<p>Do you honestly think physics would be where it is today if mathematics did not exist? For example, I’m studying physics III now, and many physical discoveries were the result of intense mathematics. Consider the discovery of the positron. The existence of the positron was predicted by manipulating the relativistic version of the Schrodinger equation( the Dirac equation). Do you really think scientists would have actively searched for a positron particle had it not been for an equation predicting it? Probably not considering that nobody had ever thought of such a concept until math predicted it. Would physicists be able to create a quantum mechanical model of the atom without mathematics? Where would quantum mechanical physics be without mathematics? </p>
<p>I’m sure you could develop qualitative observations of things like circuits, gravity, etc. Oh the apple falls from a tree every time it is released. Oh resistivity of a wire goes up with temperature. But would physics like that really be of any use without mathematics? In order for physics to be a precise science it obviously needs mathematics. Physics would not be where it is today without mathematics. </p>
<p>Maybe very basic qualitative physics (i.e. every time I release an apple it hits the ground) can exist without math, but physics as we know it today cannot exist or advance without math. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If by empirical, you mean experimental, then math is obviously not empirical, but that clearly does not make it less credible in any way.</p>
<p>Brown Man: I think physics can exist without math but it would just be stamp collecting. For instance chemistry can be learned and used without knowledge of physics, but it is trivial being based on just observation. Chemistry is to Physics as Physics is to Mathematics (just like the XKCD comic shown earlier). So for physics to be useful it needs mathematics. </p>
<p>If that isn’t good enough just think of a balloon being pushed by the wind. It can be thought of as the wind will push the balloon in the direction of the wind, but the final position can only be accurately predicted using mathematics. So while Mathematics isn’t necessary for [basic] physics it is very useful in physics. </p>
<p>Consider what Einstein said "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. "</p>
<p>I do not think that Physics began as an offset of Mathematics and Mathematics is certainly not an offset or by product of Physics. Today, it seems that Physics is intricately involved in Math but that is just the nature of any technical science today–the embodiment of a modern day theory/law typically requires quantifiable evidence which is provided through Mathematical equations/relations.</p>
<p>I feel that Physics began as a branch of natural philosophy and that many physical concepts preceded their mathematical relationships For example, the intuition that there was “some uniform gravitational force” or “a spring relationship”, common physics concepts, are devoid of any Math. However in order to prove or deeply analyze a physical concept, Mathematics must be used, be it a complex equation or simple symbolic relationships.</p>
<p>butchokoy why would electronics communication be a major branch of engineering? Anyways I would probably have to agree with Wikipedia’s choices on this one.</p>