MATHEMATICAL MODELS IN SCIENCE: BRIDGING DIFFERENCES AND DISCOVERING COMMONALITIES
Abstract
Various scientific disciplines, including biometrics, chemometrics, psychometrics, and econometrics, share a deep connection with statistics but often employ specialized applications. Effective communication across these interdisciplinary boundaries necessitates a common language, and mathematics serves as a universal bridge among the natural sciences. This article centers on the language of mathematics and its role in scientific modeling. The thesis posited here is that mathematical models should be formulated in a manner comprehensible, with some effort, to serious researchers across all disciplines, despite potential cultural barriers. The notion of "understanding" is multifaceted, exemplified by the enigmatic realm of quantum mechanics. While quantum theory is traditionally presented in an abstract language that facilitates calculations, its interpretation remains contentious, posing challenges for researchers outside the physics domain. Notably, quantum mechanics was initially expressed in distinct languages—Schrödinger's wave mechanics and Heisenberg's matrix mechanics—before being mathematically unified. This unification yielded a mathematically elegant yet conceptually intricate theory, accompanied by over 16 partially conflicting interpretations. In the works of Helland (2021) and Helland (2022a), a novel foundation is proposed, potentially more accessible to researchers beyond the quantum community. It introduces conceptual variables denoted as θ, emerging from inquiries like "What will θ be if measured?" Particularly in the discrete case, often central in textbooks and research, precise responses in the form of "θ = u" can be obtained.
Keywords:
Mathematics, interdisciplinary communication, mathematical models, quantum mechanics, conceptual variablesDownloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Erik Magnus Johansen

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Benjamini, Y., De Veaux, R. D., Efron, B., Evans, S., Glickman, M., Graudbard, B. I., & Kafadar, K. (2021). The ASA president’s task force statement on statistical significance and replicability. Annals of Applied Statistics, 15(3), 1084-1085.
Bhadra, A., Datta, J., Polson, N., Sokolov, V., & Xu, J. (2021). Merging two cultures: Deep and statistical learning. arXiv: 2110.11561 [stat.ME].
Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: The two cultures. Statistical Science, 16, 199-231.
Burnside, W. (1955). Theory of groups of finite order. Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
Cook, R. D. (2018). An Introduction to Envelopes. Wiley, Hoboken, N.J.
Cook, R. D., Li, B., & Chiaromonte, F. (2010). Envelope models for parsimonious and efficient multivariate linear regression. Statistica Sinica, 20, 927-1010.
Cook, R. D., Helland, I. S., & Su, Z. (2013). Envelopes and partial least squares regression. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 75, 851-877.
Cook, R. D., & Forzani, L. (2019). Partial least squares prediction in high-dimensional regression. Annals of Statistics, 47(2), 884-908.
Cox, D. R., & Wermuth, N. (2004). Causality: A statistical view. International Statistical Review, 72(3), 285-305.
Efron, B., & Hastie, T. (2021). Computer Age Statistical Inference. Algorithms, Evidence, and Data Science. Student Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Fisher, R. A. (1973). Statistical methods and scientific inference. Hafner Press, New York.
Fraser, D. A. S. (1964). On the definition of fiducial probability. Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 40, 842-856.
Hall, B. C. (2013). Quantum Theory for Mathematicians. Springer, New York.
Helland, I. S. (1990). Partial least squares and statistical models. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 17, 97-114.
Helland, I. S. (1992). Maximum likelihood regression on relevant components. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 54(2), 637-647.