Is Pure math of any use in Theoretical high energy physics?

AI Thread Summary
Functional analysis and real analysis are essential areas of mathematics that have significant applications in theoretical high energy physics research. While they are not purely abstract, they provide foundational tools that can enhance understanding in physics, particularly in quantum mechanics. The allocation of time for learning these subjects varies based on individual needs, interests, and levels of mathematical proficiency, with suggestions ranging from 3% to 30% of overall mathematics study time. For those with a strong mathematical inclination, starting with functional analysis can be beneficial, while others may prefer to approach it alongside quantum mechanics. Ultimately, the focus should be on personal interest and relevance to one's research goals, as a more physics-oriented approach may allow for a selective engagement with mathematical concepts as needed.
zahero_2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
Is Pure math like functional analysis and real analysis of any use in Theoretical high energy physics research ? Do I need to learn them?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Any one??:frown:
 
Functional analysis and real analysis are not (entirely) pure math, they are basic and highly applicable in application including but not limited to theoretical physics. The more important and harder to answer question is how a limed budget of time should be allocated to learning an unlimited amount of useful mathematics. My entirely unhelpful opinion is that between 3 and 30 percent of mathematics learning time should be devoted to functional analysis and real analysis depending on individual needs, abilities, and interest.
 
I'm not in high energy, exactly, but I say learn what you are interested in. I don't know what level you are at. I think quantum mechanics provides nice motivation for functional analysis, so it's good to learn them together, or quantum mechanics first. Maybe functional first, if you are more mathematical, but I kind of look down on that, even though I am a mathematician (some PDE might also suffice in place of QM).

If your style is very mathematical, you can be like John Baez and know limitless amounts of math, but work in quantum gravity (although he quit that). If your style is more towards physics, I suspect you can probably get by if you almost ignore math, except whatever you need to learn along the way. So, it's really whatever you are interested in, I think.
 
Hey, I am Andreas from Germany. I am currently 35 years old and I want to relearn math and physics. This is not one of these regular questions when it comes to this matter. So... I am very realistic about it. I know that there are severe contraints when it comes to selfstudy compared to a regular school and/or university (structure, peers, teachers, learning groups, tests, access to papers and so on) . I will never get a job in this field and I will never be taken serious by "real"...
Yesterday, 9/5/2025, when I was surfing, I found an article The Schwarzschild solution contains three problems, which can be easily solved - Journal of King Saud University - Science ABUNDANCE ESTIMATION IN AN ARID ENVIRONMENT https://jksus.org/the-schwarzschild-solution-contains-three-problems-which-can-be-easily-solved/ that has the derivation of a line element as a corrected version of the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein’s field equation. This article's date received is 2022-11-15...
Back
Top