Quote (taekvideo @ Aug 10 2012 10:23pm)
They have very conflicting philosophies.
Math is proof-based... you start with a small set of axioms and expand outward using proofs.
Physics is the opposite... you start by making observations and then construct a model which "fits".
For a mathematician physics can be very unsettling.
It's loaded with formulas which aren't proven to be "true"... but have just worked whenever used in the past (whereas in math, it's been shown that the Collatz Conjecture is true for the first 5,700,000,000,000,000,000 integers, as well as other significant evidence in favor of it, but the Collatz Conjecture won't be considered "true" unless a rigorous proof is found)
As a result the "truths" in physics often change (Newtonian physics overturned by relativity, which was in turntrumped by string theory)... and all existing models are only approximations, and aren't necessarily what actually happens (especially considering that existing models contradict each other), and there isn't as much emphasis on finding out why formulas work as just showing that they do through experiments.
not yet, no evidence to support it
/e you also left out like half of the scientific method, the whole rigorous experiment part to attempt to prove the idea wrong
but i understand the your point
This post was edited by majorblood on Aug 11 2012 12:32am