Interested in physics, but find math boring.

[AndromedaRXJ]

Hi, I'm AndromedaRXJ. I'm new here.

I'm really interested in physics and I know you have to know math to study it, but everytime I try to study math, I get bored really fast and just want to stop. But I find physics EXTREMELY interesting. I find myself listening to people like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and in general, researching stuff on physics for hours. But when it comes to pure mathematics, I just get bored.

As much of a silly question this may sound, how do I get interested in math? Or is there anything out there that'll make it interesting?

 

[Pengwuino]

You really don't have to be interested in math to do physics. As long as you are comfortable with math and understand that the basis of physics is math, you should be fine. I've talked to people who have done mathematical physics for decades and they even say that math for the sake of math is uninteresting to them.

I have no interest in programming, but that doesn't stop me from learning it so that I could use it in what I do.

 

[TylerH]

When learning new concepts, you should first study their physical applications, and let their physical applications act as the metaphorical carrot on a stick that gives you reason to be interested.

 

[pmsrw3]

As much of a silly question this may sound, how do I get interested in math? Or is there anything out there that'll make it interesting?

Where are you in school now? What math have you had? It's possible that you just haven't had a good math course yet. In high school, I thought I hated math.

 

[Functor97]

This is interesting, because physics is explained by mathematics. Physics is just a field of pure mathematics, which our consciousness interacts with via senses.
Black holes sound cool, but they were first studied as mathematical structures. If you find mathematics boring, read science fiction.
If you still want to do physics, which i would advise you to do anyway, you better start enjoying your mathematics : )

 

[autodidude]

Don't you find it interesting that symbols, letters and numbers arranged in certain ways can explain so much? :p

 

[vladb]

Hi, I'm AndromedaRXJ. I'm new here.

I'm really interested in physics and I know you have to know math to study it, but everytime I try to study math, I get bored really fast and just want to stop. But I find physics EXTREMELY interesting. I find myself listening to people like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and in general, researching stuff on physics for hours. But when it comes to pure mathematics, I just get bored.

As much of a silly question this may sound, how do I get interested in math? Or is there anything out there that'll make it interesting?

I'm surprised no one has addressed this yet, but... Hawking.. Michio Kaku.. seriously? If you mean you enjoy watching/listening those tv-shows on Discovery/NatGeo/whatever, then this IS NOT physics. (It pretends to be popular science, but in most cases, imho, it's just pseudoscience/mysticism)

It's very simple: physics and math go together (do you also find calculus boring?).
As for how to get interested in math: my experience shows that things stop being boring and become interesting once you start to understand them better.

 

[TylerH]

I'm surprised no one has addressed this yet, but... Hawking.. Michio Kaku.. seriously? If you mean you enjoy watching/listening those tv-shows on Discovery/NatGeo/whatever, then this IS NOT physics. (It pretends to be popular science, but in most cases, imho, it's just pseudoscience/mysticism)

It's very simple: physics and math go together (do you also find calculus boring?).
As for how to get interested in math: my experience shows that things stop being boring and become interesting once you start to understand them better.

I was considering mentioning it, but decided against it. I will now.

Like you said, most aren't even science. But, even the shows they do on real science are so far dumbed down that I can fill in details and expand simplifications they skip with what I learned in a high school honors physics class.

If you want real science, at least the closest I've found on TV, watch BBC expository documentaries and PBS's Nova.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Where are you in school now? What math have you had? It's possible that you just haven't had a good math course yet. In high school, I thought I hated math.

I'm in College and I'm about to turn 21. I'm not quite full time, but I've probably completed about a years worth of credits. I completed beginning algebra and I was taking intermediate algebra, but I dropped it because I was failing.

In high school I hated math, but get this. In elementary and part of middle school, I loved it. In fact, it was my favorite subjects, and I was really good at it. It wasn't until 7th grade when they put me in a higher math class that I started to hate it. I didn't get it at all or saw how it related to anything. When teachers tried to explain it to me, I still never understood it. They had me memorize steps to solving this or that, and I would eventually be pretty good at it, but I didn't understand what it was that I was really doing.

I think that's why it's boring to me too. I couldn't see how it related to anything or understood it's application. I should restate what I said. I don't find all math boring, because some of it I understand. I understand arithmetic, geometry etc, therefore I like it. I don't understand some algebra and anything higher.

I'm surprised no one has addressed this yet, but... Hawking.. Michio Kaku.. seriously?

LOL! Sorry. I had a feeling someone would say this. I know they're very mainstream, and now-a-days, I take what they say as a grain of salt. And it wasn't really from watching them on TV. I watched a lot of their lesser known talks on the internet.

The real reason why I'm interested in physics comes from my interest in astronomy. I've been interested in astronomy since I was very young. We're talking around maybe 3 years old(maybe older, but I was still really young). My grandmother had this solar system book with each chapter about each planet, and I would just go through the book looking at the pictures. And I would look at it over and over again.

Around middle-school and high school, I didn't exactly lose interested in it, but I didn't pay much attention to it either. It wasn't until after I graduated that I got really into it again. At some point in time, I came across an astronomy video on youtube which sparked my interest again. Then I started researching stuff on astronomy like crazy. Eventually, I came across a Michio Kaku video where he was talking about physics and astronomy, and that's where my interest in physics started. So it started out with Kaku and Hawking, but I don't listen to just them.

I could go into detail what kind of things I researched, but that'll take too long. lol.

my experience shows that things stop being boring and become interesting once you start to understand them better.

That's what I'm trying to do >_> lol

And about Calculus, I haven't made any attempts to seriously try to learn it, because I figured I better learn intermediate algebra first(and maybe trig?). I did watch that one youtube video "Calculus I in 20 minutes", and though I didn't understand most of it, I was quite curious(and the guy in the video was very funny. That probably helped).

The parts of calculus I do understand, I find interesting. Like, I think I have an understanding of D=R/T, for example.

 

[Ivan92]

You can try learning some conceptual Physics, its different from real Physics in that the math is very limited compared to a standard Physics text, but the concepts are the same. Then again to fully understand Physics, you are going to need to be comfortable dealing with math.

 

[Anonymous217]

You should only watch the BBC/etc. documentaries for the pretty pictures, not the actual concepts themselves. What you learn from one of those documentaries you can learn within maybe 10 minutes skimming through the overview of a textbook. I have to admit though; they make some cool-looking documentaries.

 

[vladb]

I'm in College and I'm about to ...

OK, from your lengthy post it appears you are more serious than I initially thought you were.

Here is an idea: you said you had interest in astronomy that started when you were reading a book as a kid. Maybe it is precisely why you like it - because of the fact that you did it on your own, going at a pace best suitable for you? You said you hated "higher math" in school after 7th grade - maybe you weren't lucky with teachers? I know I hated MOST stuff at school, because it was compulsory and without any freedom to explore some things in more detail than others. Actually, for some time, calculus was my favorite thing - I think it was because I came across a (rather serious) book on calculus and studied it on my own (slowly but surely) long before derivatives were studied at my school.

You mentioned videos on calculus. I don't think videos is the way to learn it, and certainly not in 20 minutes :) Get a real proper book and work with it at a steady pace, otherwise you'll get frustrated and end up hating it more.

Also, from my experience I noticed that taking some topic to study with the sole goal of studying something else, that requires the former, somehow does make it boring at times, and I have to force myself. (This is actually something I'd like to hear others' opinions about)

 

[chiro]

Hi, I'm AndromedaRXJ. I'm new here.

I'm really interested in physics and I know you have to know math to study it, but everytime I try to study math, I get bored really fast and just want to stop. But I find physics EXTREMELY interesting. I find myself listening to people like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, and in general, researching stuff on physics for hours. But when it comes to pure mathematics, I just get bored.

As much of a silly question this may sound, how do I get interested in math? Or is there anything out there that'll make it interesting?

Hey there AndromedaRXJ and welcome to the forums.

If you want to do science, you have to be aware of the kinds of things they do.

A lot of science, or applications thereof (and I class things like mathematics in this category in the context of applied mathematics), you do things like write reports, make sure that you haven't made mistakes (this is a very big thing), and doing "all the other chores" that make sure you get paid.

If you think of something like black holes, instead you should probably picture being in a lab with other scientists calibrating instruments, writing computer code, checking data and results and experimental setup almost OCD, and things that are not out of a science fiction movie.

I'd like to add a comment about pure math.

At the moment I'm doing a course in C* algebras but most of my courses are in statistics. I have found that pure math provides a richness that allows the student to get some really powerful ideas about analyzing and decomposing complex structures. The kind of ideas you find in pure mathematics can be amazing and you can stand back in awe just thinking "Wow!" (well at least that happens to me).

When you see math, you need to look past the symbols: the ideas are the most important. I agree calculation, logic, and correct derivation from sound assumptions are important, but the ideas created from people of our past really are the crux of what makes mathematics what it is.

 

[pmsrw3]

Calculus is indeed fascinating. However, I wouldn't try calculus if you haven't mastered algebra. (Trig is not so important, I think, though you'll have to learn it eventually.) Algebra does IMO two really big things for you:

(1) The core idea is that you can replace numbers with symbols, then work with the symbols. This sounds (and maybe is!) kind of boring, but it is an unimaginably powerful idea without which modern math and physics would not be possible.

(2) Building on 1, it allows you to translate real world problems into mathematical language. The most important part of an algebra course is word problems, which build this skill. This is fundamental to applying math to physical problems, and is even useful in daily life.

Galileo's Two New Sciences contains pages and pages of geometric theorems. They're incredibly boring, for the most part, because they're really just geometric versions of simple relationships that anyone who's had high school algebra could work out, often in just a line. But Galileo didn't have high school algebra -- it was not yet known to Europeans in his time.

 

[Jocko Homo]

I'm in College and I'm about to turn 21. I'm not quite full time, but I've probably completed about a years worth of credits. I completed beginning algebra and I was taking intermediate algebra, but I dropped it because I was failing.

In high school I hated math, but get this. In elementary and part of middle school, I loved it. In fact, it was my favorite subjects, and I was really good at it. It wasn't until 7th grade when they put me in a higher math class that I started to hate it. I didn't get it at all or saw how it related to anything. When teachers tried to explain it to me, I still never understood it. They had me memorize steps to solving this or that, and I would eventually be pretty good at it, but I didn't understand what it was that I was really doing.

I think that's why it's boring to me too. I couldn't see how it related to anything or understood it's application. I should restate what I said. I don't find all math boring, because some of it I understand. I understand arithmetic, geometry etc, therefore I like it. I don't understand some algebra and anything higher.

What?! This is a travesty!

Maybe you just had crappy teachers. Please give us an example of some math you were (or are) learning in school that you found (or find) boring. Maybe we'll show you why it's not so boring!

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

Also, from my experience I noticed that taking some topic to study with the sole goal of studying something else, that requires the former, somehow does make it boring at times, and I have to force myself. (This is actually something I'd like to hear others' opinions about)

I'd like to here people's opinions on this as well. And I think you guys are right about the teachers. I actually can't stand school in general most of the time for a number of reasons I can name.

What?! This is a travesty!

Maybe you just had crappy teachers. Please give us an example of some math you were (or are) learning in school that you found (or find) boring. Maybe we'll show you why it's not so boring!

Basically, a lot, or most of intermediate algebra. When teachers write down a problem on the bored, all I see is a bunch of numbers and symbols. I don't understand it's relevance to anything. All the teachers teach is the steps to solve it without explaining it's real relevance or applications. And they just expect me to do it.

I don't know about other people, but I didn't immediately understand how algebra relates to anything when I was first introduced to it. On the other hand, geometry's relevance is obvious-at least to me. It's about shapes and space(I'm being simplistic).

 

[twofu]

I hated all Math until I took Calculus. I learned more algebra/trig/advanced algebra THROUGH Calculus I because it was so interesting. Calc truly binds together everything you've learned, and it makes sense. After taking Calc I, I wanted to do Physics.

All in all, it really grows on you. Learning the fundamentals always sucks, but once you study it for a long time, you start to love it and think of the world through it.

I don't think you need to "master" algebra but a firm understanding is necessary. After doing upper level math, Algebra becomes a subconscious thing that you do while solving larger puzzles.

 

[ArcanaNoir]

I enjoyed calculus only because I enjoy putting things in order and calc was a lot like algebra. I didn't find math actually INTERESTING until I took my first proofs class, and started to get a glimpse of number theory. Love it! Anyway, you might have to muck through some stuff before you arrive at the place where you find something interesting. I mean, how interesting is an inclined plane? Maybe not very. But you need to spend your time studying it and other elementary stuff before you can go calculating the orbits of planets. Or maybe the orbits aren't interesting. But you need to know them before you can go looking for gravitational variations. (Okay I'm making stuff up here, I'm math, not physics, but you get the idea.) So keep plugging along. The cool stuff will pop out when you least expect it.

 

[AVReidy]

You don't need to force yourself to be interested in math just because physics and math are strongly intertwined. If you want to understand physics at a deeper level then understanding math at a deeper level would be important, but nobody says you need to be interested in it.

If you want to be interested in order to learn math better, then make yourself face the truth: physics and everything else is strongly connected to math. Math can be more interesting if you give "pure" math applications. While you're learning maybe you could point out connections it has to everyday life or physics.

I don't have a huge interest in math. I find it challenging and in most cases boring, but I appreciate it a great deal because of its purity and simplicity. It may not be simple, but it can seem simple if you realize that counting to ten and doing calculus equations all goes back to the same root. I also appreciate math because I use it for many applications and I understand that the things I enjoy most, programming and physics, are very dependent on math.

 

[1MileCrash]

Look, I was in your shoes. I may be unique in this but that quickly changed. I find my interest now starting to pull a little bit more towards math than physics!

The way I see it, is that the facts of physics are interesting, but without math, they are just that, interesting facts. Math is like looking into the gearbox of physics to me.

 

[AVReidy]

Math is like looking into the gearbox of physics to me.

Nice way of putting it!

 

[clope023]

T If you find mathematics boring, read science fiction.
)

Not necessary, I've met plenty of physicists and engineers who say they hate math, even theoretical particle physicists; they see it as a necessary evil to do the physics. Reading the Feynman lectures and watching some of his videos, it seems even he had a similar idea.

 

[pmsrw3]

Not necessary, I've met plenty of physicists and engineers who say they hate math, even theoretical particle physicists; they see it as a necessary evil to do the physics. Reading the Feynman lectures and watching some of his videos, it seems even he had a similar idea.

Oh, I don't think so. He was a natural mathematician -- he was inventing higher mathematics on his own when he was in high school. I think he may have been impatient with the pedestrian mathematics of some of his colleagues, and he definitely was an intuitive rather than a rigorous mathematician (like Newton, in fact).

 

[deRham]

because physics is explained by mathematics. Physics is just a field of pure mathematics, which our consciousness interacts with via senses.

I'd refine these things to say physics is expressed using mathematics. I think the part about consciousness interacts with via senses is your attempt to include physics in the field of mathematics, but that's the whole point isn't it - a mathematician's problems are typically NOT motivated by answering a physical question.

However, physics can give rise to interesting ideas in mathematics, which people then turn into entire theories. Discussing these ideas DUE to their physical significance is physics. However, noticing the same patterns result in beautiful structure recurring all through the mathematical objects' theories is mathematics.
Think of it this way - everyone in basic schooling is taught stuff like Newton's laws, derivatives, integrals, basic algebra. Things like that. If your motivation is to answer questions about structures and operations similar to what you saw in basic schooling, even if you do recognize they can have physical motivation that you're aware of, you are doing mathematics. I don't think physicists NECESSARILY have much interest in those structures or in advancing their knowledge, especially independent of physical motivation. However, they would go ahead and invent and reinvent mathematics and write 9 books to create certain theories to get closer to understanding physics questions.

It's about the questions you ask ultimately.

 

[deRham]

It's very simple: physics and math go together (do you also find calculus boring?).
As for how to get interested in math: my experience shows that things stop being boring and become interesting once you start to understand them better.

This is a good point, and I think the tendency to dismiss the symbols as just symbols is dangerous. They all actually mean something. Bad teachers can make things hard, true.

However, I am going to go ahead and say I doubt physics involves such a great appreciation for mathematics. Why? I think that to express the ideas of physics, you do need some mathematics, and perhaps physics enthusiasts would be fine with that.

The part where people start to conk is that you then have to be able to manipulate those fundamental relationships freely to obtain interesting facts. At this stage, in fact, what one is doing is closer to mathematics, although still to answer physical questions at the end.

The hard part is staying motivated through those manipulations to get to the juicy statements that one can make about physics!

As a strategy, why don't those to whom these remarks apply try to check out what physics actually comes out of those manipulations before getting there? That can make it interesting to read, and in fact, can gently convert one to appreciating the power of the mathematics.

 

[Klockan3]

The part where people start to conk is that you then have to be able to manipulate those fundamental relationships freely to obtain interesting facts. At this stage, in fact, what one is doing is closer to mathematics, although still to answer physical questions at the end.

The mathematics in physics is just used to structure up your statements and then from that logically derive their implications. For example if I have physical statements A and B then I can find a statement C implied by those. You can do that without translating into the more succinct mathematical statements but ultimately no matter how you do it you do the same things so there is no reason to not do it the compact way. Maybe people have a hard time keeping track of the physics behind all the maths but it is always there, once you see that people should no longer be bored of mathematical manipulations since they are actually manipulating physical statements in a more compact language. Learning the logic behind manipulating physical statements should be on every physics students agenda, right?

 

[deRham]

Learning the logic behind manipulating physical statements should be on every physics students agenda, right?

Yes! Definitely.

That's why I say that the issue is perseverance / tolerance. People need to make it through the stage where they're still bad at recognizing how the manipulations are actually conducted in the sense of fiddling around with physical statements.

The issue is probably with the "compactness" - usually mathematics achieves that quite well, but those who see mathematics as a bunch of symbols probably won't like it.

I have a pretty tough time imagining why they would, though. Calculus is already quite close to physics, and a lot of the math used in higher physics is higher-dimensional versions of Calculus in some form or the other.

Then again, this is easy for me to say, because I naturally think in terms of mathematics. I would understand something better if you gave me the mathematics behind it first, not because I don't have such a thing as intuition, but because I naturally like to make things compact in my mind as I try to understand them.

 

[Functor97]

I'd refine these things to say physics is expressed using mathematics. I think the part about consciousness interacts with via senses is your attempt to include physics in the field of mathematics, but that's the whole point isn't it - a mathematician's problems are typically NOT motivated by answering a physical question.

However, physics can give rise to interesting ideas in mathematics, which people then turn into entire theories. Discussing these ideas DUE to their physical significance is physics. However, noticing the same patterns result in beautiful structure recurring all through the mathematical objects' theories is mathematics.



Think of it this way - everyone in basic schooling is taught stuff like Newton's laws, derivatives, integrals, basic algebra. Things like that. If your motivation is to answer questions about structures and operations similar to what you saw in basic schooling, even if you do recognize they can have physical motivation that you're aware of, you are doing mathematics. I don't think physicists NECESSARILY have much interest in those structures or in advancing their knowledge, especially independent of physical motivation. However, they would go ahead and invent and reinvent mathematics and write 9 books to create certain theories to get closer to understanding physics questions.

It's about the questions you ask ultimately.

The map is not the territory, so are our physical models just abstractions or reality? If so, they would indeed be a subset of the applications of our logical postulates i.e Mathematics.

 

[deRham]

The map is not the territory, so are our physical models just abstractions or reality?

I would certainly say they are abstractions. However, that goes for almost anything that we come up with in our minds.

You can say that everything ultimately takes place in our minds, so it's all mathematics.

The difference between asking a mathematically natural question and answering it versus developing an abstract model is quite significant, however.

If so, they would indeed be a subset of the applications of our logical postulates i.e Mathematics.

The aim of mathematics, in my belief, is to try to make new definitions that advance the understanding of mathematical structures, or make a significant calculation that clarifies the understanding. Juggling logical postulates, on the other hand, could even take place in rigorous philosophy.

Application of certain postulates can take place in many settings, in fact.

But I personally would not call philosophy mathematics.

Sure, one could redefine anything to mean anything, but isn't the question to provide a useful distinction? A distinction that actually clarifies very different perspectives on things which may share some foundations.

Mathematics is a little like literature - there is an element of reality to it, but there is an element of intrinsic artistic creativity to it as well.

 

[Functor97]

I would certainly say they are abstractions. However, that goes for almost anything that we come up with in our minds.

You can say that everything ultimately takes place in our minds, so it's all mathematics.

The difference between asking a mathematically natural question and answering it versus developing an abstract model is quite significant, however.



The aim of mathematics, in my belief, is to try to make new definitions that advance the understanding of mathematical structures, or make a significant calculation that clarifies the understanding. Juggling logical postulates, on the other hand, could even take place in rigorous philosophy.

Application of certain postulates can take place in many settings, in fact.

But I personally would not call philosophy mathematics.

Sure, one could redefine anything to mean anything, but isn't the question to provide a useful distinction? A distinction that actually clarifies very different perspectives on things which may share some foundations.

Mathematics is a little like literature - there is an element of reality to it, but there is an element of intrinsic artistic creativity to it as well.

Very true, i am by no means convinved of my own position, i just see it as the more...useful, in the sense it transcends meaningless questions.
Your definition, the usefulness criterion, however would make pure mathematics a quasi form of physics. By this i mean that we (our minds) being physical entities would derive a series of applications of relervance to our world, so our mathematics is derived from physics, as presumably our brains emerge from the laws of physics.

 

[deRham]

The only usefulness I am talking of is of course to distinguish terminology. Unless you find the means of distinguishing to be flawed itself of course.

Your definition, the usefulness criterion, however would make pure mathematics a quasi form of physics. By this i mean that we (our minds) being physical entities would derive a series of applications of relervance to our world, so our mathematics is derived from physics, as presumably our brains emerge from the laws of physics.

A large part of my answer involved that philosophy doesn't qualify as mathematics to me, even the rigorous branches assuming only the basic logic.

I like to distinguish these things because it highlights the limitations of the perspective provided by the field unto certain questions. By following one trail, unless one can hope to satisfactorily tread far on many other trails in the process, it's safe to say one is limiting oneself in a sense in terms of what specifically one is going deep into.

But ultimately this stuff is about quenching intellectual appetite. What it all means to the individual in terms of any "truth" is quite a personal thing, and is understood quite internally.

Which is why in the end, I think picking a path and sticking to it is fine.

We can go in circles forever - say mathematics ultimately explains all that we can hope to gather about the external world, and that conversely, the laws of physics govern everything that happens to us. Where does that leave us? Basically going in circles.

The truth of the matter is whether we are physicists or mathematicians depends a lot on how we think. I hardly can say I have a lack of interest in physics and what's going on with it. But the way I think is still the way I think, and it depends what one wants to spend a lot of time on.

 

[Functor97]

The only usefulness I am talking of is of course to distinguish terminology. Unless you find the means of distinguishing to be flawed itself of course.



A large part of my answer involved that philosophy doesn't qualify as mathematics to me, even the rigorous branches assuming only the basic logic.

I like to distinguish these things because it highlights the limitations of the perspective provided by the field unto certain questions. By following one trail, unless one can hope to satisfactorily tread far on many other trails in the process, it's safe to say one is limiting oneself in a sense in terms of what specifically one is going deep into.

But ultimately this stuff is about quenching intellectual appetite. What it all means to the individual in terms of any "truth" is quite a personal thing, and is understood quite internally.

Which is why in the end, I think picking a path and sticking to it is fine.

We can go in circles forever - say mathematics ultimately explains all that we can hope to gather about the external world, and that conversely, the laws of physics govern everything that happens to us. Where does that leave us? Basically going in circles.

The truth of the matter is whether we are physicists or mathematicians depends a lot on how we think. I hardly can say I have a lack of interest in physics and what's going on with it. But the way I think is still the way I think, and it depends what one wants to spend a lot of time on.

Very nice response. I agree with your assesment of philosophy being distinct from mathematics. I guess what i was trying to point out was that while its great for mathematicians to explore whatever they want, whatever they find beautiful or interesting, as Animals, desiring servival it is going to relate somehow to perceived reality. That is why, imo, so much pure mathematics ends up being "useful" in physics. Our mathematics developed to fit with any perceived reality.

 

[deRham]

^ Although that mathematics can also be "useful" in computer science, etc as well. For example, the idea of group theory in mathematics is interestingly simple - a group captures symmetries. Now perhaps at one point, we noticed symmetries in what we identify as the physical world. But perhaps we identified symmetries in the emotional world, or some philosophical world. Who knows, right?

How about measure theory? Well, we can say that integration was developed with lots of physical motivation, yet what about probabilistic applications? Sometimes such applications are conducted very much not with physics in mind. Yet they still involve the same intuition of adding stuff up according to some limiting behavior.

I really can't emphasize enough it depends how one thinks, and what one wishes to spend a lot of time doing. Can you really stand the idea of not understanding Einstein's equations to the fullest you can some day? For some people, the answer is yes, as long as they get to fiddle with most of the mathematics involved for a long time, without ever thinking about what Einstein was thinking.

If going into theoretical subjects, it's best, I think, to do what is most inspiring to you. If you do that, I think you'll strike the balance and learn all of what you want to in time. If string theory is inspiring to you, do it. You may never solve the problems aimed by it, but you'll think about the right things, and probably learn a fascinating blend of disciplines.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I hated all Math until I took Calculus. I learned more algebra/trig/advanced algebra THROUGH Calculus I because it was so interesting.

That's interesting. It sounds a lot better than studying something for the sake of something else.

I think I got a much better understanding of Math through studying Physics. What does everyone here think of doing that?

Surely it won't make me any WORSE at Math by doing that. Right?

 

[Functor97]

^ Although that mathematics can also be "useful" in computer science, etc as well. For example, the idea of group theory in mathematics is interestingly simple - a group captures symmetries. Now perhaps at one point, we noticed symmetries in what we identify as the physical world. But perhaps we identified symmetries in the emotional world, or some philosophical world. Who knows, right?

How about measure theory? Well, we can say that integration was developed with lots of physical motivation, yet what about probabilistic applications? Sometimes such applications are conducted very much not with physics in mind. Yet they still involve the same intuition of adding stuff up according to some limiting behavior.

I really can't emphasize enough it depends how one thinks, and what one wishes to spend a lot of time doing. Can you really stand the idea of not understanding Einstein's equations to the fullest you can some day? For some people, the answer is yes, as long as they get to fiddle with most of the mathematics involved for a long time, without ever thinking about what Einstein was thinking.

If going into theoretical subjects, it's best, I think, to do what is most inspiring to you. If you do that, I think you'll strike the balance and learn all of what you want to in time. If string theory is inspiring to you, do it. You may never solve the problems aimed by it, but you'll think about the right things, and probably learn a fascinating blend of disciplines.

Once again another very inspiring post.
I am curious though, wouldn't a differential geometer be able to understand Einstein's theory with a little bit of study of physical reasoning? I mean to me (and i am only an undergrad) it seems that the hurdle in say general relativity is more mathematical than physical. Had Riemann lived longer, would he have constructed his own theory of relativity from differential geometry?
I have heard it is easier for a pure mathematician to understand theoretical physics, than for a theoretical physics to understand some fields of pure mathematics...

 

[Super Kirei]

This may be a dead thread; but maybe the OP will read this. If you want to do physics, find out where the physics majors hang out in your school and try to make friends. Next thing you'll want to do is test into or out of calculus. There is no speed limit to learning if you adopt an aggressive attitude. Math (not advanced research stuff, but every day school stuff) is easy when presented correctly. The whole "math is hard" thing is a faulty shibboleth intended to cow you in submission. What really happened is that you missed out on learning some essential concept at some point and now doing math is like playing chess without knowing all the rules. So you're forced to get by through memorizing board positions and trying to recreate the moves you've seen other players make. Stop being dependent on others and take responsibility for the contents of your mind. I suggest the book Precalculus Mathematics in a Nutshell by George Simmons. If you have trouble getting through it, I'm sure the people on this forum and your new physics major friends will be more than happy to help you out.