Should a physicist learn math proofs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter andytoh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Physicist Proofs
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether physicists, particularly those in fields like general relativity and quantum field theory, should invest time in learning mathematical proofs. Participants explore the balance between understanding the underlying mathematics and the practical application of mathematical results in physics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Philosophical
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant emphasizes the importance of understanding mathematical proofs for a deeper grasp of concepts in general relativity and quantum field theory, questioning whether memorization suffices.
  • Another argues that a physicist's primary concern is experimental validation, suggesting that mathematical justification may not be necessary.
  • Some participants propose that while memorizing mathematical results can expedite learning, a lack of understanding may hinder theoretical development.
  • There is mention of different types of physicists, with experimentalists needing practical math skills for engineering purposes, while theorists may focus more on the conceptual understanding of mathematics.
  • A participant notes that advances in mathematics can be driven by physics, but cautions against overgeneralizing this relationship.
  • Concerns are raised about the time investment required to learn proofs versus the need to progress in complex fields like superstring theory.
  • Some express skepticism about the necessity of pure mathematicians conducting research in string theory without a physics background.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the necessity of learning mathematical proofs for physicists. Some advocate for a deep understanding of proofs, while others prioritize practical application and memorization of results.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the varying demands of different branches of physics and the potential trade-offs between time spent on proofs versus practical application. There are also references to the philosophical implications of how mathematics and physics interact.

  • #61
mathwonk said:
absolutely, a physicist who does not learn math proofs, his belly button falls off. and chikldren laugh at him when he walks down the street with his best girl.

Fantastic! That sounds like something you say when you are tripping. Or atleast something i'd say.

I love you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
The mathematics part of physics shouldn't be just to learn how input the right values and find the magical answer. Some level of understanding is crucial, even though it might not be full proofs, but a general or brief knowledge of the area in terms of derivation. Does a rock climber need to understand his gear to be a successful rock climber? Not really, but if he does, it might come in handy.
 
  • #63
We've gotten a lot of mixed opinions. I believe the following is the MINIMUM mathematical rigour requirement of all physicists who use mathematical tools on a regular basis:

A physicist needs not study the proofs of mathematical theorems that he uses, but he MUST be able to (better yet, actually do it) prove the basic properties of each mathematical tool that he uses.

For example, if a physicist uses Lie groups, he must be able to prove that GL(n,R), C-{0}, products of Lie groups, etc... are indeed Lie groups. If he uses homotopic functions, he must know how to prove that homotopic functions form equivalence classes, that compositions of homotopic functions are homotopic, that the fundamental group is in fact a group under composition of homotopy equivalence classes, etc...

These elementary results are not difficult and by being able to prove them, the physicist will get a stronger feel for what the mathematical tool really is and how it works. This is the minimum proving requirement for physicists in my opinion, and such basic proving skills will make the physicist better in his usage of the mathematical tools.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
complex philosophy, i get the impression we may be kindred spirits. or perhaps that you are holed up in a conservative religious school where rampant lunacy is outlawed. hang in there buddy, there is fun to be had in math land. as to tripping, this is not recommended by artificial means, math provides many outlandishly delightful journeys.
 

Similar threads

Replies
32
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K