Physics Not Presented Rigorously Enough

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter liorde
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physics
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the perceived lack of rigor in the presentation of physics, particularly in graduate-level courses. The original poster expresses frustration with the imprecise teaching methods and unclear definitions, specifically citing the Lagrangian formalism of the electromagnetic field as an example. Responses highlight that many physics textbooks lack sufficient worked examples, which contributes to confusion. Participants suggest that texts authored by mathematicians, such as Arnold's "Classical Mechanics" and Burgess's work on covariant fields, tend to present concepts more rigorously and clearly.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Lagrangian mechanics
  • Familiarity with electromagnetic theory
  • Basic knowledge of tensor calculus
  • Experience with graduate-level physics textbooks
NEXT STEPS
  • Study Arnold's "Classical Mechanics" for rigorous mathematical exposition
  • Explore Burgess's text on classical covariant fields for clarity on tensor fields
  • Research effective teaching methods in physics education
  • Investigate the role of worked examples in learning complex physics concepts
USEFUL FOR

Graduate physics students, educators in physics, and anyone seeking to improve the clarity and rigor of physics education.

liorde
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I am a physics student, doing my graduate degree.
I am wondering if anyone else feels like me concerning the following topic:
Physics is usually presented in a very imprecise way, and it would be much easier to understand if it would be presented more precisely.

I felt this way towards all my physics courses so far, and I refer both to lecturers and to textbooks.
I wish physics would be taught in a much more rigorous way.
An example which I encountered recently is the Lagrangian formalism of the electromagnetic field. From the standard notation it is very hard to understand, for example, if the Lagrangian density is a function of the type {ℝ^n} \to ℝ or of the type \left\{ {{ℝ^m} \to ℝ} \right\} \to ℝ Or with respect to what exactly do I differentiate in the expression \frac{{\partial {\cal L}\left( {\phi \;,\;{\partial ^\mu }\phi } \right)}}{{\partial \phi }} etc. (I am not requesting for answers on these issues. I'm jut trying to give an example).
For me, personally, physics would be much easier to cope with if it were presented more precisely and rigorously.

Do you agree?
What do you think is the reason that physicists tend to be so fuzzy and unclear in their definitions?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Correct me if I'm wrong but your example seems to be more of an issue with computation than theory? I know what you mean though: when I first saw Lagrangian densities in the specific case of GR where you are told to vary it with respect to a 2 - tensor field I was like how the heck do I do that o.0 but then I found another book that worked through the computation and it became more clear so maybe your textbook(s) just don't have enough worked examples? Then again that seems to be the case with many grad texts. I have seen, in my opinion anyways, that when mathematicians write physics related books, the expositions and theorems / proofs tend to be much neater with no beating around the bush or hand - waving and the ideas are presented more rigorously (Arnold's classical mechanics text in particular comes to mind and especially Burgess's text on classical co-variant fields). I really don't know why; I used to think it was to put more emphasis on physical concepts but to be honest I see more math than physical concepts in many of these graduate physics texts anyways.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
597
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
6K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
7K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
6K