Math for Physics | Learn to Interpret the Physical World

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the mathematical foundations necessary for understanding cosmology, particularly from a physics perspective. A participant with a degree in electrical engineering expresses a desire to learn the mathematics of physics, emphasizing the importance of calculus. They seek a more concise list of relevant math topics and resources that connect mathematical concepts to physical reality. Recommendations include Frankel's "Geometry of Physics" for a physics-oriented approach, and Lee's "Introduction to Smooth Manifolds" and Jost's "Riemannian Geometry and Geometric Analysis" for a more pure mathematics perspective. However, it is noted that these texts are advanced and require a solid background in real and complex analysis or topology. Another participant mentions "Mathematics for Physics and Physicists" by Walter Appel as a resource that effectively summarizes the mathematical tools needed to grasp physical principles. The conversation highlights the necessity of a strong mathematical foundation for those transitioning into advanced studies in physics.
LouArnold
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I have a degree in electrical engineering, but of some years ago.
For my own simple enjoyment, I wanted to learn the math of physics - specifically for cosmology. Key to my interest is the interpretation of the math in the physical world. In summary, what is the track in math topics?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Calculus and lots of it.
 
FunkyDwarf said:
Calculus and lots of it.

Haha. That's a rather obvious answer, considering my degree. I'm sure that there is a more concise list. There has to be some one or some book that conveys what the math means in terms of a physical reality.

But considering that there has not been another answer to this, perhaps the question is poor. Explaining why or how its poor would be a help.

For those who at least looked at it - thanks. And to FunkyDwarf, a special thanks for responding.
 
You won't need to use too much calculus (in the usual sense), actually, unless you think of the study of differentiable manifolds as generalization of calculus (in all honesty, it probably is, although I don't think many mathematicians think of it this way). A somewhat advanced introduction to the mathematics of cosmology is in Frankel's Geometry of Physics. The approach is very physics-oriented. If you wanted a more pure mathematics-oriented introduction, I would suggest Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds or Jost's Riemannian Geometry and Geometric Analysis. All texts I mentioned are advanced in the sense that if you don't have a good pure mathematical background, you won't know what's going on, so if you never took such mathematically rigorous classes as Real/Complex Analysis or Topology as an EE major, you would need to go back and independently study these topics before looking into the books I suggested.
 
phreak said:
You won't need to use too much calculus (in the usual sense), actually, unless you think of the study of differentiable manifolds as generalization of calculus (in all honesty, it probably is, although I don't think many mathematicians think of it this way). A somewhat advanced introduction to the mathematics of cosmology is in Frankel's Geometry of Physics. The approach is very physics-oriented. If you wanted a more pure mathematics-oriented introduction, I would suggest Lee's Introduction to Smooth Manifolds or Jost's Riemannian Geometry and Geometric Analysis. All texts I mentioned are advanced in the sense that if you don't have a good pure mathematical background, you won't know what's going on, so if you never took such mathematically rigorous classes as Real/Complex Analysis or Topology as an EE major, you would need to go back and independently study these topics before looking into the books I suggested.

Thanks, that makes sense. My background is in applied math, as befits engineers. But we covered Complex Analysis, but not topology or anything in the greater sense of pure math.
Perhaps I have too far to go to be realistically capable of catching up to most Masters level physics students.
 
Hi LouArnold, I have a book that pretty well sums up what you want to know, it's called mathematics for physics and physicists by Walter Appel. It basically tell you the mathematical tools required to understand physical principles. :D
 
After a year of thought, I decided to adjust my ratio for applying the US/EU(+UK) schools. I mostly focused on the US schools before, but things are getting complex and I found out that Europe is also a good place to study. I found some institutes that have professors with similar interests. But gaining the information is much harder than US schools (like you have to contact professors in advance etc). For your information, I have B.S. in engineering (low GPA: 3.2/4.0) in Asia - one SCI...
I graduated with a BSc in Physics in 2020. Since there were limited opportunities in my country (mostly teaching), I decided to improve my programming skills and began working in IT, first as a software engineer and later as a quality assurance engineer, where I’ve now spent about 3 years. While this career path has provided financial stability, I’ve realized that my excitement and passion aren’t really there, unlike what I felt when studying or doing research in physics. Working in IT...
Hello, I’m an undergraduate student pursuing degrees in both computer science and physics. I was wondering if anyone here has graduated with these degrees and applied to a physics graduate program. I’m curious about how graduate programs evaluated your applications. In addition, if I’m interested in doing research in quantum fields related to materials or computational physics, what kinds of undergraduate research experiences would be most valuable?

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
71
Views
826
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top