An Extended Essay in Mathematics

Proving Johannes Keplers Three Laws of Planetary

Motion Using Differential and Integral Calculus

How can differential and integral calculus be used to prove Keplers

Three Laws of Planetary Motion?

May 2017

Word count: 4000

 1

Table of Contents

Section Heading Page

I Introduction 2

II Mathematical Concepts and Operations 4

III Law of Orbits 9

IV Law of Equal Areas 16

V Law of Period/Harmonies 20

VI Conclusion and Evaluation 22

VII Bibliography 25
 2

Question: How can differential and integral calculus be used to prove Keplers Three Laws of

Planetary Motion?

I. Introduction

Considered one of profound intimacy, the relationship between mathematics and

physics has been a subject of study of great importance to mathematicians, physicists,

philosophers and historians since their conception, and the two fields have constantly

stimulated each other, promoting the creation of new knowledge. For instance, during the

seventeenth century, many of the most important mathematical advances were motivated

by the study of physics. One such advancement was the creation and development of

calculus, which was primarily the result of a demand for a more advanced mathematical

language that could be used to handle and describe a new set of physical phenomena and

dynamics. Moreover, when studying natural phenomena, physicists have two main

methods for producing scientific knowledge: the scientific method, in which the physicists

collect empirical evidence and use it to create inferences and/or conclusions that explain

the phenomena, and the mathematical method, in which the physicists use mathematical

reasoning to arrive at inferences and/or conclusions. Therefore, similarly to the way

physics incentivizes the production of knowledge in mathematics, mathematics also is used

to create progress in physics. However, these methods for producing new knowledge are

not limited to this function. In fact, they can be used to prove each other and verify the

veracity of existing truths, thus, meaning that mathematical reasoning, in the form of

mathematical proofs, can be used to prove physical laws produced through the scientific

method, and vice-versa.

 3

An example of this is a set of physical laws called Keplers Three Laws of Planetary

Motion. Developed between 1609 and 1619 by the German mathematician and astronomer,

Johannes Kepler, and based on data collected by Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, the

Three Laws of Planetary Motion describe the motion of the planets around the sun,

regarding the shape of their orbits, the conservation of angular momentum and their

orbital periods. To be more specific, the names of the individual laws are the Law of Orbits,

the Law of Equal Areas and the Law of Periods, also known as the Law of Harmonies.

Moreover, together with the work of other astronomists, including Nicolaus Copernicus,

William Gilbert, Galileo Galilei, these laws are considered to have started the scientific

revolution, making them quite significant.

This essay will focus on proving Keplers Three Laws of Planetary Motion through

mathematical reasoning, and demonstrate a more conceptual proof and explanation for the

laws. More specifically, the research question is: How can differential and integral calculus

be used to prove Keplers Three Laws of Planetary Motion?, and this question will be

explored through the use of variable manipulation, vectors, and differential and integral

calculus in the polar coordinate framework. In addition, in order to prove them, I have

written my own original proof for each respective law applying principles of calculus and

variable manipulation until the laws can be proven to be true, and I will be describing the

process/method of each proof and explaining what each step means. Furthermore, this

essay will demonstrate the interdisciplinary relationship between mathematics (Calculus)

and science (Astrophysics), as well as the application of mathematics and how it is present

in the real world, especially in Physics.

 4

II. Mathematical Concepts and Operations

The first mathematical concept is the ellipse, as it was discovered to be the shape of

the orbits and served as a base of the rest of the laws. More specifically, an ellipse is a conic

section, the intersection of a plane and a cone, which forms the shape of an elongated circle.

An important characteristic of ellipses is that it they have two foci (focal points), points in

their interior where the sum of the distances from the two foci to any point on the curve is

the same for all points along the ellipse. This means that the sum of the lengths of the two

red lines in Figure 1 is the same as the sum of the two green lines, which in turn, is also the

same as the sum of the two yellow lines.

Figure 1. Ellipse #1 (Not drawn to scale)

 5

In addition, the eccentricity, as shown in Figure 2, is the measure of how much the

shape of the conic section deviates from a circle, and in this case, the ellipses elongation.

Moreover, the eccentricity of an ellipse which is not a circle is greater than zero but less

than one. Additionally, the directrix is a line perpendicular to the axis of symmetry which,

similar to the foci, helps define conic sections. More specifically, the distance from the focal

point is proportional to the horizontal distance from the directrix, as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 2. Ellipse Eccentricity

Figure 3. Directrix
 6

Next, it is important to define the mathematical concepts that will be used to

describe the space I will be working with. Firstly, since I will be describing elliptical

trajectories, dealing with circular motion and rotations, and working with movement

relative to a stationary point, the Sun, I will be using polar coordinates, a two-dimensional

coordinate system where points are determined by their distance from the origin, also

known as the radius, r, and an angle, . Consequently, it will be necessary to use

trigonometric functions to find the length of each of the lines components, the x-direction

and y-direction, and the formulas are:

x-component:

x = r cos()

y-component:

y = r sin()

Figure 4. Polar Coordinate System

 7

In addition, I will be using vectors to represent motion because they have both a

magnitude and direction, and are easier to work with when dealing with moving objects, as

they can be separated into individual dimensional components. Consequently, I will also be

using numerous vector operations including taking cross products, dot products and triple

products, as well as their properties, such as the invariance property of triple products, and

the implications of their results. Furthermore, because the planetary orbitals are

multidimensional, I will be using unit vectors, vectors with a magnitude of 1, to determine

the motion in each direction. More specifically, as shown in Figure 5, I will be using to

represent the x-direction and to represent the y-direction. Finally, variables representing

vector quantities will be in bold letters, however, when they are part of a formula or

equation, they cannot be, given the software being used, and the magnitude of vectors will

be expressed with double absolute value lines around the variable.

Figure 5. Unit Vectors

 8

In regard to the calculus itself, I will mainly be using derivatives to find the

instantaneous rate of change, but will also use definite integration when calculating the

area of certain orbital sections and indefinite integration when finding the antiderivative, a

function whose derivative is the original function. Furthermore, when calculating the

derivative, I will also use rules for specific operations such as the Product Rule and Chain

Rule when necessary.

Additionally, I will use both Joseph-Louis Lagranges and Gottfried Wilhelm

Leibnizs notations throughout my proofs. This is because, on one hand, Lagranges use of

an apostrophe next to the variable, such as x (first derivative) and x (second derivative),

makes it simpler and easier to deal with when using operations such as the product rule,

but on the other hand, Leibnizs use of dy/dx makes it easier when using the chain rule.

Finally, in terms of the proofs themselves, I will be mainly using variable

manipulation, which includes rearranging and substituting variables, as well as

substituting in other formulas, in order to reach a desired outcome. A few examples of this
 9

are isolating a variable on one side of the equation, substituting variables in order to have

like terms, and having variables cancel out in order to reduce the number of unknowns

being worked with. Furthermore, in contrast with most mathematical proofs which begin

with two predetermined mathematical statements that are known to be equal, and you

have to alter one side to match the other, this proof doesnt begin with any predetermined

statements nor a specific conclusion that has to be reached. Therefore, the proofs

themselves will begin as hypotheses, conditions that I determine to be necessary in order

for the laws to be considered proven true, which will then be converted to mathematical

statements that will be drawn from the situation and laws themselves. The proofs will then

continue to be derived from the initial mathematical statements and situation until they

reach the condition set forth in the hypothesis, which I deemed to be a suitable conclusion.

Naturally, this method has its limitations, as it doesnt follow the process of a traditional

mathematical proof. However, there werent any predetermined initial or final statements,

meaning that this was the only method I could use given my resources.

III. Law of Orbits

The first of Keplers Three Laws of Planetary Motion is the Law of Orbits, which

describes the general motion of the planet in regard to its shape. As shown in Figure 6

below, it states that the planets orbits about the sun are elliptical, with one focal point

located at the center of the sun. As a result, before commencing the proof, I hypothesized

that: if planetary orbits are elliptical with one focal point located at the center of the sun,
 10

then to prove this I must reach the equation of an ellipse with the Sun as one of the focal
ed
points, r = 1+e(cos())
.

Figure 6. Orbits

Figure 7. Vectors describing the motion of the planet in its orbit

Before beginning the proof for Keplers First Law of Planetary Motion, however, it is

essential to illustrate the scenario, as shown in Figure 7 above, and state facts based upon

it. Firstly, we have r, the position vector that moves as a function of time, v, the position
 11

vectors derivative, and a , the position vectors second derivative. If the acceleration is

always straight in towards the origin, which is the case with centripetal acceleration, the

velocity vector will change by a factor in proportion to r. Therefore, if r and v are in a

certain plane, then it can be expected that they will remain in that plane. However, to prove

that they will always remain in the same plane, we can examine the plane created by the

cross product of the two vectors, r v , and if the cross product remains constant, it can be

stated definitively that the motion is within the plane. One way of doing so, is determining

whether the derivative of r v , is equal to 0, which would represent an absence of velocity,

and therefore movement.

The derivative of r v can be written as

(r v )

And according to the product rule, dxd (f (x) g (x)) = f (x) g (x) + g (x) f (x) , the derivative

of the cross product would be

(r v ) = r v + r v

Because the derivative of the position vector, r, is the velocity, v, and the derivative of the

velocity vector, v, is the acceleration, a, this equation can be further simplified to

(r v ) = v v + r a

Moreover, since v v are the same vector, they must be parallel, and therefore, v v also

equals 0. Based on this, we find that

(r v ) = r a
 12

Furthermore, because r and a are also parallel, r a must also equal 0, thus making

the derivative of r v equal 0 and r v a constant. As a result, the fact that r v is a

constant proves that the motion remains in the same plane, and that r and v are in the

plane orthogonal to another vector, h, as shown in Figure 7. In addition, this is quite

interesting, as r v itself is called the Specific Relative Angular Momentum (Wikipedia,

2017), the momentum of the object divided by its mass, denoted h, and because the mass

does not change, the fact that r v is a constant adheres to the Law of Conservation of

Momentum, as a constant Specific Relative Angular Momentum multiplied by a constant

mass will result in a constant momentum.

However, this merely states that the direction of h is perpendicular to r and v, and

because these are vectors which have both magnitude and direction, we must check to see

if the magnitude of h is constant. To do this, we can use the scalar triple product, h (r v ) ,

which simplifies to the magnitude of h2 because we have found that r v is equal to the

vector h. Next, if we use the invariance property of triple products in circular shifts,

a (b c) = b (c a) = c (a b) , we can use r (v h) , as it is equivalent to h (r v ) .

Furthermore, we know that the cross product between a vector and h will produce a vector

in the plane of motion, and because we know that the planets are moving in elliptical orbits,

taking the cross product with the vector v will produce a vector in a radial direction.

Bringing this back to calculus, we can take the derivative of v h in order to simplify

further. Using the product rule, the derivative becomes:

 13

(v h) = v h + v h

Because h is a constant, its derivative equals 0, therefore:

(v h) = a h + v 0

(v h) = a h

From here, we can find the acceleration using both Newtons Universal Law of Gravitation

and Second Law of Motion, while solving for the acceleration and find that:
GM m
F = ma and F g = 2
||r||

GM m
ma = 2
||r||

GM
a= 2
||r||

Where F is the force of the celestial body, m is the mass of the body, a is its acceleration, Fg

is its gravitation force, G is the Gravitational Constant, 6.67408 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2

(Wikipedia, 2017), M is the mass of the Sun, and r is the distance between the two centers

of the bodies. And because we are working with vector quantities, we must take direction

into account too. Therefore, the acceleration becomes negative, as it is always pointing

radially inwards towards the origin:

GM
a= 2
||r||

Now, substituting a into the derivative of v h , the result becomes:

GM
(v h) = 2
h
||r||

Which also be written as:

GM
(v h) = rh
||r||3
 14

Furthermore, because we know that r v = h , we can add that:

GM
(v h) = r (r v )
||r||3

GM
(v h) = [r (r v )]
||r||3

Using yet another vector property, a (b c) = (a c)b (a b)c , (v h) becomes:

GM
(v h) = ||r|| [(r v )r (r r)v]
||r||3

Simplifying this we get:

GM
(v h) = ||r||
[(u v )u (u u)v]

GM
(v h) = ||r||
[(u v )u v ]

r
Where u = ||r||
is equivalent to the radial unit vector. Moreover, the velocities in the

equation above can be rewritten as derivatives of r, r, and based on the product rule and
r
the equation u = ||r||
, we get that:

r = ||r|| u

r = ||r|| u + ||r|| u

v = ||r|| u + ||r|| u

Substituting this in for v in (v h) , we get:

GM
(v h) = ||r||
[(u (||r|| u + ||r|| u))u (||r|| u + ||r|| u)]

GM
(v h) = ||r||
[||r|| u (||r|| u + ||r|| u)]

GM
(v h) = ||r||
[ ||r|| u]

(v h) = GM u
 15

Now, because we have a derivative equaling another derivative, we can integrate

f (x) dx = F (x) + C both sides:

v h = GM u + C

Where C is the constant of integration

Now, referring back to the equation, h2 = r (v h) , and substituting for v h :

h2 = r (GM u + C )

h2 = GM ||r|| + r C

Now, in order to assist in the understanding of C and considering that C acts in the plane of

motion, imagine that C acts along the x-axis. We can therefore simplify and form a polar

equation given the following equation, a b = ||a|| ||b|| cos() :

h2 = GM ||r|| + ||r|| ||C || (cos())

Solving this for r, we get:

h2
||r|| = GM +||C ||(cos())

Now, let:

||C ||
e= GM

Plugging in e , we get:

h2
||r|| = GM (1+e(cos())

h2 /GM
||r|| = 1+e(cos())

ed
||r|| = 1+e(cos())

h2
Where d = C
 16

Multiplying ||r|| by the denominator, 1 + e(cos() , in order to eliminate the fraction:

||r|| (1 + e(cos() = ed

And because ||r|| (cos()) = x in polar coordinates:

||r|| + ex = ed

||r|| = e(d x)

This demonstrates that it is a conic section because if we take the x-coordinate,

which is the distance from the y-axis in the plane, and we take d x , the distance between

a point in the x-axis and the line x = d , then the distance between the point and the line

x = d is d x . Therefore, the distance from the origin is a fixed proportion of the distance

of the line. Based on this, it can be stated that d is the position of the directrix of the conic

section considering that the eccentricity is greater than zero and less than one.
ed
Furthermore, the equation, r = 1+e(cos()
, is the exact equation for an ellipse in polar

coordinates with a directrix at x = d and focal points at both the origin and the negative

x-axis, further proving Keplers First Law of Planetary Motion: that the shape of the orbits

is an ellipse with one focal point being the center of the Sun.

IV. Law of Equal Areas

 17

The second of Keplers Three Laws of Planetary Motion is the law of Equal Areas,

which, similar to the Law of Orbits, describes the general motion of the planet, this time in

regard to its velocity. As shown in Figure 8 below, it states that an imaginary line drawn

from the center of the sun to the center of the planet will sweep out equal areas in equal

intervals of time. By extension, this means that the planet will move faster as it approaches

the Sun and slower as it recedes from the Sun. Therefore, my hypothesis for this proof was:

if the rate at which the area changes is constant, then dA/dt must be a constant. However,

before beginning to prove the Law of Equal Areas, it is necessary to illustrate the scenario.

Figure 8. The Law of Equal Areas

Figure 9. Vectors describing the motion of the planet in its orbit

 18

In addition, just like in the first proof, we have r, the position vector that moves as a

function of time, v, the position vectors derivative, and a , the position vectors second

derivative. Moreover, it is also assumed that the motion remains in one plane and the

vector h, created by crossing r and v, is perpendicular to the plane of motion. Furthermore,

since the derivative of the vector h equals 0, h is a non-zero constant, meaning that the

motion truly remains in one plane.

h=rv

h = (r v )

h = r v + r v

h = v v + r a

h = 0

Because any vector cross multiplied by itself is 0 and any vector cross multiplied by a

vector parallel to itself is also 0. Next, we can start setting up the vector r in the polar
 19

coordinate system. Since the x-coordinate in a polar coordinate system is r cos() and the

y-coordinate is r sin() , we can state that:

r = (r cos()) + (r sin())

And

r = (r cos()), r sin())

And therefore, that:

v = r = (r cos() r sin()) + (r sin() + r cos())

And

v = r = (r cos() r sin()), (r sin() + r cos())

Now we can take the cross product of the radius vector with the velocity vector, r v ,

which gives us:

r v = (r cos())(r sin() + r cos()) + (r sin()) (r cos() r sin())

r v = r r cos() sin() + r2 cos2 () r r sin() cos() + r2 sin2 ()

r v = r2 cos2 () + r2 sin2 ()

r v = r2 (cos2 () + sin2 ())

Simplifying through the Pythagorean Identity:

r v = r2 (1)

r v = r2

Substituting r v for h

h = r2
 20

And solving for r2

h
r2 =

Going back to the idea that the rate of which the area changes, dA/dt, is constant, we can

set up a definite integral using the formula for the area of an enclosed area:

Definite Integral Formula:

b
f (x) dx = F (b) F (a)
a

Area of an enclosed area using polar coordinates formula:

A= 1
2 r2 d
0

And by taking the derivative of this, we can see whether the rate of change of the area is

constant.

The derivative of A = 1
2 r2 d , is:
0

A = 12 r2

And plugging in the equation we found for r2 , here:

A = 12 ( h )

h
A = 2

This shows that the derivative of area in respect to time is a constant, as the

constant, h, divided by 2 will yield a constant, thus fulfilling the condition set forth in the

beginning and proving Keplers Second Law of Planetary Motion.

 21

V. Law of Periods/Harmonies

The third of Keplers Three Laws of Planetary Motion is the Law of

Period/Harmonies, which states that the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly

proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of its orbit, or that:

T 2 a3

Consequently, the condition that must be met for this law to be proven is the proportion

itself, as well as its proportionality constant. Interestingly, Keplers Third Law relates two

characteristics of a single planets characteristics, its orbital period and semimajor axis,

whereas Keplers First and Second Laws describe the planets motion itself.

Figure 10. Labelling the semimajor and semiminor axes

h
Recalling from the second proof, the derivative of the area equals a constant, A = 2
,

which can then be rearranged to dA = h2 dt . Upon integrating this from 0 to T , the orbital

period, and setting it equal to the formula for the area of an ellipse, A = ab , we get:

T T
h
2 dt = dA
0 0

h
2
T = ab
 22

Rearranging this we get:

2ab
T = h

C h2
And recalling from the proof of the Keplers first law, e = GM
and d = C

h2
Therefore, ed = GM

And given the following equations:

ed
a= 1e2

e2 d2
b2 = 1e2

b2
ed = a

(Stewart, 2008, pg. 663)

2
h b2
Therefore, GM = a

2
2ab h b2
We can now combine the two equations, T = h
and GM = a
:

Taking the square of the LHS and solving for h2 in the RHS:

4 2 a2 b2
T2 = h2

GM b2
h2 = a

Combining the two by substituting in the equation for h2 into the equation for T 2 :

4 2 a2 b2
T2 = GM b2
a

4 2 a3
T2 = GM

This shows that the proportion between T 2 , the square of the orbital period of a

planet, is directly proportional to a3 , the cube of the semimajor axis of its orbit, because
 23

the remaining terms, 4, 2 , G and M , are all constants, thus proving Keplers Third Law of

4 2
Planetary Motion. Furthermore, this shows that the proportionality constant is: GM .

VI. Conclusion and Evaluation

In summary, it is completely possible to prove Keplers Three Laws of Planetary

Motion using differential and integral calculus, and this can be attributed in part to the fact

that calculus was developed in order to describe the physical phenomena Keplers Three

Laws of Planetary Motion do, acceleration and orbits. Moreover, given the relationship

between position, velocity, acceleration and calculus, manipulating the variables in order to

solve for certain variables such as velocity becomes relatively simple. Furthermore,

describing the motion as vectors also made using calculus more practical, as it could not

only deal with individual components instead of more advanced functions that might have

been used if functions were used to describe the motion instead, but also aid in the

manipulation of variables, since the results of vector operations, such as taking the cross

product and the dot product, had certain properties and implications which could be used

towards a certain goal or step. Lastly, the use of vectors also made visualizing the

mathematics and scenarios much simpler when deriving the proofs, as well as when

illustrating the diagrams, as they are represented as straight lines and have a specific

direction and dimension of which they act in.

This essay served greatly to demonstrate the applications of mathematics in the real

world, and the inter-connectivity between the fields of mathematics and physics. In

contrast, the main limitation to this investigation, especially regarding the methodology,
 24

was that I had no background in mathematical proofs, and did not research about the

mathematical proof process to a great extent. This means that my proofs may not be

completely valid mathematically, as they may not follow certain guidelines, a specific

methodology or include specific requirements, like in other forms of mathematical proofs

such as direct proofs or proofs by mathematical induction. In addition, because these are

my original proofs, there was no way of determining if these proofs are developed enough

to actually prove the laws to be completely true. Another limitation to this method was that

I made two main assumptions. Firstly, I assumed that the masses of the celestial bodies

were point masses, masses with no volume, which is clearly not physically possible because

having mass inherently implies having volume. Secondly, I assumed an absolute

simultaneity of actions, where the two spatially separated events occurred at the exact

same time. However, an object or bodys reaction to an external force cannot be

simultaneous with the initial application of the external force, thus making it impossible for

absolute simultaneity. This is due to causality, the relationship between cause and effect,

and the limit of its speed, the speed of causality, which is equivalent to the speed of light,

because causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Lastly, based on all of this information, I am left wondering whether it is possible to

prove Keplers Three Laws of Planetary Motion using an officially recognized mathematical

proof process such as proof by contradiction or proof by construction. Additionally, the

idea of proving Keplers Planetary Laws without using any calculus whatsoever, or whether

it is possible to prove Keplers laws while describing motion in terms of functions and

space in a Cartesian coordinate plane intrigue me. Moreover, I am interested in other

 25

physics laws that calculus can be applied to, and if one can prove every physical law

mathematically. In conclusion, given the three mathematical proofs, it can be stated that

mathematical reasoning, differential and integral calculus, as well as vectors and polar

coordinates, can be used to prove Keplers Three Laws of Planetary Motion.

VII. Bibliography

Craig, W. L., & Smith, Q. (2008). Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity. Notre Dame

Philosophical Reviews, 302. doi:10.4324/9780203700051

Dawkins, P. (n.d.). Area with Polar Coordinates. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcII/PolarArea.aspx
 26

Dirac, P A M. "The Relation Between Mathematics And Physics". Proceedings of the Royal

Society (Edinburgh) 59.II (1939): 122-129. Web. 27 Apr. 2000.

Dot and Cross Product. (2007, October 31). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

https://math.dartmouth.edu/archive/m9f07/public_html/m9lect1031.pdf

Ellipses in Polar Coordinates. (n.d.). Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://math.etsu.edu/multicalc/prealpha/Chap3/Chap3-2/part4.htm

Fischman, D. (n.d.). 11.8 Polar Equations of Conics. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://colalg.math.csusb.edu/~devel/IT/main/m11_conic/src/s08_polar-conics.html

Lee, K. M. (n.d.). Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/pos/pos_background1.html

Mastin, L. (2010). 17th Century Mathematics - Newton. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://www.storyofmathematics.com/17th_newton.html

Stern, D. P. (2005, March 21). Kepler's Three Laws of Planetary Motion. Retrieved April 27,

2017, from https://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Kep3laws.htm

 27

Weisstein, E. W. (n.d.). Eccentricity. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Eccentricity.html

From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource

Weisstein, E. W. (n.d.). Ellipse. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Ellipse.html

From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource

Weisstein, E. W. (n.d.). Scalar Triple Product. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ScalarTripleProduct.html

From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource

Weisstein, E. W. (n.d.). Specific Angular Momentum. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/SpecificAngularMomentum.html

From MathWorld--A Wolfram Web Resource

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. (2017, March 12). Relationship between mathematics and

physics. Retrieved April 27, 2017, from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics