|
Mathematics Is More Than Just A Language- It Is Language Plus Logic
There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the
mathematical form.
It this were the only law of this character it would be interesting and
rather annoying. But what turns out to be true is that the more we
investigate, the more laws we find, and the deeper we penetrate nature, the
more this disease persists. Every one of our laws is a purely mathematical
statement in rather complex and abstruse mathematics. Newton's statement
of the law of gravitation is relatively simple mathematics. It gets more
and more abstruse and more and more difficult as we go on. Why? I have
not the slightest idea. It is only my purpose here to tell you about this
fact. The burden of the lecture is just to emphasize the fact that it is
impossible to explain honestly the beauties of the laws of nature in a way
that people can feel, without their having some deep understanding of
mathematics. I am sorry, but this seems to be the case.
You might say, "All right, then if there is no explanation of the law, at
least tell me what the law is. Why not tell me in words instead of
symbols? Mathematics is just a language, and I want to be able to
translate the language." In fact I can, with patience, and I think I
partly did. I could go a little further and explain in more detail that
the equation means that if the distance is twice as far the force is one
fourth as much, and so on. I could convert all the symbols into words. In
other words I could be kind to the layman as they all sit hopefully waiting
for me to explain something. Different people get different reputations
for their skill at explaining to the layman in layman's language these
difficult and abstruse subjects. The layman then searches for book after
book in the hope that he will avoid the complexities which eventually set
in, even with the best expositor of this type. He finds as he reads a
generally increasing confusion, one complicated statement after another,
one difficult-to-understand thing after another, all apparently
disconnected from one another. It becomes obscure, and he hopes that maybe
in some other book there is some explanation... The author almost made it-
maybe another fellow will make it right.
But I do not think it is possible, because mathematics is not just
another language. Mathematics is a language plus reasoning; it is like a
language plus logic. Mathematics is a tool for reasoning. It is in fact a
big collection of the results of some person's careful thought and
reasoning. By mathematics it is possible to connect one statement to
another. For instance, I can say that the force is directed towards the
sun. I can also tell you, as I did, that the planet moves so that if I
draw a line from the sun to the planet, and draw another line at some
definite period, like three weeks, later, then the area that is swung out
by the planet is exactly the same as it will be in the next three weeks,
and the next three weeks, and so on as it goes around the sun. I can
explain both of those statements carefully, but I cannot explain why they
are both the same. The apparent enormous complexities of nature, with all
its funny laws and rules, each of which has been carefully explained to
you, are really very closely interwoven. However, if you do not appreciate
the mathematics, you cannot see, among the great variety of facts, that
logic permits you to go from one to another.
It may be unbelievable that I can demonstrate that equal areas will be
swept out in equal times if the forces are directed towards the sun. So if
I may, I will do one demonstration to show you that those two things really
are equivalent, so that you can appreciate more than the mere statement of
the two laws. I will show that the two laws are connected so that
reasoning alone will bring you from one to the other, and that mathematics
is just organized reasoning. Then you will appreciate the beauty of the
relationship of the statements. I am going to prove the relationship that
if the forces are directed towards the sun then equal areas are swept out
in equal times.
Fig. 1
We start with a sun and a planet (Fig. 1), and we imagine that at a certain
time the planet is at position 1. It is moving in such a way that, say,
one second later it has moved to position 2. If the sun did not exert a
force on the planet, then, by Galileo's principle of inertia, it would keep
right on going in a straight line. So after the same interval of time, the
next second, it would have moved exactly the same distance in the same
straight line, to the position 3. First we are going to show that if ther
is no force, then equal areas are swept out in equal times. I
remind you that the area of a triangle is half the base times the altitude,
and that the altitude is the vertical distance to the base. If the
triangle is obtuse (Fig. 2), then the altitude is the vertical height AD
and the base is BC. Now let us compare the areas which would be swept out
if the sun exerted no force whatsoever (Fig. 1).
Fig. 2
The two distances 1-2 and 2-3 are equal, remember. The question is, are
the two areas equal? Consider the triangle made from the sun and the two
points 1 and 2. What is its area? It is the base 1-2, multiplied by half
the perpendicular height from the baseline to S. What about the other
triangle, the triangle in the motion from 2 to 3? Its area is the base
2-3, times half the perpendicular height to S. The two triangles have the
same altitude, and, as I indicated, the same base, and therefore they have
the same area. So far so good. If there were no force from the sun, equal
areas would be swept out in equal times. But there is a force from
the sun. During the interval 1-2-3 the sun is pulling and changing the
motion in various directions towards itself. To get a good approximation
we will take the central position, or average position, at 2, and say that
the whole effect during the interval 1-3 was to change the motion by some
amount in the direction of the line 2-S. (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3
This means that though the particles were moving on the line 1-2, and
would, were there no force, have continued to move on the same line in the
next second, because of the influence of the sun the motion is altered by
an amount that is poking in a direction parallel to the line 2-S. The next
motion is therefore a compound of what the planet wanted to do and the
change that has been induced by the action of the sun. So the planet does
not really end up at position 3, but rather at position 4. Now we would
like to compare the areas of the triangles 23S and 24S, and I will show you
that those are equal. They have the same base, S-2. Do they have the same
altitude? Sure, because they are included between parallel lines. The
distance from 4 to the line S-2 is equal to the distance from 3 to line S-2
(extended). Thus the area of the triangle S24 is the same as S23. I
proved earlier that S12 and S23 were equal in area, so we now know S12 =
S24. So, in the actual orbital motion of the planet the areas swept out in
the first second and the second second are equal. Therefore, by reasoning,
we can see a connection between the fact that the force is towards the sun,
and the fact that the areas are equal. Isn't that ingenious? I borrowed
it straight from Newton. It comes right out of the Principia,
diagram and all. Only the letters are different, because he wrote in Latin
and these are Arabic numerals...
Mathematics, then, is a way of going from one set of statements to another.
It is evidently useful in physics, because we have these different ways in
which we can speak of things, and mathematics permits us to develop
consequences, to analyse the situations, and to change the laws in
different ways to connect the various statements. In fact the total amount
that a physicist knows is very little. He has only to remember the rules
to get him from one place to another and he is all right, because all the
various statements about equal times, the force being in the direction of
the radius, and so on, are all interconnected by reasoning.
- Richard Feynman
|
|