- 47

- 0

I am always worried about the forum moderators will move my thread to other sections such as math section, classical physics section, while I am posting a thread to Quantum physicists (I will call them physicists afterwards in the thread) or Quantum physics students. Although, some threads may lack the direct connection to Quantum physics, it is most relevant to Quantum physics. This thread is written for people who are doing Quantum physics, making Quantum physics, and creating Quantum physics.

Let me ask, How many mathematics do a theoretical physicist need? There are two kinds of physicists, experimentalists and theoreticians. I am only interested in the last case. So

Today the academia atmosphere is different from 19th century and even 20th century. There are absolutely no Gauss, Riemann and Poincare any more. I am not saying there are no scientists as great as Gauss or Riemann. In fact I means there are no man who is both a physicist and a mathematician. Someone may refute me by citing Edwards Witten, a Fields prize winner. I am not familiar with the string theory, so I can't say much about it. But the problem is the present split between mathematics and physics.

Nowadays it is so difficult for a Quantum physics student to study the necessary (?) mathematics. I have some books on Lie group, Riemann geometry, Partial differential equations, Automorphic form, Langlands program and the like. I have wasted much time to read them and I just could not understand them. I am afraid that many physics students may have the same feeling. But I can't dump such "rubbish", because I need them to understand and do Quantum physics. In order to understand the

I think the present mathematics is not very healthy. There is no such great mathematician as Gauss, Riemann any more (just my personal opinion). For example, in order to verify the Russian mathematician Perelman has proved the Poincare Conjecture, the mathematical community need two special teams to read Perelman's papers. I wonder whether there were some teams to judge Riemann's paper

What is mathematics to a physicist? A tool, a language. Right! But not that simple. A simple answer is a dangerous one, because it stops us to see deep.

I tried to find some math forum just like

So at last, I ask physicists to share with us some secrets. What parts of mathematics should we learn? How to read mathematics books? Is there some physicist who really understands e.g. Gauss-Bonnet formula? Or our physicists are just copycats and repeat mathematicians' abstract words. Perhaps someday the name of

[1]: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2

Let me ask, How many mathematics do a theoretical physicist need? There are two kinds of physicists, experimentalists and theoreticians. I am only interested in the last case. So

*how many mathematics do a theoretician need to do Quantum physics*?Today the academia atmosphere is different from 19th century and even 20th century. There are absolutely no Gauss, Riemann and Poincare any more. I am not saying there are no scientists as great as Gauss or Riemann. In fact I means there are no man who is both a physicist and a mathematician. Someone may refute me by citing Edwards Witten, a Fields prize winner. I am not familiar with the string theory, so I can't say much about it. But the problem is the present split between mathematics and physics.

Nowadays it is so difficult for a Quantum physics student to study the necessary (?) mathematics. I have some books on Lie group, Riemann geometry, Partial differential equations, Automorphic form, Langlands program and the like. I have wasted much time to read them and I just could not understand them. I am afraid that many physics students may have the same feeling. But I can't dump such "rubbish", because I need them to understand and do Quantum physics. In order to understand the

**Gutzwiller trace formula**in semiclassical Quantum physics, I have to know**Calculus of variations in the large**and**Selberg trace formula**. In order to understand the**Selberg trace formula**, I have to read Langlands program. I am horrified by mathematics.I think the present mathematics is not very healthy. There is no such great mathematician as Gauss, Riemann any more (just my personal opinion). For example, in order to verify the Russian mathematician Perelman has proved the Poincare Conjecture, the mathematical community need two special teams to read Perelman's papers. I wonder whether there were some teams to judge Riemann's paper

**On the Hypotheses which lie at the Bases of Geometry**. Of course I have only little knowledge about mathematics and especially today's mathematics, but I can't stop wondering why. I have also read the article in*New Yorker*[1] and feel a little pity and sadness for the great mathematician and physicist Henri Poincare.What is mathematics to a physicist? A tool, a language. Right! But not that simple. A simple answer is a dangerous one, because it stops us to see deep.

I tried to find some math forum just like

**physicsforums.com**, but only find some kids on the math forum. The competition between mathematicians and mathematics students should be much more intensive than our physicists.So at last, I ask physicists to share with us some secrets. What parts of mathematics should we learn? How to read mathematics books? Is there some physicist who really understands e.g. Gauss-Bonnet formula? Or our physicists are just copycats and repeat mathematicians' abstract words. Perhaps someday the name of

**Mathematical Physics**will change into*Physical Mathematics*.[1]: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060828fa_fact2

Last edited: