Why can mathematics and physics simulate natural phenomena so closely in thought experiments, calculations and computer programs?
In: 163
Because that’s the point.
The main reason for much of the work in physics and math is to describe the natural world. And we can come up with lots of models that are just wrong, but we can “easily” verify that they are wrong because the baseline is the observable world.
I always bring this back to the frustrating opening to the Bee Movie:
> According to all known laws of aviation, there is no way that a bee should be able to fly. Its wings are too small to get its fat little body off the ground. The bee, of course, flies anyway because bees don’t care what humans think is impossible.
Think about this for a moment. We have come up with some understanding of how aerodynamics work, how planes work, etc. Maybe this model works really really well for an airplane, or a bird, or whatever. Now we try to apply the model to a bee, and it falls apart. Does that mean that a bee “defies the laws of physics” or does it mean that we just don’t understand how a bee works?
Obviously there’s a way to describe how a bee works. It flies, so if our math says it can’t, our math is wrong. If I’m not mistaken (this isn’t really my area of expertise) the “laws of aviation” that don’t work for a bee are the models for how airplanes or gliding birds fly. If you think of a bee more like a helicopter, then it all works out. As it should.
Latest Answers