Science & Education (2024) 33:365–382

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00393-5

ARTICLE

Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics

Perspectives for Physics Education

Elina Palmgren1 · Tapio Rasa2

Accepted: 22 September 2022 / Published online: 7 November 2022

© The Author(s) 2022

Abstract
Modelling roles of mathematics in physics has proved to be a difficult task, with previous
models of the interplay between the two disciplines mainly focusing on mathematical mod‑
elling and problem solving. However, to convey a realistic view of physics as a field of sci‑
ence to our students, we need to do more than train them to become fluent in modelling and
problem solving. In this article, we present a new characterisation of the roles mathematics
plays in physics and physics education, taking as a premise that mathematics serves as a
constitutive structure in physics analogous to language. In doing so, we aim to highlight
how mathematics affects the way we conceptualise physical phenomena. To contextualise
our characterisation, we examine some of the existing models and discuss aspects of the
interplay between physics and mathematics that are missing in them. We then show how
these aspects are incorporated in our characterisation in which mathematics serves as a
foundation upon which physical theories are built, and on which we may build mathemati‑
cal representations of physical information that in turn serve as a basis for further reasoning
and modifications. Through reasoning processes mathematics also aids in generating new
information and explanations. We have elucidated each of these roles with an example from
the historical development of quantum physics. To conclude, we discuss how our new char‑
acterisation may aid the development of physics education and physics education research.

1 Introduction

The relationship between physics and mathematics has been widely discussed in the field of
physics education research. It is undeniable that mathematics has an important, even insep‑
arable, role in physics, and thus also in physics education. However, modelling the role of
mathematics in physics has turned out difficult, and the focus has most often been quite nar‑
row. The existing literature has largely concentrated on problem solving through mathematical

* Elina Palmgren
[email protected]
Tapio Rasa
[email protected]
1
Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, POB 64, FI‑00014 Helsinki, Finland
2
Department of Education, University of Helsinki, POB 9, FI‑00014 Helsinki, Finland

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
366 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

manipulations or on mathematical modelling. In physics education research, student reasoning

has often been studied using thinking-out-loud problem-solving interviews, e.g. in Walsh et al.
(2007), Bing and Redish (2009), and Kuo et al. (2013), just to mention some. Also models and
their significance have been widely discussed in many areas. For example Greca and Moreira
(2001) and Kanderakis (2016) provide some notable discussions on relationships among phys‑
ical and mathematical models and how they consequently affect scientific understanding.
Arguably all these contributions build on the general issue of the role of mathemat‑
ics in physics. Recently, Pospiech (2019) has provided an extensive overview of previous
research on the topic, and they present multiple models that intend to capture the interplay
between physics and mathematics. These models describe how the roles of mathematics
manifest in physics, again emphasising the aforementioned perspectives of mathematical
modelling and problem solving. Typically, their starting point is a qualitative description of
a system or phenomenon (e.g. a problem assignment) that is then translated into a mathe‑
matical form using available mathematical tools. As the existing models highlight, this pro‑
cess generally requires physical understanding in addition to proficiency with mathemati‑
cal methods. The mathematised description of the system or phenomenon can subsequently
be manipulated mathematically and finally reinterpreted in physical terms. Our goal in this
paper is to examine and build on this perspective by suggesting a novel characterisation of
the roles of mathematics in physics, and by illustrating our characterisation with examples
from the history of quantum physics. In addition, we discuss the implications of our char‑
acterisation to physics education, especially at the university level.
In this article, we have chosen for discussion two of the most prominent theoretical
models of the interplay presented by Pospiech (2019): the modelling cycle adapted from
mathematics education research by Redish and Kuo (2015) (see also, Redish, 2005; Redish
& Smith, 2008) and the revised, more nuanced version of this model by Uhden et al.
(2012). These models provide for our discussion a sufficient background into how the use
of mathematics in physics is conceptualised in many of the models presented in physics
education research. However, while the models by Redish and Kuo (2015) and Uhden et al.
(2012) mostly focus on physics in high school or early university levels, our characterisa‑
tion intends to describe the roles of mathematics in general. Thus, its implications for phys‑
ics instruction can, at least in principle, be extended to all levels of education.
Our aim is to discuss what aspects of the interplay between physics and mathemat‑
ics are missing in the previous models and how to incorporate them into a new kind of
characterisation of the roles mathematics plays in physics. To achieve this aim, we have
chosen to distance ourselves from the modelling and problem-solving perspective, and
instead emphasise how mathematics affects the way we conceptualise physical phenom‑
ena. We do not intend to discuss only how mathematics is utilised in classrooms, but
also probe the epistemological foundations of physics knowledge: how physics knowl‑
edge is formed and what is the role of mathematics in this process. Rooting our discus‑
sion in existing literature, we discuss the relationship between physics and mathemat‑
ics from the point of view previously presented by, e.g. Pietrocola (2002) and Kneubil
and Robilotta (2015), namely that contemporary physics has largely taken form within
an interrelationship with mathematics. In a sense, mathematics has given physicists an
ability to think about the material world (Pietrocola, 2002). Because of this the way, we
conceptualise physical phenomena is often characteristically mathematical. Of course,
this issue touches on some fundamental questions on the epistemology of mathemat‑
ics (see, e.g. Quale, 2011a, b), which in turn may stem from unresolved philosophical
debates on the nature of knowledge and “realness”. However, our view is that the inter‑
play of physics and mathematics can be characterised meaningfully without an explicit

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics 367

commitment to any certain ontology of mathematics, and hope our article also serves to
demonstrates this approach.
Mathematics accounts for much of the form of physical knowledge. This is to say
that the mathematical constructs available at the time of formation of a physical theory
contribute to shaping the theory. On the other hand, the mathematical constructs used
are also selected and modified for the use of a particular theory and its physical con‑
text. This idea of a two-way dynamic between mathematical and physical constructs and
knowledge is echoed by the evolutionary perspective of human knowledge presented
by Galili (2018). In essence, this view posits that the effectiveness of mathematics in
accounting for reality is a result of a long process in which mathematical constructs
have been tested in (or conceived for) the construction of physics knowledge. The failed
attempts have been discarded while successful constructs have found their place in
established structures.
As was earlier asserted, following the argument by Kneubil and Robilotta (2015), phys‑
ics has been formed in close connection with mathematics. Naturally this entails that the
relationship between the two disciplines has not been one-sided, mathematics only feed‑
ing information to physics. On the contrary, physics has played a significant role in the
advancement of mathematics. For example Kjeldsen and Lützen (2015) have discussed
how physics contributed to the formation of the concept of mathematical function, just to
mention one example. This complex interaction between the disciplines has been exten‑
sively discussed in Galili (2018). However, in this article we have limited our perspective
to the role mathematics plays in physics, and we merely touch on the issue of their other
interactions.
Of course, recognition of these issues is not new to science education. For example in
the Science for All Americans framework (AAAS, 1989, p. 17), mathematics “provides
science with powerful tools to use in analysing data” and “is the chief language of sci‑
ence” that provides precision and a “grammar” for analysis. Accordingly, the mathematical
underpinnings of scientific activity and knowledge has seen some discussion in nature of
science (NOS) literature (see e.g. Erduran et al., 2019; Galili, 2019), even if it arguably has
rarely been at the forefront. However, here we have focused on a historical-philosophical
perspective, similarly to, e.g. Uhden et al. (2012). By stepping back from a problem-solv‑
ing centred perspective, we also direct our discussion primarily to higher education, but
will suggest some educational implications relevant for lower educational stages as well.
Indeed, from all these perspectives, the role of mathematics in physics is much more
than serving as a tool for modelling and manipulations, and our main goal in this article is
to illustrate this further. First and foremost, in our new characterisation we argue that math‑
ematics can be regarded as providing physical theories with a skeletal structure. This is the
foundation upon which we may build various representations (models) following the physi‑
cal–mathematical rules stemming from the underlying structure. These representations in
turn can be shared (communicated) and examined further. Further reasoning based on a
representation may give rise to new insights that would not have been possible were the
situation not presented using mathematics. These processes often get trivialised if we focus
only on mathematisation and manipulations.
In the following, we have elucidated each presented role with an example from the his‑
torical development of quantum physics. We have selected quantum physics as our refer‑
ence theory because it is relatively easy to find suitable examples from it. This is likely
because quantum physics is a highly math-intensive area of physics. However, we could
have chosen the examples from, e.g. electro-magnetism that has previously been the sub‑
ject of extensive discussion in similar contexts (cf. Silva, 2007; Tweney, 2009, 2011).

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
368 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

While the roles explicated in our new characterisation may be new to previous models
that have aimed to depict the interplay between physics and mathematics, they have been
discussed in other contexts. For example Gire and Price (2015) have examined the signifi‑
cance of notational systems on problem solving, while Tweney (2009, 2011) has discussed
the contribution of different representations to the subsequent reasoning processes. Various
ways of mathematical reasoning have been discussed, e.g. by Hull et al. (2013) who aim to
shift the focus to more blended reasoning in problem solving, and Tzanakis and Thomaidis
(2000), Pask (2003), Silva (2007), and Gingras (2015) who have examined the use of anal‑
ogies and deductive as well as inductive reasoning. The way mathematics gives rise to new
knowledge has also been discussed elsewhere: for example Quale (2011a, b) has examined
the appearance of unexpected entities and solutions, and Vemulapalli and Byerly (2004)
have focused on quantitative variables in physical theories. The purpose of our new char‑
acterisation is to collect and organise these existing but somewhat scattered pieces of the
puzzle, and in doing so suggest a background for the discussion on the roles mathematics
plays in physics learning and teaching.
In the next sections, we first present a brief overview of the existing models, discuss
the elements missing in these models and then present a new characterisation looking at
the theme from a different angle. We begin by presenting two previous depictions of how
mathematics is used in physics. After this, we present our characterisation of the roles
mathematics takes in different situations in the context of physics. Each role is demon‑
strated with an example from the history of quantum physics. The existing models and
the proposed characterisation are then contrasted with each other and with the previous
research literature.

2 Models of the Interplay

Pospiech (2019) has reviewed the topic of mathematics in physics education from many
perspectives. They discuss, for example the historical-philosophical perspective, concep‑
tual understanding, and external representations. Most notably for the present article, they
review multiple models of the interplay between mathematics and physics from the physics
education point of view.
In the next sections, we follow Pospiech’s (2019) discussion of theoretical models of
mathematisation in physics. Key to these models is to focus on translating physical ele‑
ments into mathematics and vice versa. We note, however, that we will not discuss models
of the interplay not essential for our focus.

2.1 Modelling Cycle

Redish and Kuo (2015) consider “the language of mathematics in physics” from the per‑
spective of cognitive linguistics: they argue that “in science, we don’t just use math, we
make meaning with it in a different way than mathematicians do” (Redish & Kuo, 2015,
p. 561). They base this discussion on the notion that the use of mathematics in physics
is vastly different from how mathematicians use mathematics. According to them, this is
because physicists use mathematics to describe, learn about, and understand physical sys‑
tems, while for mathematicians, mathematical expressions are free from the ancillary (and
often implicit, tacit, or unstated) physical meaning of symbols. To explicate their view of
how mathematics is used in modelling and problem solving in physics classes, they present

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics 369

the diagram in Fig. 1, called a model of mathematical modelling or a modelling cycle (see
also, Redish, 2005; Redish & Smith, 2008), and describe the modelling process having the
following steps:

1. The modelling process begins by identifying the physical system to be modelled (the
lower left corner of the diagram). The system is defined and isolated from its environ‑
ment, and the quantifiable variables and parameters of the system are identified.
2. By choosing the mathematical structures appropriate for describing the features of the
system, it becomes possible to map the measures of the system onto mathematical
symbols. This step is called modelling. The resulting mathematical representation of
the physical system is thus composed of the measures of the physical system and the
relations between them.
3. As the mathematical representation of the physical system inherits the features and rules
confining the chosen mathematical structures, it now becomes possible to process the
modelled system mathematically. By mathematical manipulations, mathematical results
are achieved.
4. The mathematical results must be interpreted back into physics in order to make them
understandable in the context of physics. The interpreted results are finally compared
with the original physical system. This step is called evaluation.

Redish and Kuo (2015) emphasise that in reality the use of mathematics in physics is
not as simple or sequential as their diagram indicates. They note that the diagram does not
intend to capture this entanglement of disciplines but “to emphasise that our traditional
way of thinking about using math in physics classes may not give enough emphasis to the
critical elements of modelling, interpreting, and evaluating” (p. 568). As such, the model‑
ling cycle parallels models previously presented in mathematics education research, depict‑
ing the translational processes between the real world and mathematics (cf. Blum & Leiß,
2005). In addition, its clarity and simplicity make it a useful step in introducing more com‑
plex models.
Although the educational level on which the model by Redish and Kuo (2015) is
intended to be utilised is not specified, the examples presented in their article seem to be of
early university level. The model is indeed very well suited for solving traditional introduc‑
tory and upper division level exercise problems.

The original article (Redish and Kuo, 2015) is licensed under CC BY

4.0. The figure has been adapted
Fig. 1  Modelling cycle by Redish and Kuo (2015)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
370 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

2.2 Revised Modelling Cycle

Uhden et al. (2012) have noted some shortcomings in the modelling cycle and other pre‑
vious models. According to their criticism, the modelling cycle conceptualisation does
not address different levels or “degrees” of mathematisation. Furthermore, and crucially
for education, it does not clearly distinguish between the technical and structural role
of mathematics that they define after Pietrocola (2008): the technical role refers to the
algorithmic use of mathematics, e.g. rote manipulations, while the structural role is
related to the more conceptual use which is more “entangled” with physics. In educa‑
tion, these two roles map onto definitions of technical and structural skills, where “tech‑
nical skills are associated with pure mathematical manipulations whereas the structural
skills are related to the capacity of employing mathematical knowledge for structuring
physical situations” (Uhden et al., 2012, p. 493).
To address these issues, Uhden et al. (2012) propose an alternative model, a revised
modelling cycle, shown in Fig. 2. In this model, the purely qualitative physics is
accounted for by the lowest level of the physical–mathematical model, with each of the
higher levels representing the model at a new degree of mathematisation. Pure math‑
ematics is detached from the physical–mathematical model. They describe the steps of
mathematical reasoning as follows:

Figure adapted by permission from Springer Nature Costumer Service

Centre GmbH: SpringerNature, Science and Education, Modelling
Mathematical Reasoning in Physics Education by Olaf Uhden et al.,
Springer Science Business Media B.V. (2012) . The rights to the
original figure are owned by SpringerNature.
Fig. 2  Revised modelling cycle by Uhden et al. (2012)

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics 371

1. Arrow (1) stands for the translation from the world to the physical–mathematical model,
i.e. the idealisation process. Just as in the modelling cycle by Redish and Kuo (2015),
an idealised model of a physical system is constructed.
2. In the modelling or problem-solving process, we move up and down in the diagram as
we carry out mathematisation and interpretation phases. In the diagram, this is denoted
by arrows (2) and (3), respectively. In practice, this may mean refining our mathemati‑
cal model (moving towards a more mathematised representation) and interpreting the
physical meaning of mathematical expressions (moving downwards on the latter of
mathematisation). The mathematisation and interpretation steps (arrows (2) and (3))
are identified as application of structural skills whereas arrow (4), making a round to
the pure mathematics, represents technical skills, e.g. doing calculations. Uhden et al.,
(2012, p. 498) describe this step as “doing just mathematics”.
3. Arrow (5), standing for the validation process in which results are interpreted back into
the world, closes the cycle.

Uhden et al. (2012) highlight that their model is intended to be used as a diagnostic
tool for mathematical reasoning in physics: for example the model may help in distinguish‑
ing between the structural and technical skills required in problem-solving contexts. Ulti‑
mately, they envisage the model being used as an instrument to support teaching strategies
which focus on the structural role of mathematics.
Uhden et al. (2012) mention that their discussion moves mainly on high school and uni‑
versity levels. Also their chosen example for the application of the model, the classical
physics problem of free fall, may be treated both in high school and in an introductory uni‑
versity course on different levels of abstraction. However, they emphasise, their discussion
is applicable to physics education in general.
Even though the revised modelling cycle is indeed able to capture a more detailed
depiction of the use of mathematics in physics, it still overlooks some subtleties that arise
from the entanglement of physics and mathematics. To highlight these aspects, we have
constructed another characterisation of these roles in physics and physics education that we
will present in the next section.

3 New Characterisation of the Interplay

In this section, we present a new characterisation of how the roles of mathematics mani‑
fest in physics and physics education. The characterisation does not intend to provide yet
another visual, cyclic depiction of the actions (and skills) that involve physical–mathemati‑
cal reasoning. Instead, we aim to dissect and analyse the roles more deeply and to describe,
through examples from the history of quantum physics, how they manifest. In this sense,
our characterisation is meant to answer somewhat different questions than the previously
presented models: the modelling cycles focus on modelling and problem-solving actions
and skills, whereas our characterisation aims to provide a more general description of the
roles mathematics takes in physics (hence our use of the word “characterisation”).
Moreover, our characterisation aims to describe the roles of mathematics outside
some specific type of activity on some stage of physics education, thus being relevant
all the way up to the graduate level of universities. As the scope of the characterisa‑
tion is wider, its contents are also more general and abstract than those of the model‑
ling cycles. However, we argue, it can still be applied on lower educational levels in a

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
372 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

simplified form. For example ideas of utilising underlying rules in forming representa‑
tions or carrying out calculations resemble closely the actions presented in the model‑
ling cycles. Furthermore, the characterisation provides vocabulary for discussing, even
somewhat practically, the role of mathematics in (the nature of) science; for example the
case of the positron (see Section 3.4.1 below) should spark valuable classroom dialogue
even with younger students.
We begin presenting the new characterisation by discussing mathematics as a foun‑
dation upon which physical theories are built. Then we proceed to examine how math‑
ematics contributes to representations of physical information that in turn serve as a
basis for further reasoning and modifications. Lastly, we review the ways in which
mathematics aids in generating new information and explanations. Each of these roles
is presented in their own section followed by an illustrating example from the history of
quantum physics. Note that the selected examples do not cover all the facets of the roles
presented in the characterisation. We have selected them because they exemplify some
central features of the characterisation.
A summary of the roles in our characterisation is presented in Table 1. This table
is intended to support understanding the characterisation as a whole. In the following
text, we have used numbering to identify the subroles presented in the table when they
appear for the first time. However, it should be noted that both in the table and in the
following descriptions, the limits of different roles of the characterisation are not clear-
cut. The roles are mutually dependent (for example syntactic structure affects represen‑
tations) and thus there naturally is some overlap.

Table 1  The roles of mathematics in the new characterisation

Syntactic structure
Established theory structure
1a. To enable organising information to form a logical unity
1b. To provide foundations for representations
1c. To enable attaching new information to the existing logical structure
Rules and limits
1d. To provide rules for constructing representations
1e. To provide rules and structure for logical reasoning
1f. To provide rules for mathematical operations (e.g. calculation rules)
1 g. To set limitations for the scope of theories
Representations and semantics
2a. To enable expressing information in an organised form
2b. To enable expressing a target system in an organised form that allows further investigations
2c. To enable expressing a target system in a shareable form
Reasoning and modifications
3a. To provide a way to modify and analyse representations mathematically
3b. To allow testing models and their limitations
3c. To make possible logical deduction and defining new objects and relations
3d. To allow recognising objects, their relations, and regularities (e.g. mathematically analogous systems)
New information and explanations
Direct extraction
4a. To lead to a direct solution, e.g. in testing a model or confirming a prediction
Emergent extraction
4b. To form new theoretical concepts
4c. To bring up new objects and their relations
4d. To make new explanations possible

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics 373

3.1 Syntactic Structure

Starting with the fundamentals, mathematics has a role in forming the basic structure that
fixes the rules and limitations for physical theories. More precisely, mathematics aids in
forming a syntactic structure for physics: it acts as a framework in which physical knowl‑
edge is organised (Table 1, role 1a). We call this structure syntactic as it parallels the idea
of linguistic syntax in the sense that it provides the form of physical theories (1b). For a
natural language, the rules and limitations stem from, e.g. grammar and vocabulary that
define how the language can be used and what can be expressed using it. Syntactic struc‑
ture also limits the scope of things that can be perceived in terms of the language, i.e. what
kind of entities and structures can be made understandable using it.
There exists an organised collection of mathematically expressed information that is
thought to be valid in physics at a given moment. The syntactic structure organising this
information is formed by the core of mathematical axiomatic principles, on top of which
physical–mathematical theories are built. Here we mostly discuss the mathematical nature
of this structure, but it is worth noting that we do not intend to say that it is thoroughly
mathematical. On the contrary, a physical theory is a collection of physical information
that is organised and expressed mathematically. On the same note, purely syntactic bits of
the structure form its hard nucleus, while the higher layers bring also semantic aspects into
it. The semantics is further discussed in the next section.
The established theory structure provides rules and limits for actions in physics. These
rules affect many things from planning experiments, representing physical systems, math‑
ematical manipulations and logical reasoning to interpretation of results (1d–1f). The rules
stem from both physical and mathematical aspects of the syntactic structure, and they can
be either physical or mathematical in nature. For example following mathematical rules
guarantees that the end result is logically true. Logic does not, however, ensure that the
result is physically possible because logically consistent results can be ruled out by the
selected physical background theory or the context. After all, while, e.g. solving a physi‑
cal problem, we may end up with multiple mathematical results, from which we have to
choose the plausible one(s) in the given context. These cases bring our attention to the
interface of mathematical and physical–mathematical structure: physical solutions are ones
that do not violate theoretical assumptions by, e.g. exceeding the speed of light (1 g).
Even though the theory structure is established, it can still be modified. For example
the advancement of scientific knowledge sometimes requires incorporating previously
unapplied mathematics into the theory structure, while some new observations may even
shake the foundations of the existing structures. Indeed, one purpose of scientific research
is to study the soundness of existing theories, to test the limits of theories and expand their
reach to new domains. New results, if they are found to be reliable enough, are attached as
a part of the theory structure (1c). This image of syntactic theory structures closely resem‑
bles Kuhn’s (1962) paradigms of normal science.

3.1.1 Example: the Bohr Atomic Model

The history of quantum physics is a story about realisations of the shortcomings of classi‑
cal physics and the inception of new quantum–mechanical theories that required physicists
to adopt new mathematical theories into their repertoire. As an example of this develop‑
ment, let us consider the conception of the Bohr atomic model.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
374 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

At the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it was realised that atoms are
not the smallest possible constituents of matter. In the subsequent years, multiple models
describing the subatomic structures were developed, most famously the models by J. J.
Thompson and Rutherford. Bohr was very familiar with the development of such atomic
models, as around the time he first worked with Thompson in Cambridge and then moved
to work with Rutherford in Manchester (Jammer, 1989). According to Jammer (1989), as
the first step of the work that finally led to the new atomic model, Bohr investigated to what
extent classical mechanics and electrodynamics (the main body of the theory structure of
the time) could account for Rutherford’s model that assumes electrons revolving around a
massive, positively charged nucleus. Based on these examinations, he soon understood that
the stability of the Rutherford atom cannot possibly be explained in classical terms. Thus,
he made the assumption that only certain discrete electron orbits are allowed, and by incor‑
porating Planck’s quanta into this model, he was able to find the right numeric solution for
the hydrogen energy spectrum.
Building on nineteenth century physics and the theory structure of that time, Bohr’s
work extended the reach of the existing syntactic theory structure. He utilised his knowl‑
edge of the classical theories of mechanics and electrodynamics as well as the theoretical
ideas and observational results about the atomic structure presented by others before him.
Combining these pieces of the puzzle with a few bold assumptions, Bohr was able to build
a new atomic model that in turn became a milestone on the way towards the full-fledged
quantum theory.

3.2 Representations and Semantics

While the syntactic structure provides a framework in which physical knowledge is organ‑
ised, there is another role mathematics has in expressing this knowledge: in addition to the
syntactic mathematical structure giving the rules and limits for representations, mathemat‑
ics also provides their shape (Table 1, role 2a). We call this level of representations seman‑
tic because of its resemblance to linguistic semantics: constructing a representation loads
the used syntactic structures with meaning. The objects we choose to use in our representa‑
tion are given meaning in relation to each other, and to their physical background theory
and context. This is quite analogous to the way we make meaning in natural languages. For
example the same system or phenomenon can be represented in multiple different ways
(graphically, tabulated, mathematically using different notational systems, etc.) that bring
different facets or aspects of the system to the foreground. Likewise, we can, e.g. choose to
use a certain synonym in a sentence or to structure a sentence in a certain way to empha‑
sise a particular point in the present context.
The idea of semantics is in fact fairly close to the argument with which Redish and
Kuo (2015) start their investigation: they argue that physicists use mathematics to represent
physical systems and therefore load physical meaning onto mathematical symbols. They
argue that in physics mathematical representations often bear different meanings than the
same representations in the pure mathematics context. This is because, in forming a repre‑
sentation in a physics context we often blend physical and mathematical information. This
usage of mathematics is what they intend to explicate in their modelling cycle, and it is
strongly present also in our characterisation.
On a more general note, an entity in physics is made perceivable by expressing it in
a mathematical form. Representations synthesise our understanding of the target, leaving
out unnecessary information. The aim of a model can be, e.g. to represent experimental

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics 375

data in an ordered form or to write down a theoretical thought. It is possible to construct

a theoretical representation of a phenomenon or system based only on the relevant physi‑
cal background theory, or to construct an experimental representation where background
theory and observations are in interaction with each other. This way mathematics allows
constructing representations that can be further investigated and modified (2b).
Through representations, mathematics also provides a way to represent phenomena and
systems in a shareable and reusable form; a mathematical representation is often easier to
communicate to other people than, e.g. a qualitative description (2c). In that sense, math‑
ematics acts as a common, universal language. For science in general, the communication
function of mathematics is crucial.

3.2.1 Example: Matrix and Wave Mechanics

In the 1920s, the two most influential early formulations of quantum mechanics were
developed. Born, Heisenberg, and Jordan refined Heisenberg’s initial work to a formula‑
tion commonly known as matrix mechanics, in which quantum mechanical quantities are
expressed as matrices. According to Longair (2013, p. 227), the aim in making the new
formulation was “to rewrite all the equations of classical physics in matrix notation so
that the key concept of non-commutativity [previously introduced in the work by Heisen‑
berg] would automatically be incorporated in the new quantum mechanics”. Meanwhile,
Schrödinger developed an alternative formulation of the theory, named wave mechanics.
He started his work from the Hamilton–Jacobi differential equation, defining a new func‑
tion, the “wave function”, and setting certain constraints for it. This way he was able to
fulfil the pre-existing quantum conditions.
Even though the two formulations were later on found to be isomorphic in the context
of the abstract Hilbert space theory of von Neumann, only Schrödinger’s wave mechan‑
ics stuck until today. The physicists at the time were reluctant to adopt matrix mechanics
due to its unfamiliar mathematical machinery and cumbersome conceptual background.
Ultimately, the matrix mechanical formalism was incorporated into the abstract Hilbert
space formalism. We can regard the two early formalisms as representations that depicted
the same theory but conveying their message differently. In the end, Schrödinger’s wave
mechanics was more successful in expressing the theory in an understandable form.
The case of matrix and wave mechanics shows how the same theory can be mathemati‑
cally represented in vastly different forms. It also illustrates the point that different math‑
ematical representations may mediate differing aspects of the same theory. This contrasts
with the idea that there are simply degrees of mathematisation (cf. the revised modelling
cycle): mathematical and physical knowledge are intertwined in a more deep and nuanced
way.

3.3 Reasoning and Modifications

A suitable representation can be further investigated through, e.g. mathematical reason‑

ing and modifications. The chosen representation may either advance or hinder investiga‑
tions and extraction of information, as different representations benefit different modes of
reasoning. For example an algebraic representation allows mathematical manipulations
more readily than a graphical representation. Thus, the possible reasoning and modification
methods depend on the previous layers: the theory structure determines the available meth‑
ods and rules for them, and the chosen representation limits the range of available methods.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
376 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

In physics education, reasoning and modifications have a significant role. They are
involved, for example in problem-solving situations in which mathematical representa‑
tions are manipulated and analysed until a solution is found (Table 1, role 3a). In physics
research, mathematical representations are in a similar manner modified to test and expand
the limits of physical models (3b). In these situations, the problem solver needs to apply
their knowledge of the underlying rules and the physical context to the situation at hand.
This enables using, e.g. logical reasoning in deducing new theoretical results (3c). Modify‑
ing and analysing mathematical representations may also aid in recognising new objects
and regularities that would otherwise stay hidden (3d).
Following Easdown (2009), we separate two modes of reasoning: syntactic and
semantic.
Syntactic reasoning and modifications utilise physical–mathematical rules in, e.g. carry‑
ing out calculations or modifying representations. This kind of use of mathematics requires
little more than syntactic understanding; the semantic content of the studied representation
does not enter the reasoning process. In other words, the reasoning process only applies
rules stemming from the syntactic structure and does not utilise the understanding about
the chosen representation. For example this may mean rote mathematical manipulations of
equations in problem solving.
The separation between syntactic and semantic modes of reasoning seems to be rather
widely acknowledged. In Easdown (2009, p. 942), the same kind of (syntactic) reasoning
is described as relying on “simple or naive, incremental rules, searching or pattern match‑
ing”. In physics education research, this kind of use of mathematics is often referred to as
“plug and chug”, i.e. working through mathematics algorithmically. In the revised model‑
ling cycle by Uhden et al. (2012), this step is detached from the physical–mathematical
model, making a round to the area of “pure mathematics”. In their discussion, abilities of
syntactic reasoning and modifications fall under the category of technical skills.
At the opposite end of the spectrum lies semantic reasoning. Here mathematics func‑
tions as a structure guiding and limiting thought. As the name suggests, semantic reasoning
relies on understanding the semantics of the representation at hand, i.e. it requires under‑
standing the content of the representation—or the physical meaning loaded onto mathe‑
matical symbols (Redish & Kuo, 2015). It heavily relies on the insight the reasoner has
on the representation and on how the representation connects and maps onto the physical
background theory of the studied system. One example of semantic reasoning is “oppor‑
tunistic” blended reasoning (Hull et al., 2013), which relies on the physical interpreta‑
tion of the used representation. Using this kind of reasoning, the reasoner may bypass the
“doing mathematics” phase altogether during a problem-solving process.
Compared to the “plug and chug” aspect of syntactic reasoning, semantic reasoning
may be conceptually harder to pin down. Easdown’s (2009, p. 942) definition of semantic
reasoning involves “solid intuition, insight or experience”, whereas de Regt (2017, p. 105)
describes an analogous reasoning mode as qualitative insight that “does not involve any
calculations; it is based on general characteristics of the theoretical description of [the tar‑
get]”. As de Regt also notes, at some point in a reasoning process, subsequent calculations
are motivated and given direction by this qualitative reasoning.
As indicated earlier, the division between syntactic and semantic reasoning is not clear-
cut. Instead, we can regard syntactic and semantic reasoning processes as opposite ends of
the same spectrum, in the middle of which the reasoning modes gradually mix together.
Most often in realistic situations, syntactic and semantic modes are both involved in the
reasoning process and separating them from each other is artificial. These kinds of reason‑
ing and modifications involve understanding both the syntactic and semantic content of the

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics 377

examined representation. The skills called structural in Uhden et al. (2012) probably lie
somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

3.3.1 Example: Wave Mechanics and Optics

An important part of Schrödinger’s justification for his wave mechanical formalism of

quantum mechanics, as presented in the previous example, was an analogy with classical
optics. His work was heavily influenced by de Broglie’s investigations, and originally he set
out to find an equation describing de Broglie’s matter waves (Longair, 2013). As a result,
he finally arrived at the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation.
According to Longair (2013), Schrödinger’s reasoning closely followed the classical
path. Namely, classical ray optics that works well on small wave lengths compared to the
system, e.g. a slit, breaks down when the wavelength and the scale of the system are of
the same order, giving rise to the diffraction and interference phenomena. Analogously, he
inferred, classical mechanics breaks down on small scales, and we can no longer neglect
the wave properties of matter. The small enough scale to bring forth the quantum mechani‑
cal phenomena was reasoned to be of the same order as the de Broglie wavelength. This
analogy with its mathematical machinery allowed Schrödinger to successfully justify his
wave equation. The resulting formalism was not only successful in explaining previous
observations but also “was based on the familiar apparatus of differential equations, akin
to the classical mechanics of fluids and suggestive of an easily visualizable representation”
(Jammer, 1989, p. 270), which made it easier for physicists of the time to apply it.
Schrödinger’s use of analogical reasoning is an example of successfully blending syn‑
tactic and semantic reasoning. On one hand, he relied on the rules and limits set by the
mathematical machinery, and on the other hand, he utilised his understanding of the con‑
tent of the physical theories by letting the analogy to classical optics guide his work.

3.4 New Information and Explanations

A mathematical representation or its modifications can also give rise to new information.
This gained information can be “new” in various ways: it can be a new scientific discovery
or a new insight for a learner. In both cases, the representation or its modifications has
yielded information that was previously more or less inaccessible.
Quite often in the context of physics education, solving typical end-of-chapter problems
leads to clear numerical or analytic results. These solutions require interpretation in their
context in order to give an answer to the original question. In this case, mathematics leads
directly to new information. This way of ending up with a piece of information we call
direct extraction of information. Similarly, scientific tests and analyses often lead to direct
results (Table 1, role 4a).
Sometimes, mathematical representations or their manipulations can uncover new struc‑
tures that can lead to even unexpected explanations of phenomena. For example building
a mathematical theory can result in theoretical predictions that foresee their observational
confirmation (see the following example of the positron), in theoretical entities that have
no direct physical interpretation (e.g. the wave function), or in a mathematical explanation
of an observed phenomena that cannot be explained in qualitative terms (e.g. entanglement
entropy). These kinds of objects could not have been constructed based solely on observa‑
tions using the information available at the time. To emphasise the way these theoretical

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
378 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

entities emerge from mathematics, we have chosen to call this pattern emergent extraction
of information (4b–d).
As was the case with syntactic and semantic reasoning, the different modes of knowl‑
edge extraction are not clearly distinct. Again, they are rather the opposite ends of the same
spectrum. We have, however, made the distinction to emphasise the emergent nature of
many advancements of physical research: especially in these occasions mathematics has
tremendously contributed to the scientific progress.

3.4.1 Example: Inventing the Positron

After the formation of matrix and wave mechanics, it was soon realised that achieving a
relativistic quantum theory based on them was not a trivial task. In 1928, Dirac succeeded
in generalising the Schrödinger equation into the relativistic Dirac equation. Even if it was
not Dirac’s initial intention to incorporate spin into his theory or predict the existence of
positrons, he ended up doing just that (Longair, 2013).
The first remarkable thing in the relativistic equation was that “in the relativistic formu‑
lation of quantum mechanics, there is necessarily a magnetic moment associated with the
spin of the electron” and its magnitude coincided exactly with the observed value (Longair,
2013, p. 338). Moreover, when solving for energies of the electron energy states from the
Dirac equation, it emerges that there are also negative solutions. These negative energy
solutions puzzled physicists of the time and it took some time for them to find an appro‑
priate explanation for them. After a couple of years of pondering and proposing differ‑
ent explanations, Dirac came up with the proposal that the negative energies correspond
to “a new kind of particle, unknown to experimental physics, having the same mass and
opposite charge to an electron. We may call such a particle an anti-electron” (Dirac, 1931).
Anti-electrons were later named positrons. Dirac’s invention of the positron illustrates how
mathematical solutions can find interpretations in terms of novel physical conceptions.

4 Discussion

Especially in higher education, one aim of physics teaching is to guide students to under‑
stand physics as a field of science that has its distinctive characteristics. To convey this
understanding, we need to do more than only train students to become fluent in modelling
and problem solving. Even if those are important parts of the field, they offer too narrow a
point of view. Consequently, physics education and educators should, both implicitly and
explicitly, take into consideration the wider range of roles mathematics plays in physics.
In a broad sense, this parallels or falls under the recommendation that educators should be
aware of nature of science, if science education is to teach not only science but also “about”
science. Furthermore, again analogously to common practices relating to NOS in educa‑
tion, the level of depth and abstraction in teaching about the entanglement of mathematics
and physics can be adapted to students of various ages and knowledge levels. Here we have
sought especially to aid educators in higher education to reflect on the issue, but hope to
also contribute to, e.g. upper-secondary education in both physics and mathematics. For
example the invention of new mathematical constructs and their subsequent adoption by
natural scientists may be an unfamiliar yet intriguing idea for aspiring mathematicians.
In this article, we have presented a characterisation of how the roles of mathematics
manifest on different levels in physics: at the level of theory structure, representations,

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics 379

mathematical reasoning, and new information and explanations. We echo arguments made
by others in the same vein: e.g. Karam (2014) has discussed similar roles in their research.
However, we wish to add to this discussion by introducing with our characterisation a more
organised view of the roles mathematics plays in physics. In addition, we wish to diversify
discourses of mathematics in physics and physics teaching by stressing issues such as the
extraction of information through mathematics.
Comparing the new characterisation with the previous models, e.g. the modelling cycles
of Redish and Kuo (2015) and Uhden et al. (2012), it is apparent that they are meant to
answer somewhat different questions: the modelling cycles focus on modelling and prob‑
lem-solving actions and skills, whereas our characterisation aims to provide a more general
description of the roles mathematics takes in physics. Most notably, while the modelling
cycle of Redish and Kuo (2015) highlights building models and performing mathematical
manipulations, it differs from our characterisation as it does not bring up the significance
of theory structure, differentiate between modes of reasoning, or emphasise the extraction
of mathematical knowledge. In part, Uhden et al. (2012) address some of these shortages
and further emphasise the reasoning processes in terms of separate structural and technical
use of mathematics. However, neither do they include theory structure explicitly in their
model nor cover different ways mathematics leads to new knowledge. Pointing the explicit
differences between the existing models and our characterisation, however, is not to say
that these parts are necessarily completely missing in the previous models, as they can be
seen as included implicitly. For example the contribution of theory structure is inevitably
present in parts of the models as an element that guides modelling and interpretation pro‑
cesses or mathematical manipulations. However, our chosen epistemological perspective,
i.e. the premise that mathematics serves as a constitutive structure in physics analogous to
language, brings these different roles to the foreground.
Therefore, our characterisation also yields implications for physics education research
and physics instruction, as it can help researchers as well as instructors avoid what Karam
(2014, p. 1) calls “an artificial separation between the mathematical and the conceptual
aspects of physical theories”. Assuming our proposed standpoint, it becomes unreasonable
to separate these aspects. For physics education research, in which conceptual and math‑
ematical (or procedural) learning are often seen as separate, this would mean shifting the
focus to a more blended view, in which physics learning is regarded as profoundly depend‑
ent on both the aspects. This would also force us to rethink physics instruction, taking this
entanglement into account and making it explicit in teaching.
Besides emphasising the intertwining of conceptual and mathematical aspects, our char‑
acterisation provides a holistic view of physical theories: physical theories are not just unre‑
lated pieces, but parts of a larger structure held together, organised and expressed by math‑
ematics. Using this framework in physics learning would, we argue, likely lead to deeper
and more coherent understanding, as this framework provides a natural basis on which to
build new knowledge. This is also something to be explicated in physics instruction.
These lines of argument gain further importance in the case of more advanced physics the‑
ories because conceptual physical and formal mathematical aspects are so inextricably merged
in them. How does one explain concepts such as a spacetime metric or the state of a quantum
system without mathematics? We argue that making the entanglement of these aspects explicit
in the instruction of these theories would be especially beneficial for student learning. Here,
both general and highly domain-specific examinations of the interplay of mathematics and
physics may be needed, with content domains spanning various stages of science learning;
after all, the guidelines given here are intended primarily for students on and around the under‑
graduate level. At the moment, however, physics education research in the field of advanced

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
380 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

physical theories is relatively scarce, and in order to research learning in these fields and to
make more robust arguments in relation to learning advanced physics, we must adopt a wider
view on the roles mathematics plays in physics and physics learning. Focusing only on the
modelling and problem-solving perspectives (emphasising the role of mathematics as a tool)
may even hinder the advancement of educational research into the more advanced physics the‑
ories, while potentially oversimplifying and misrepresenting the interplay of the disciplines.

5 Conclusions

The aim of physics as a field of science is to gain understanding of physical phenomena. To

accumulate this collective understanding, the scientific community needs to construct new
explanations that can be communicated and organised—and in these construction, commu‑
nication and organisation processes mathematics plays an important role. Mathematics does
not only present physical information, but also shapes our beliefs about physical phenomena.
Because mathematics is so tightly knit into the formation of physical knowledge, its role is
inextricably intertwined also with physics learning. As we have demonstrated, this dynamic
is more complex than typical problem-solving or modelling-centred perspectives account for,
and thus there is a need for more comprehensive characterisations. Here we have illustrated
the wider array of the roles of mathematics in physics, but further work is needed to examine
how to incorporate representation of and discourse on these roles in how we teach the nature
of science and the philosophy of physics.
In order to make this constructive role of mathematics more explicit, we have presented a
new characterisation of how the roles of mathematics appear on different levels of physics. It
also brings forward the parts that the previous problem-solving or modelling-oriented models
have neglected, namely, theory structure and the emergence of new knowledge. Moreover, it
emphasises the gradual mixing of syntactic and semantic reasoning. These are key features
in the development of understanding in more advanced physics theories: the more advanced
a theory is, the more entangled the syntactic and semantic modes are in reasoning—as we
have sought to illustrate through examples from the history of modern physics. Likewise, the
emergent nature of many entities is more prominent in these topics. In order to gain ground in
studying the learning of these more advanced topics, such as quantum physics and relativity,
we have to take these perspectives into account. In our view, to ensure that pedagogies com‑
prehensively address these “entangled” bodies of knowledge, educators should be aware of a
fuller range of roles of mathematics in physics.
Acknowledgements We are grateful for helpful comments and discussions with Ricardo Karam, Inkeri
Kontro, Tommi Kokkonen, and Ismo T. Koponen.

Funding This work has been supported in part by a grant from Magnus Ehrnrooth Foundation. Open Access
funding provided by University of Helsinki including Helsinki University Central Hospital.

Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License,
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com‑
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Modelling Roles of Mathematics in Physics 381

material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. American Asso‑
ciation for the Advancement of Science.
Bing, T. J., & Redish, E. F. (2009). Analyzing problem solving using math in physics: Epistemic framing via
warrants. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 5, 020108. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1103/​PhysR​evSTP​ER.5.​020108
Blum, W., & Leiß, D. (2005). “Filling up” the problem of independence-preserving teacher interventions in
lessons with demanding modelling tasks. In: Bosch, M. (Ed.), CERME-4 – Proceedings of the fourth
conference of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Sant Feliu de Guíxols,
February 17–21, 2005.
de Regt, H. W. (2017). Understanding scientific understanding. Oxford University Press.
Dirac, P. A. M. (1931). Quantised singularities in the quantum field. Proceedings of the Royal Society A.,
133, 60–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rspa.​1931.​0130
Easdown, D. (2009). Syntactic and semantic reasoning in mathematics teaching and learning. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40(7), 941–949. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​00207​39090​32054​88
Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to
nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 28(3), 311–328. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11191-​019-​00052-2
Galili, I. (2018). Physics and mathematics as interwoven disciplines in science education. Science & Educa-
tion, 27, 7–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​018-​9958-y
Galili, I. (2019). Towards a refined depiction of nature of science. Science & Education, 28(3), 503–537.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​019-​00042-4
Gingras, Y. (2015). The creative power of formal analogies in physics: The case of Albert Einstein. Science
& Education, 24, 529–541. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​014-​9739-1
Gire, E., & Price, E. (2015). Structural features of algebraic quantum notations. Physical Review Special
Topics – Physics Education Research, 11, 020109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1103/​PhysR​evSTP​ER.​11.​020109
Greca, I. M., & Moreira, M. A. (2001). Mental, physical, and mathematical models in the teaching and
learning of physics. Science Education, 86(1), 106–121. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sce.​10013
Hull, M. M., Kuo, E., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2013). Problem-solving rubrics revisited: Attending to blend‑
ing of informal conceptual and formal mathematical reasoning. Physical Review Special Topics –
Physics Education Research, 9, 010105. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1103/​PhysR​evSTP​ER.9.​010105
Jammer, M. (1989). The conceptual development of quantum mechanics. Tomash Publishers.
Kanderakis, N. (2016). The mathematics of high school physics. Science & Education, 25, 837–868. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​016-​9851-5
Karam, R. (2014). Framing the structural role of mathematics in physics lectures: A case study on electro‑
magnetism. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 10(1), 10119. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1103/​PhysR​evSTP​ER.​10.​010119
Kjeldsen, T. H., & Lützen, J. (2015). Interactions between mathematics and physics: The history of the con‑
cept of function—Teaching with and about nature of mathematics. Science & Education, 24, 543–559.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​015-​9746-x
Kneubil, F. B., & Robilotta, M. R. (2015). Physics teaching: Mathematics as an epistemological tool. Sci-
ence & Education, 24, 645–660. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​014-​9727-5
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Kuo, E., Hull, M., Gupta, A., & Elby, A. (2013). How students blend conceptual and formal mathematical
reasoning in solving physics problems. Science Education, 97(1), 32–57. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​sce.​
21043
Longair, M. S. (2013). Quantum concepts in physics: An alternative approach to the understanding of quan-
tum mechanics. Cambridge University Press.
Pask, C. (2003). Mathematics and the science of analogies. American Journal of Physics, 71, 526–534.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1119/1.​15457​61
Pietrocola, M. (2002). A Matemática como Estruturante do conhecimento físico. Caderno Brasileiro De
Ensino De Física, 19(1), 93–114.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
382 E. Palmgren, T. Rasa

Pietrocola, M. (2008). Mathematics as structural language of physical thought. In Vicentini M., & Sassi, E.
(Eds.) Connecting research in physics education with teacher education (Vol. 2). International Com‑
mission on Physics Education.
Pospiech G. (2019). Framework of mathematization in physics from a teaching perspective. In: Pospiech G.,
Michelini M., & Eylon B. S. (Eds.), Mathematics in physics education. Springer. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1007/​978-3-​030-​04627-9_1
Quale, A. (2011a). On the role of mathematics in physics: A constructivist epistemic perspective. Science &
Education, 20, 609–624. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​010-​9257-8
Quale, A. (2011b). On the role of mathematics in physics. Science & Education, 20, 359–372. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​010-​9278-3
Redish, E. F., & Kuo, E. (2015). Language of physics, language of math: Disciplinary culture and dynamic
epistemology. Science & Education, 24, 561–590. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​015-​9749-7
Redish, E. F., & Smith, K. A. (2008). Looking beyond content: Skill development for engineers. Journal of
Engineering Education, 97(3), 295–307. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/j.​2168-​9830.​2008.​tb009​80.x
Redish, E. F. (2005). Problem solving and the use of math in physics courses. In Conference world view on
physics education in 2005: Focusing on change, Delhi, August 21–26, 2005. http://​arxiv.​org/​abs/​physi​
cs/​06082​68.
Silva, C. C. (2007). The role of models and analogies in the electromagnetic theory: A historical case study.
Science & Education, 16, 835–848. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​006-​9008-z
Tweney, R. D. (2009). Mathematical representations in science: A cognitive–historical case history. Topics
in Cognitive Science, 1(4), 758–776. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1756-​8765.​2009.​01043.x
Tweney, R. D. (2011). Representing the electromagnetic field: How Maxwell’s mathematics empowered
Faraday’s field theory. Science & Education, 20, 687–700. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​010-​9256-9
Tzanakis, C., & Thomaidis, Y. (2000). Integrating the close historial development of mathematics and phys‑
ics in mathematics education: Some methodological and epistemological remarks. For the Learning of
Mathematics, 20(1), 44–55.
Uhden, O., Karam, R., Pietrocola, M., & Pospiech, G. (2012). Modelling mathematical reasoning in physics
education. Science & Education, 21, 485–506. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11191-​011-​9396-6
Vemulapalli, G. K., & Byerly, H. C. (2004). Carl Hempel’s philosophy of science: How to avoid epistemic
discontinuity and pedagogical pitfalls. Science & Education, 13, 85–98. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/B:​
SCED.​00000​18498.​92528.​16
Walsh, L., Howard, R., & Bowe, B. (2007). Phenomenographic study of students’ problem solving
approaches in physics. Physical Review Special Topics – Physics Education Research, 3, 020108.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1103/​PhysR​evSTP​ER.3.​020108

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center
GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers
and authorised users (“Users”), for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all
copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By accessing,
sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of
use (“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and
students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and
conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any
conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription (to
the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of
the Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may
also use these personal data internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share
it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise
disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies
unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial
use, it is important to note that Users may not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale
basis or as a means to circumvent access control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any
jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association
unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a
systematic database of Springer Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a
product or service that creates revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as
part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal content cannot be
used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large
scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not
obligated to publish any information or content on this website and may remove it or features or
functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature may revoke
this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content
which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or
guarantees to Users, either express or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and
all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law, including
merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published
by Springer Nature that may be licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a
regular basis or in any other manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer
Nature at

[email protected]