Physics for Math Majors: Advice for Applying Math to Physical Problems

  • Thread starter Thread starter epr2008
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges faced by a student majoring in applied mathematics and physics, particularly in understanding the physical interpretations of mathematical concepts. Despite a strong mathematical background, the student struggles with applying mathematical techniques to physics problems and inferring the physical meanings behind equations. They express frustration over the lack of guidance on when to use specific mathematical methods in physics contexts, noting that while they excel in applied math courses, they find classical mechanics and other physics subjects more challenging.The student seeks recommendations for resources or books that bridge the gap between mathematics and physics, emphasizing the need for a deeper understanding of the physical principles behind the equations. Another participant suggests revisiting introductory physics materials to grasp the significance of the equations and their applications, highlighting the importance of understanding the foundational concepts in physics to improve problem-solving skills.
epr2008
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Ok, so last year was my junior year in applied mathematics, and I decided to declare a second major in physics. My problem has never been the math at all, but rather its physical interpretations. University physics was a breeze, however, even then I did notice that towards the end conceptually I was lost at some points. I took a course in Modern Physics last semester which was heavily conceptual, and although I received a B, I really didn't feel like I earned it. This semester I am taking classical mechanics, astrophysics, and thermal dynamics and statistical mechanics.

Now, I have taken tons of math courses: calc sequence up to real and some functional analysis, abstract algebra, complex analysis, ODE, PDE, numerical methods, stats sequence, and I have self taught my way through a point-set topology and an algebraic topology book. And this semester I'm taking an applied math course that focuses on biological processes and modeling so really its more of a course in difference equations and non-linear differential equations.

I have two major problems. First of all even after learning all of those techniques from all of those math courses, I don't really know when to apply them in physics. Sometimes I don't even know where to begin on a problem at all. And I also have a difficult time inferring the physical meanings of the equations.

For example, in classical mechanics, most of the material covered would be a lot simpler and the equations more concise if you used complex variables instead of vectors, such as circular motion, motion of charged particles, etc. I mean realistically any vector quantity can be described in terms of a complex variable even if in some cases its not efficient to do so. My problem is that I was never taught how to do such a thing.

The weird thing is that in my applied math class I do know when and what techniques to apply which is basically the same thing in a different setting. So I was thinking that maybe I am just having trouble understanding it from a physicists point of view? There are plenty of math methods for physicists books that I have looked at, but all of them say they have applications which turns out to be like one chapter on one specific physical phenomenon. And what they really are is a condensed encyclopedia on solving different types of equations.

So I was wondering could anyone help me out by either recommending a book or some guidance in general?

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
When I took introductory physics I applied equations instead of thinking the problems though. It really hit me when I got to classical mechanics and all I could do was glare at the pages and wonder how I could set up the problem. It sounds like you might be in a similar scenario.

I ended up going back through the mechanics sections in my introductory physics textbook and taking the time to understand what the equations actually meant and where they were applicable.
 
The book is fascinating. If your education includes a typical math degree curriculum, with Lebesgue integration, functional analysis, etc, it teaches QFT with only a passing acquaintance of ordinary QM you would get at HS. However, I would read Lenny Susskind's book on QM first. Purchased a copy straight away, but it will not arrive until the end of December; however, Scribd has a PDF I am now studying. The first part introduces distribution theory (and other related concepts), which...
I've gone through the Standard turbulence textbooks such as Pope's Turbulent Flows and Wilcox' Turbulent modelling for CFD which mostly Covers RANS and the closure models. I want to jump more into DNS but most of the work i've been able to come across is too "practical" and not much explanation of the theory behind it. I wonder if there is a book that takes a theoretical approach to Turbulence starting from the full Navier Stokes Equations and developing from there, instead of jumping from...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
167
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Back
Top