Recent content by coquelicot

I apology for not being able to answer to further posts. I have to travel and will probably be too busy during the next weeks. Hope this thread will continue though.

I will not enter into the discussion of the type "who are the best, mathematicians of physicists". That's ridiculous for me. It is evident that professional physicists, who are often excellent mathematicians too, and who deal with physics full time, contribute more to physics than mathematicians...

(liked it). You may be right after all, maybe I should consider Vanadium50 is not representative for the physics, a quantum jump in some sense. But that's your fault, you wrote above "Can be read as today’s physics manifesto". ;-)

So, let ban Galileo, Pascal, Descartes, Fermat, Euler, Lagrange, Legendre, Gauss, Jacobi, Cauchy, Riemann, Levy-civita, Lie, Von Neuman, Noether, and all the other useless crackpots from the physics. Oh, I forgot to ban Newton, who was primarily a mathematician and a teacher of mathematics at...

Thank you for agreeing with me that mathematicians tend to write books in physics more rigorously than physicists, and tend to reject mathematically incoherent theories. In mathematics, we call this "q.e.d." (quod erat demonstrandum).

I've read the article of Griffiths. Thank you so many, very interesting (it also provides all the relevant derivation of the formulae in one place.

Actually, that's not the same book(s), and my question is much wider. You can see it as an example of what real problems a real mathematician can somewhat worry about, if you wish.

Actually, there are many other articles, and the book of Babin and Figotin cited in this thread and elsewhere is another view. But what is the main stream? And you have another book that processes the subject in a very particular and (probably) interesting manner: F.W Hehl, Y.L. Obukhov...

Sorry, you are probably right. If my memory is exact, Robinson criticizes the whole work of de Groot from 1950 (you can imagine that the book of de Groot has not pop up from nowhere).

De Groot S.R. Suttorp - Foundations of Electrodynamics (all the chapters are relevant). Robinson F.N.H. - Macroscopic Electromagnetism

Thank you. I would like to ask you a practical question, as you seem to know the matter very well. I already know EM theory at the level of most graduate students (I believe). Nevertheless, my mathematician intuition tells me that the way the properties in dielectrics are justified in most...

I am an amateur of physics and linguistics too. I don't feel belittled about that because this is the suitable term with respect to my knowledge and my achievements in these domains. I don't know if I would insist in being called a "professional mathematician", but I definitely don't think I am...

Because that's amusing to see the mediocre guys trying to do something good :-) More seriously, I have never said that amateur means "bad", but that no one expect from an amateur to do something really good, like a professional. Do you believe it is possible that an amateur mathematician will...

I think the original question of Malawi-Glenn was not a listing of the problems in physics that everybody knows about them, but rather what I meant when I wrote in another forum that "physicists are often unaware of the real problems in physics", in parentheses, as an answer to someone that...

Thank you for addressing the thread I opened previously. Regarding your comment on the book, I think their authors does not claim to offer an alternative theory to quantum mechanics (e.g. if my understanding is OK, they do not pretend to be able to explain the double slits experiments), but...