Discussion
Started 10 September 2024

Has our mathematical knowledge progressed as much as contemporary science?

Has our mathematical knowledge progressed as much as contemporary science?
1- Assume a rectangle in the second dimension; this rectangle's components are lines. Its geometric characteristics are perimeter and area.
2- Assume a cube in the third dimension. Its components are the plane. Its geometric characteristics are area and volume.
3- What are the names of its components by transferring this figure to the 4th dimension? And what is the name of its geometric characteristics? And with the transfer to the 5th and higher dimensions, our mathematics has nothing to say.rectangle is just a simple shape how about complex geometric shapes?
According to new physical theories such as strings theory, we need to study different dimensions.

Most recent answer

Hademine Ekhyar
University of Nouakchott Al Aasriya
appelé espace vectoriel de quatre dimensions ou plus, un espace vectoriel de dimensions supérieures en mathématiques. Nous devons se pencher sur ces espaces et examinons leur comportement, leurs opérations et leurs interrelations. En comprenant ces dimensions étendues, nous sommes en mesure d'explorer des concepts mathématiques complexes et de les appliquer à divers domaines scientifiques et technologiques.

Popular replies (1)

Dinu Teodorescu
Valahia University of Targoviste
Dear Yousef, we can not give "names" for each dimension n>3, because we would need an infinite number of names! ( How to name the cube in the space with 357 dimensions? ) If n>3, it's sufficient to add prefix "hyper", and every mathematician will understand correctly the sense!
The best description is in the case of dimension n=3. We have the cube, having as faces 6 bounded pieces from planes( that is 6 equal squares situated in 6 different planes).
The analogue of cube in dimension n=2 is the square( not the rectangle) having as "faces" 4 equal segments situated on 4 different lines.
The analogue of cube in all other n - dimensional space Rn with n>3 is called hypercube.
The hypercube in 4 dimensions has equal cubes as faces and each such face is situated in a 3 - dimensional space R3.
The hypercube in 5 dimensions has equal hypercubes from R4 as faces.
....................................................................................................................
No contradiction, all clear!
Analogue regarding the sphere! Sphere in 3 dimensions, circle in 2 dimensions, hypersphere in all dimension n>3 . Here the equations defining all such math objects are extremely obviously similar.
Hypercubes and hyperspheres have hypervolumes !
So, to study efficiently and seriously string theory you need more and more advanced mathematics!
4 Recommendations

All replies (6)

Dear Yousef, there is a well known experiment in physics which shows that space is closed by three dimensions.
Math — as the formalism — could not bring news for physics.
Yousef Yousefi
Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz
Thanks to reply peter but math as ideal world and existance of abstract object do not have any limitation .now adays there are alot of theory in physics which require more dimension .any how there is posiblity for existance of higher dimension in nature which our math can not suport them
Math isn't any object. Math is the formalism. If the formalism goes its own way we are not able to find the isometry. If not on isometry, no formalism!
Space is done by power three. Math can deal with power n. See old math.
What is dimension? This is the question.
Dinu Teodorescu
Valahia University of Targoviste
Dear Yousef, we can not give "names" for each dimension n>3, because we would need an infinite number of names! ( How to name the cube in the space with 357 dimensions? ) If n>3, it's sufficient to add prefix "hyper", and every mathematician will understand correctly the sense!
The best description is in the case of dimension n=3. We have the cube, having as faces 6 bounded pieces from planes( that is 6 equal squares situated in 6 different planes).
The analogue of cube in dimension n=2 is the square( not the rectangle) having as "faces" 4 equal segments situated on 4 different lines.
The analogue of cube in all other n - dimensional space Rn with n>3 is called hypercube.
The hypercube in 4 dimensions has equal cubes as faces and each such face is situated in a 3 - dimensional space R3.
The hypercube in 5 dimensions has equal hypercubes from R4 as faces.
....................................................................................................................
No contradiction, all clear!
Analogue regarding the sphere! Sphere in 3 dimensions, circle in 2 dimensions, hypersphere in all dimension n>3 . Here the equations defining all such math objects are extremely obviously similar.
Hypercubes and hyperspheres have hypervolumes !
So, to study efficiently and seriously string theory you need more and more advanced mathematics!
4 Recommendations
Siham Aldwibi
Alasmarya Islamic University
Mathematics has indeed progressed significantly, paralleling advancements in contemporary science. Let’s explore your questions about dimensions and their geometric characteristics:
2D Rectangle:
Components: LinesGeometric Characteristics: Perimeter and Area
3D Cube:
Components: Planes (faces)Geometric Characteristics: Surface Area and Volume
4D Hypercube (Tesseract):
Components: 3D volumes (cubes)Geometric Characteristics: Hyper-surface area and Hyper-volume
When we move to the 4th dimension, the components of a hypercube are 3D cubes. The geometric characteristics extend to hyper-surface area (analogous to surface area in 3D) and hyper-volume (analogous to volume in 3D).
5D and Higher Dimensions:Components: For a 5D hypercube, the components are 4D hypercubes.Geometric Characteristics: These include hyper-surface area and hyper-volume, but in higher dimensions, these terms become more abstract and are often referred to as n-dimensional volume or content.
Mathematics does have tools to study higher dimensions, especially through the fields of topology, algebraic geometry, and theoretical physics. Complex geometric shapes in higher dimensions are studied using advanced mathematical concepts and techniques.
String Theory and other modern physical theories indeed require the study of multiple dimensions beyond the familiar three. These theories often involve 10 or 11 dimensions, where the extra dimensions are compactified or curled up in such a way that they are not observable at macroscopic scales.
This answer was generated by AI.
1 Recommendation
Hademine Ekhyar
University of Nouakchott Al Aasriya
appelé espace vectoriel de quatre dimensions ou plus, un espace vectoriel de dimensions supérieures en mathématiques. Nous devons se pencher sur ces espaces et examinons leur comportement, leurs opérations et leurs interrelations. En comprenant ces dimensions étendues, nous sommes en mesure d'explorer des concepts mathématiques complexes et de les appliquer à divers domaines scientifiques et technologiques.

Similar questions and discussions

Does Every Mathematical Framework Correspond to a Physical Reality? The Limits of Mathematical Pluralism in Physics
Discussion
14 replies
  • Seyed Mohammad MousaviSeyed Mohammad Mousavi
Does Every Mathematical Framework Correspond to a Physical Reality? The Limits of Mathematical Pluralism in Physics
Introduction
Physics has long been intertwined with mathematics as its primary tool for modeling nature. However, a fundamental question arises:
  • Does every possible mathematical framework correspond to a physical reality, or is our universe governed by only a limited set of mathematical structures?
This question challenges the assumption that any mathematical construct must necessarily describe a real physical system. If we take a purely mathematical perspective, an infinite number of logically consistent mathematical structures can be conceived. Yet, why does our physical reality seem to adhere to only a few specific mathematical frameworks, such as differential geometry, group theory, and linear algebra?
Important Questions for Discussion
v Mathematical Pluralism vs. Physical Reality:
  • Are all mathematically consistent systems realizable in some physical sense, or is there a deeper reason why certain mathematical structures dominate physical theories?
  • Could there exist universes governed by entirely different mathematical rules that we cannot even conceive of within our current formalism?
v Physics as a Computationally Limited System:
  • Is our universe constrained by a specific subset of mathematical frameworks due to inherent physical principles, or is this a reflection of our cognitive limitations in developing theories?
  • Why do our fundamental laws of physics rely so heavily on certain mathematical structures while neglecting others?
v The Relationship Between Mathematics and Nature:
  • Is mathematics an inherent property of nature, or is it merely a tool that we impose on the physical world?
  • If every mathematical structure has an equivalent physical reality, should we expect an infinite multiverse where every possible mathematical law is realized somewhere?
v Beyond Mathematical Formalism:
  • Could there be fundamental aspects of physics that are not fully describable within any mathematical framework?
  • Does the reliance on mathematical models lead us to mistakenly attribute physical existence to purely abstract mathematical entities?
Philosophical Implications
This discussion also touches on a deeper philosophical question: Are we merely discovering the mathematical laws of an objectively real universe, or are we creating a mathematical framework that fits within the constraints of our own perception and cognition?
If mathematics is merely a tool, then our physical theories may be contingent on human cognition and not necessarily reflective of a deeper objective reality. Conversely, if mathematics is truly the "language of nature," then understanding its full structure might reveal hidden aspects of the universe yet to be discovered.
Werner Heisenberg once suggested that physics will never lead us to an objective physical reality, but rather to models that describe relationships between observable quantities. Should we accept that physics is not about describing a fundamental "truth," but rather about constructing the most effective predictive models?

Related Publications

Article
A theory with such a mathematical beauty cannot be wrong: this was one of the main arguments in favor of string theory, which unifies all known physical theories of fundamental interactions in a single coherent description of the universe. But no one has ever observed strings, not even indirectly, neither the space of extra dimensions where they li...
Article
Full-text available
Physicists have always ushered brand new stages for constructing a perfect model to describe nature. Nowadays, there are plenty of theories appeared, and parts of them haven’t been proven yet. However, as Paul Dirac’s saying, “It is more important to have beauty in one's equations than to have them fit experiment.” String theory is a typical exa...
Article
Full-text available
Modern (theoretical) physics seems to be in deep crisis today as many of its core aspects are not empirically well-confirmed. Heated exchanges among physicists on the scientific status of physical theories with little or, at best, a tenuous connection to possible experimental tests is highly visible in the popular scientific literature. Some physic...
Got a technical question?
Get high-quality answers from experts.