through our growing understanding of the significance of symmetry principles in nature and the ever-expanding repertoire of mathematical concepts and tools developed to extend that understanding. Symmetry principles are not inherently mathematical—they have formed the conceptual basis of philosophical arguments since earliest times. However, in the last 100 years or so, they have been taken to a new level of sophistication, enabling us to explore unobservable physical realms where the concepts are, of necessity, physico-mathematical, in the sense that the unobservable physical entities are directly represented by the mathematical forms and our only knowledge of them is implicit in the mathematics. For example, consider the modern gauge theory of QCD which describes the dynamics of quarks and gluons inside nucleons. The forces and particles which it contains are determined by the invariance of its equations under the local symmetry group SU(3). Wilczek, one of the discoverers of QCD, writes:

Keywords

Gauge Theory String Theory Global Symmetry Physical Theory Goldstone Boson 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anderson, P. 1972. More Is Different. Science 177: 393–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atiyah, M. 1990. On the Work of Edward Witten. Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Kyoto, Japan: 31–35.Google Scholar
  3. Barrow, J., and F. Tipler. 1986. The Anthropic Cosmological Principle. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Benacerraf, P. 1965. What Numbers Could Not Be. Philosophical Review 74: 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng, T., and L. Li. 1984. Gauge Theory of Elementary Particle Physics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Douglas, M. 2003. The Statistics of String/M Theory Vacuam. Journal of High Energy Physics 0305, Vol. 46, arXiv:hep-th/0303194, pp. 1–72.Google Scholar
  7. Eddington, A. 1923. The Mathematical Theory of Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1928. The Nature of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Frege, G. 1884. The Foundations of Arithmetic. Translated by J.L. Austin. Northwestern University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. French, S. 2000. The Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics: Partial Structures and the Application of Group Theory to Physics. Synthese 125: 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fritzsch, H., and M. Gell-Mann 1972. Current Algebra: Quarks and What Else? Reprinted in Murray Gell-Mann: Selected Papers, edited by H. Fritzsch, 241–261, 2010. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  12. Gabrielse, G. 2013. The Standard Model’s Greatest Triumph. Physics Today 66: 64–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greene, B. 2000. The Elegant Universe. London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  14. Gross, D. 1988. Physics and Mathematics at the Frontier. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 85: 8371–8375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 1992a. Asymptotic Freedom and the Emergence of QCD. Talk delivered at the Third International Symposium on the History of Particle Physics, June 26, 1992, arXiv:hep-ph/9210207v1, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
  16. ———. 1992b. Gauge Theory-Past, Present, and Future? Chinese Journal of Physics 30: 955–972.Google Scholar
  17. ———. 1996. The Role of Symmetry in Fundamental Physics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 93(25): 14256–14259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. ———. 2004. The Triumph and Limitations of Quantum Field Theory. In Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Field Theory, edited by T.Y. Cao, 56–67. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. ———. 2007. Quantum Field Theory and Beyond. Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement 170: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heisenberg, W. 1989. Encounters with Einstein. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Itzykson, I., and J. Zuber. 1985. Quantum Field Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Janssen, M., and J. Renn. 2015. Arch and Scaffold: How Einstein Found His Field Equations. Physics Today 68: 30–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ladyman, J., and D. Ross. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lepage, P. 1989. What Is Renormalization? In Proceedings of TASI’89: From Actions to Answers, edited by T. DeGrand and D. Toussaint. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
  25. Norton, J. 2003. General Covariance, Gauge Theories, and the Kretschmann Objection. In Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, edited by K. Brading and E. Castellani, 110–123. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. O’Meara, D. 1989. Pythagoras Revived: Mathematics and Philosophy in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Pincock, C. 2012. Mathematics and Scientific Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Poincaré, H. 1906. La Valeur de la Science, Paris: Flammarion, translated by G. Halsted as The Value of Science. New York: Dover, 1958.Google Scholar
  29. Quine, W. 1976. Whither Physical Objects? In Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 39; Synthese Library volume 99, edited by Robert S. Cohen and Marx W. Wartofsky, 497–504.Google Scholar
  30. Ryckman, T. 2003. The Philosophical Roots of the Gauge Principle: Weyl and Transcendental Phenomenological Idealism. In Symmetries in Physics: Philosophical Reflections, edited by K. Brading and E. Castellani, 61–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. ———. 2005. The Reign of Relativity: Philosophy in Physics 1915–1925. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schweber, S. 1961. An Introduction to Relativistic Quantum Field Theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  33. Smolin, L. 2005. The Case for Background Independence. Talk delivered to the British Association for the Philosophy of Science, July, 2004, arXiv:hep-th/0507235v1, pp. 1–46.Google Scholar
  34. Steiner, M. 1998. The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. ———. 2005. Mathematics—Application and Applicability. In The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic, edited by S. Shapiro, 625–650. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Tegmark, M. 2008. The Mathematical Universe. Foundations of Physics 38: 101–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Weinberg, S. 1987. Towards the Final Laws of Physics. In Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures, edited by R. Feynman and S. Weinberg, 61–111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Weyl, H. 1918. Das Kontinuum: Kritische Untersuchungen uber die Grundlagen der Analysis, Leipzig: Veit. Translated by S. Pollard and T. Bowl as The Continuum: A Critical Examination of the Foundations of Analysis (1994), New York: Dover.Google Scholar
  39. ———. 1952. Symmetry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wigner, E. 1960. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Communications of Pure and Applied Mathematics 13: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. ———. 1979. Symmetries and Reflections: Scientific Essays. Woodbridge, CT: Ox Bow Press.Google Scholar
  42. Wilczek, F. 2003. QCD and Natural Philosophy. Annals Henri Poincaré 4(Suppl. 1): S211–S228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. ———. 2008. The Lightness of Being. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  44. Wilson, M. 2000. The Unreasonable Uncooperativeness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences. Monist 83: 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zee, A. 1986. Fearful Symmetry: The Search for Beauty in Modern Physics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jane McDonnell
    • 1
  1. 1.Philosophy Department ClaytonVictoriaAustralia

Personalised recommendations