What is the Difference Between a Theoretical Physicist and a Mathematical Physicist?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a proposed academic plan for specializing in math and physics over three years, featuring a rigorous course load with nine classes per year. Concerns are raised about the feasibility and quality of learning with such an intense schedule, as well as the appropriateness of advanced courses like String Theory and Quantum Field Theory for a bachelor's program. Some participants suggest focusing on fewer courses to ensure a deeper understanding of the material, while others argue that prior self-study may make the workload manageable. The conversation also touches on the unique situation of a 14-year-old aspiring student, questioning the balance between academic pursuits and social development. Overall, the thread highlights the challenges of ambitious academic planning in the fields of math and physics.
  • #51
don't know yet. I'm in a fairly small department, so what I take strongly depends on what happens to be offered (which is why I take many courses - they might not be offered the following year, or not fit in my schedule). But I'd like

Lie Theory
Lie Algebra
Linear Algebra II
Linear Algebra III
Tensor Analysis
Complex Analysis II
General Relavitity
Quantum Mechanics II
E&M 2
Statistical Mechanics
Subatomic Physics II
Nuclear Physics
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
i think you will need riemannian geometry, differential topology, and algebraic topology math courses to accompany your general relativity and particle physics. at any rate, looks like you will be more knowledgeable than me when you finish your undergraduate degree, because you are cramming in more than me. good luck.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
wow you guys are nuts, i guess you won't have time for DR 210 Introduction to Beer Pong, that was my favorite class, i thought everyone took that
 
  • #54
Tom1992 said:
i think you will need riemannian geometry, differential topology, and algebraic topology math courses to accompany your general relativity and particle physics. at any rate, looks like you will be more knowledgeable than me when you finish your undergraduate degree, because you are cramming in more than me.

I'd love to fit those in, but as I said earlier, those courses are fairly rarely offered (though a good deal of differential geometry is done in tensor analysis, which is offered more often). I guess I have to leave some for grad school.

There are also other things which can be useful. For example, TAing labs or a class to develop your teaching skills, as well as doing research. My plan, when I started my undergrad, was to become one of the best grad school applicants in the world. If that's what you seek, then follow what I did: take as many courses as you can while keeping a near-perfect average, do research and publish as early and as often as possible (my goal is to have 4-5 publications by the end of my undergrad), and TA for a semester or two.

I'm planning on going in very theoretical physics, probably QFT or LQG, and will probably do a masters in mathematics next, before a phd back in physics.
 
  • #55
imastud said:
wow you guys are nuts, i guess you won't have time for DR 210 Introduction to Beer Pong, that was my favorite class, i thought everyone took that
Beer Pong is a freshman class, whereas you will notice that the classes we're talking about are for years 2-4.

Indeed, first year is mostly dedicated to those killer beer pong assignments. They make for some long, long nights.
 
  • #56
tmc said:
Beer Pong is a freshman class, whereas you will notice that the classes we're talking about are for years 2-4.

whoops my mistake wasn't paying attention

tmc said:
Indeed, first year is mostly dedicated to those killer beer pong assignments. They make for some long, long nights.

yeah i spent hours and hours on my beer pong class my freshman year to the deteriment of my other classes. its a tough weed out class. I've been able to balance things better since.
 
  • #57
Tom1992 said:
i think you will need riemannian geometry, differential topology, and algebraic topology math courses to accompany your general relativity and particle physics.

Ok, this statement has convinced me to get back into this thread. Those subjects are most certainly not required to take relativity or particle physics. In fact, almost no upper-level math course will ever be directly applicable in any physics course. The math you learn in those courses is not used or even known by the vast majority of physicists (yes, I mean theoretical physicists). The bits which are used will be presented in a completely different ways in physics and math classes. Physics books will never assume you've taken extra math anyway. Everything will be explained in the relevant courses. You can take lots of math if you like, but unless you end up in a very unusual research field, don't expect it to be useful in physics.

Some other points in this thread need reality checks too. I still don't understand how you can get out of general ed courses by having a good GPA. I've never heard of such a thing, and I'd be very skeptical of any university which allowed that.

Also, labs are good things (at least if they're organized properly). I'm finishing my Ph.D. in relativity right now, so I'm pretty far removed from experiments. Yet I still consider my undergrad labs some of the most important courses I ever took. You can't get that experience from a book. I should also say that I've never seen freshman labs that had any real substance. You should take real lab courses. If you're actually getting a physics degree, any respectable university should require many of them.

Why do you have QM II, QFT, and string theory all in one year? QFT requires a thorough knowledge of QM, and I doubt the course starts in the middle of the year. You also need a solid knowledge of QFT to learn any meaningful string theory, so it wouldn't be reasonable to take those concurrently.
 
  • #58
you might want to take an advanced stats/probability course or two
 
  • #59
Stingray said:
Ok, this statement has convinced me to get back into this thread. Those subjects are most certainly not required to take relativity or particle physics. In fact, almost no upper-level math course will ever be directly applicable in any physics course. The math you learn in those courses is not used or even known by the vast majority of physicists (yes, I mean theoretical physicists). The bits which are used will be presented in a completely different ways in physics and math classes. Physics books will never assume you've taken extra math anyway. Everything will be explained in the relevant courses. You can take lots of math if you like, but unless you end up in a very unusual research field, don't expect it to be useful in physics.
tmc and i want to specialize in BOTH physics and mathematics (as the title of this thread indicates). tmc stated that he wants to get a masters in math before doing his phd, so we want to be very versed in both mathematical knowledge and rigour and then use that extra skill to our advantage in researching theoretical/mathematical physics.

besides, I've been looking at the book "mathematical perspectives on theoretical physics" by prakash
and in it summarizes in chapter ZERO all "mathematical preliminaries" up to, and including, riemannian geometry, differential topology, and algebraic topology. chapters 1 to 5 in that book then proceeds to MORE ADVANCED mathematics. look:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1860943659/?tag=pfamazon01-20
and then chapters 6 onwards it finally begins discussing relativity, quantum field theory and superstrings. so I've gotten the impression that the math courses I've listed for my undergrad program just touches on what math i eventually need to know.

Stingray said:
Some other points in this thread need reality checks too. I still don't understand how you can get out of general ed courses by having a good GPA. I've never heard of such a thing, and I'd be very skeptical of any university which allowed that.
i've been told by one of my TA's that his high GPA and experience in working with his programme coordinator that he has been allowed by his programme coordinator to customize his undergrad programme.



Stingray said:
Why do you have QM II, QFT, and string theory all in one year? QFT requires a thorough knowledge of QM, and I doubt the course starts in the middle of the year. You also need a solid knowledge of QFT to learn any meaningful string theory, so it wouldn't be reasonable to take those concurrently.

i did not know that one has to master qft before string theory, i thought they could be studied concurrently. but i know that there is an undergraduate textbook for string theory already called "a first course in string theory" by zwiebach:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521831431/?tag=pfamazon01-20
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
Tom1992 said:
tmc and i want to specialize in BOTH physics and mathematics (as the title of this thread indicates). tmc stated that he wants to get a masters in math before doing his phd, so we want to be very versed in both mathematical knowledge and rigour and then use that extra skill to our advantage in researching theoretical/mathematical physics.

That's fine. I was just saying that all of those math courses may not be as applicable to physics as you're expecting.

The math described in chapter 0 of Prakash is really pretty basic. Almost all of it would already be included in the relevant physics courses anyway. Math courses would probably focus on completely different topics, and may even ignore the material relevant to physics anyway. In most cases, the notation is also completely different.

Anyway, I can't see the other chapters of that book very efficiently online. I'll just say that the GR chapter looks pretty basic. Most serious textbooks on the subject actually require much more math. But they also spend a lot of time developing it. A lot of that comes from Riemannian geometry, but I don't know how useful a mathematician's course in that subject would be. Most of relativity uses pseudo-Riemannian geometry anyway, and from what I understand, many of the theorems don't carry over. I can't recall ever seeing differential topology or algebraic topology in GR or (standard textbook) QFT. If they were there, I didn't recognize them as such.

I also thought I needed to learn tons of math to understand GR when I was a freshman. I was taking too many cues from popular books going on about how esoteric these subjects were. That impression turned out to be completely wrong.

i've been told by one of my TA's that his high GPA and experience in working with his programme coordinator that he has been allowed by his programme coordinator to customize his undergrad programme.

That sounds more like he was able to pass out of certain classes because of his experience. That's different than getting out of courses you don't know anything about.

i did not know that one has to master qft before string theory, i thought they could be studied concurrently. but i know that there is an undergraduate textbook for string theory already called "a first course in string theory" by zwiebach:
https://www.amazon.com/First-Course-S...e=UTF8&s=books&tag=pfamazon01-20

From what I've heard, that book introduces string theory in a very roundabout and handwavy way. Lots of things are just presented out of nowhere. Given the rigorous background that you seem to want, I think it's better to wait until you can learn the subject properly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #61
Posted by Stingray:
Most of relativity uses pseudo-Riemannian geometry anyway, and from what I understand, many of the theorems don't carry over. I can't recall ever seeing differential topology or algebraic topology in GR or (standard textbook) QFT. If they were there, I didn't recognize them as such.

From what I can gather from my diff. geo. texts; this is true. However, I would like to add, however, that taking a course in Diff. Geometry is not going to hurt. My math professor for differential geometry was once a mathematical physicists, and still does research as a mathematician into mechanics...so Differential geometry can still be useful (there are entire books deticated to geometric mechanics such as: Geometric Mechanic by: Richard Talman). I do believe, however, Stingray, that you are correct, from a purely physics point of view you can/will pick up the mathematics to preform your subject while within the subject.

Though, I would argue having an excess of mathematics isn't necessarily going to be a bad thing, it is often harder to pick up the math on the fly than the lab procedures (assuming a minimual background is in place).Still the Diff. Topology and Algebraic Topology hasn't cross my radar in terms of needing it for any of the subjects listed. I do know that either one will be of use, however, if the OP plans on studying Quantum Topology (which is what a professor at my university does...still not sure what exactly that encomposses).
 
Last edited:
  • #62
again i am a mathematics specialist who now wants to expand into theoretical physics so i have only some exposure to general relativity and quantum mechanics. having no background in quantum field theory or string theory, i am relying on the book "mathematical perspectives on theoretical physics" by prakash
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1860943659/?tag=pfamazon01-20
to determine ahead of time what math courses i need to take. in chapter zero, it clearly states a need to know:

homotopy, category and functors, de rham cohomology, mayer-vietoris sequence.

this to me suggests that i need to study algebraic topology and category theory (and i haven't studied those yet).

and then in chapter one, it goes on to talk about elliptic curves, riemman surfaces, complex manifolds, kahler manifolds, etc... topics beyond the riemannian geometry and differential topology topics i spoke of. so i feel that the mathematics courses i have listed are not even sufficient to cover the math i need to know--contrary to your claim that these math courses are excessive.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
however, the OP plans on studying Quantum Topology (which is what a professor at my university does...still not sure what exactly that encomposses).

Isn't that like a lot of Kahler Geometry? When I consider 'quantum topology,' I think of Calabi-Yau spaces, which I guess, are essentially Ricci-flat complex manifolds that admit a closed Kahler form and have a vanishing first Chern class, (not that I fully understand what that means, I need to learn more maths first).

Although, I think this only has applications in String Theory but I am not aware of other widely used 'quantum topological spaces' used elsewhere in QM. So, I wonder, is it mostly Kahler Geometry, Poincare Groups, SU(5)?

It sounds like a tight research field, which is why I am trying to figure out what exactly it is.

Then again, I am not really aware of a whole lot at all, so I probably am just retarded.
 
  • #64
ok, here is the official list of the mathematics one needs to know for string theory (i'm skipping the simple 1st and 2nd year math courses).
http://superstringtheory.com/math/index.html

Real analysis
In real analysis, students learn abstract properties of real functions as mappings, isomorphism, fixed points, and basic topology such as sets, neighborhoods, invariants and homeomorphisms.

Complex analysis
Complex analysis is an important foundation for learning string theory. Functions of a complex variable, complex manifolds, holomorphic functions, harmonic forms, Kähler manifolds, Riemann surfaces and Teichmuller spaces are topics one needs to become familiar with in order to study string theory.

Group theory
Modern particle physics could not have progressed without an understanding of symmetries and group transformations. Group theory usually begins with the group of permutations on N objects, and other finite groups. Concepts such as representations, irreducibility, classes and characters.

Differential geometry
Einstein's General Theory of Relativity turned non-Euclidean geometry from a controversial advance in mathematics into a component of graduate physics education. Differential geometry begins with the study of differentiable manifolds, coordinate systems, vectors and tensors. Students should learn about metrics and covariant derivatives, and how to calculate curvature in coordinate and non-coordinate bases.

Lie groups
A Lie group is a group defined as a set of mappings on a differentiable manifold. Lie groups have been especially important in modern physics. The study of Lie groups combines techniques from group theory and basic differential geometry to develop the concepts of Lie derivatives, Killing vectors, Lie algebras and matrix representations.

Differential forms
The mathematics of differential forms, developed by Elie Cartan at the beginning of the 20th century, has been powerful technology for understanding Hamiltonian dynamics, relativity and gauge field theory. Students begin with antisymmetric tensors, then develop the concepts of exterior product, exterior derivative, orientability, volume elements, and integrability conditions.

Homology
Homology concerns regions and boundaries of spaces. For example, the boundary of a two-dimensional circular disk is a one-dimensional circle. But a one-dimensional circle has no edges, and hence no boundary. In homology this case is generalized to "The boundary of a boundary is zero." Students learn about simplexes, complexes, chains, and homology groups.

Cohomology
Cohomology and homology are related, as one might suspect from the names. Cohomology is the study of the relationship between closed and exact differential forms defined on some manifold M. Students explore the generalization of Stokes' theorem, de Rham cohomology, the de Rahm complex, de Rahm's theorem and cohomology groups.

Homotopy
Lightly speaking, homotopy is the study of the hole in the donut. Homotopy is important in string theory because closed strings can wind around donut holes and get stuck, with physical consequences. Students learn about paths and loops, homotopic maps of loops, contractibility, the fundamental group, higher homotopy groups, and the Bott periodicity theorem.

Fiber bundles
Fiber bundles comprise an area of mathematics that studies spaces defined on other spaces through the use of a projection map of some kind. For example, in electromagnetism there is a U(1) vector potential associated with every point of the spacetime manifold. Therefore one could study electromagnetism abstractly as a U(1) fiber bundle over some spacetime manifold M. Concepts developed include tangent bundles, principal bundles, Hopf maps, covariant derivatives, curvature, and the connection to gauge field theories in physics.

Characteristic classes
The subject of characteristic classes applies cohomology to fiber bundles to understand the barriers to untwisting a fiber bundle into what is known as a trivial bundle. This is useful because it can reduce complex physical problems to math problems that are already solved. The Chern class is particularly relevant to string theory.

Index theorems
In physics we are often interested in knowing about the space of zero eigenvalues of a differential operator. The index of such an operator is related to the dimension of that space of zero eigenvalues. The subject of index theorems and characteristic classes is concerned with

Supersymmetry and supergravity
The mathematics behind supersymmetry starts with two concepts: graded Lie algebras, and Grassmann numbers. A graded algebra is one that uses both commutation and anti-commutation relations. Grassmann numbers are anti-commuting numbers, so that x times y = –y times x. The mathematical technology needed to work in supersymmetry includes an understanding of graded Lie algebras, spinors in arbitrary spacetime dimensions, covariant derivatives of spinors, torsion, Killing spinors, and Grassmann multiplication, derivation and integration, and Kähler potentials.

K-theory
Cohomology is a powerful mathematical technology for classifying differential forms. In the 1960s, work by Sir Michael Atiyah, Isadore Singer, Alexandre Grothendieck, and Friedrich Hirzebruch generalized coholomogy from differential forms to vector bundles, a subject that is now known as K-theory.
Witten has argued that K-theory is relevant to string theory for classifying D-brane charges. D-brane objects in string theory carry a type of charge called Ramond-Ramond charge. Ramond-Ramond fields are differential forms, and their charges should be classifed by ordinary cohomology. But gauge fields propagate on D-branes, and gauge fields give rise to vector bundles. This suggests that D-brane charge classification requires a generalization of cohomology to vector bundles -- hence K-theory.

Noncommutative geometry (NCG for short)
Geometry was originally developed to describe physical space that we can see and measure. After modern mathematics was freed from Euclid's Fifth Axiom by Gauss and Bolyai, Riemann added to modern geometry the abstract notion of a manifold M with points that are labeled by local coordinates that are real numbers, with some metric tensor that determines an extremal length between two points on the manifold.
Much of the progress in 20th century physics was in applying this modern notion of geometry to spacetime, or to quantum gauge field theory.
In the quest to develop a notion of quantum geometry, as far back as 1947, people were trying to quantize spacetime so that the coordinates would not be ordinary real numbers, but somehow elevated to quantum operators obeying some nontrivial quantum commutation relations. Hence the term "noncommutative geometry," or NCG for short.
The current interest in NCG among physicists of the 21st century has been stimulated by work by French mathematician Alain Connes.


and i think this list of math topics is still incomplete because it does not mention kahler manifolds and calabi-yau manifolds that prakash claims is essential

the undergrad math courses i listed for myself, including riemannian geometry, differential topology, and algebraic topology, does not even cover HALF of this list. so anybody still believes that my list of math courses is too excessive for physics?
 
Last edited:
  • #65
Tom,

Are you aware that String Theory has yet to produce a single empirical prediction (other than the general predictions of quantum mechanics regarding supersymmetry, extra dimensions, etc. which CERN is hopefully going to experiment with)? If it has made predictions, I have never read any research indicating that we have empirically verified them.

I am sure you are a genius, so this field of maths and physics looks like it might one of the few things challenging for you, however, I would be weary that even the brightest physicists can't rely on String Theory after graduate school.

I also don't understand the appeal of working in such a complex and comprehensive field that has no empirical support. In all of it's elegance and mathematical beauty, it still doesn't reflect any aspect of reality that we have empirically verified.

I am not discouraging you from Quantum Mechanics or Quantum Theory or whatever it's colloquially known as, however, I see a very limited future for employment in that field, even academia. I would imagine it's hard to get funding for a theory that has no direct applications, unless your name is Witten, Greene, Polchinski, et Al.

Perhaps, however, my perception is distorted and String Theory has far greater implications than I am aware of. I might be completely wrong my friend.
 
  • #66
yeah its kinda sad how the allure of string theory is sucking the greatest minds of the past few generations away from doing stuff that's actually beneficial to the world
 
  • #67
thats assuming that string theory is physics and not math ;)

quips aside if you enjoy math for math than you should definatly take as many math courses as you can, similarly if you enjoy physics for physics than you should take as many physics courses as you can.

the math can only help you, although if you decide that you don't like math as much as you thought you did (which may occur at some point) than don't think that it will destroy your ability to destroy your ability to do advanced physics. Also keep in mind that there are multiple ways of doing theoretical physics, one is to be mathematically rigorous and the other is to be intuitive. Both have their uses.

Personally I like math, but find that the average mathematicians approach loses the beauty and the applications. For instance today in my techniques class the professor was lecturing on how to find the components of a vector, his approach was incredibly useful once I was able to decode the significance of it, however he spent the entire class just showing the approach and "proving" that it worked without elaborating on the situations you might need it for or even talking about what a vector represented without just listing the axioms.

EDIT: wrote this after tom's last post, didn't see the other posters
 
  • #68
the posts about beer pong may be some of the funniest that I have seen in a long time, being a freshmen myself, they hit home nice and well
 
  • #69
well, even if i later decide that studying string theory is a dead-end street, i still believe that all the "extra maths" i will have studied will be useful for whatever other branch of physics i decide to switch to. i believe knowing more math than necessarily actually improves your physics understanding.

for example, I'm taking 1st year physics right now. the math used is rudimentary. work is taught in one dimension with just a hint of integration. my knowledge of n-dimensional calculus has allowed me to see work more broadly than how work is taught in class. the lorentz transformation in special relativity makes more sense to me now that i have group theory under my belt. kepler's laws is also taught with minimal math in 1st year physics, but my knowledge of geodesics allows me to understand the planetary motion more profoundly than I would otherwise see it if I did not know any riemannian geometry.

so the same sort of deeper appreciation for more advanced physics can be had with the extra knowledge of math that i will gain by attempting to study string theory whether or not i maintain interest in it. I'm going ahead to study the mountains of math, not only because i find it intriguing, but because i believe that studying physics while being already very versed in the math will allow me to learn physics more efficiently and thoroughly than a physics student who only learns the bare minimum math required for his physics courses.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
Tom1992 said:
well, even if i later decide that studying string theory is a dead-end street, i still believe that all the "extra maths" i will have studied will be useful for whatever other branch of physics i decide to switch to. i believe knowing more math than necessarily actually improves your physics understanding.

thats definitley true. especially once you start research you never really know what sort of math you're going to need because you're doing stuff no one's ever done before so the bigger your "mathematical toolbox" is the more potential you have to be successful with your theories.
 
  • #71
hmm I'm intrigued, how does your knowledge of n dimensional calculus help you understand work? I can certainly see how ones understanding of work would improve with a good foundtion oin basic calculus, but I cannot see how knowledge of n dimensional calculus (something I am aquainted with) benefits you beyond the ability to calculate the work done on a particle moving in more than one dimension.
 
  • #72
Tom,

You are misconstruing some of the points. No one said 'learn the bare minimum' and no one said 'tons of maths are useless'. Certainly, none of us only do the bare minimum, or we wouldn't be posting on physicsforums. I would also assume that your broad knowledge of calculus significantly helps you with calculus-based physics, so I am not sure what your point is. Learning tons of calculus to do calculus-based physics, obviously helps.

Perhaps you should look into string theory more, because when you do your PhD, its HIGHLY SPECIALIZED areas of string theory, which I don't believe have direct applications outside of academia. Again, I am NOT discouraging you from taking tons of maths and physics and to do tons of mathematically rigorous physics. I am simply warning you of String Theories lack of empirical support in lieu of it's ridiculous popularity.
 
  • #73
mgiddy911 said:
the posts about beer pong may be some of the funniest that I have seen in a long time, being a freshmen myself, they hit home nice and well

yeah you should enjoy your intro beer pong class while it lasts because if your a science major the advanced classes will be way too much of a time commitment to take as electives. they require 5-6 night a week commitments and if you are doing A level work in them it probably means that not only your nights are being tied up, but you spend the morning/early-afternoons afterward in bed with a headache. in my experience this has been too much for science majors to handle, but business and poli-sci (not to mention the kids who major in beer pong) and other crap majors tend to be able to fit them into their schedule without too much detriment.
 
  • #74
CPL.Luke said:
hmm I'm intrigued, how does your knowledge of n dimensional calculus help you understand work? I can certainly see how ones understanding of work would improve with a good foundtion oin basic calculus, but I cannot see how knowledge of n dimensional calculus (something I am aquainted with) benefits you beyond the ability to calculate the work done on a particle moving in more than one dimension.

1st year physics teaches work in only one dimension and assumes a point mass only, which is unrealistic, and after all physics is supposed to study the real world, right? why the restricted viewpoint of work? one and only one reason--the limited math used in 1st year physics.

kepler's law of equal areas teaches us the non-uniform speed of planetary motion, but do first year physics textbooks teach us why the law holds? physics is about "why", not just "what", right? again the reason they don't is because of the limited math being used. i can explain the physics of it in one sentence: planets move faster at greater curvatures, but you would have to know what a geodesic is. this is just an example of how much physics is being missed just because of the restriction caused by unlearned math.

another example: 1st year physics textbooks does not explain why fermat's principle of least time holds. knowing true physics is to also know why it is true. again, the reason for no explanation is because the calculus of variations is not taught at that point.

the more math you know, the better you will learn physics. so I'm going to maximize my mathematical toolbox in order to learn physics in the most appreciative way.
 
Last edited:
  • #75
Tom1992 said:
1st year physics teaches work in only one dimension and assumes a point mass only, which is unrealistic, and after all physics is supposed to study the real world, right? why the restricted viewpoint of work? one and only one reason--the limited math used in 1st year physics.

i think it has more to do with the fact that they don't want the students to get bogged down with computations. its not hard to go from 1 dimension to 3 dimensions or pointlike mass to ridgid body, but the problems become much more computationally-intensive and that takes time away from learning the concepts the 1st year course is looking to survey.

just too follow up on stuff said before too, in the math sequence from calc 1 to diff eq the profs know they are not only teaching math students but also physics, engineering, comp sci, etc... so the courses are tailored with more applications. as you go higher up the classes become much more proof based and abstract (some find that fun, I don't). not that taking them isn't useful, but its a lot less useful. i learned that this year taking complex analysis where we spend half the time verifying if a complex function is analytic and proving that the deritive of whatever doesn't exist rather than doing fun stuff like solving pde's of circuits and stuff.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
Posted by Tom1992:
physics is about "why", not just "what", right?

See and here is where you are wrong...physicists like to wonder why (at least in my experance); however, physicists don't deal with why on any real level. Physics deals with the "how" "what" and "when" questions. 'Why' is what the humanties deals with.
 
  • #77
^_^physicist said:
See and here is where you are wrong...physicists like to wonder why (at least in my experance); however, physicists don't deal with why on any real level. Physics deals with the "how" "what" and "when" questions. 'Why' is what the humanties deals with.

?

people wanted to know why planets move in elliptical orbits and it was Newton who solved the problem, right?

anyway, i feel that i know physics better if i know why the result is true instead of just knowing the result.
 
Last edited:
  • #78
Tom1992 said:
?

people wanted to know why planets move in elliptical orbits and it was Newton who solved the problem, right?

anyway, i feel that i know physics better if i know why the result is true instead of just knowing the result.

i think what physicist was referring too was the "why" question philosophers ask, like "why is the speed of light ~ 3*10^8 m/s?" or "why does the universe exist?" and other questions that can't be answered using science or any other method of human rationale that has been used before. physicists only answer questions that they can use science to answer.
 
  • #79
but i never in this thread referred to that type of "why". i only referred to mathematical "why"s. and it is the "mathematical whys" that many physics students are missing out on because of the restricted math used in their classes. at least that's what i believe.
 
Last edited:
  • #80
those are hows, not whys.
 
  • #81
tmc said:
those are hows, not whys.

ok, the semantics put aside, the bottom line is that these extra math courses should be help me appreciate my physics studies more.
 
  • #82
I have noticed that language comes into play in scientific research. It all depends on your field. I am doing research in high energy physics and have seen a need for french and japanese. Quite a few japanese institutions working with KEK, such as the BELLE collaboration, do write quite a few papers in english, since it is most logical to reach a large portion of the scientific community, but there are quite a few papers in japanese. Also, I am sure not all of the english translations are as good as they could be when you need information on some of their methods. If you ever wanted to work at CERN you may want to know French (and German too if possible). Even undergrads doing an REU at CERN are expected to know french.

I have not gone too far in mathematics but I have noticed that russian would be good to know when researching (and just keeping up) with topology.

I also feel that one who takes only science and math regrets it a bit later on. Richard Feynman did quite a lot to not take the humanities required at MIT but began to appreciate them later on. He later did art, music and learned Portuguese. This had a big impact on his life. He picked that language, if memory serves me right, because a girl he saw was taking it. It had no immediate benefit to his career. Richard Feynman's biographies are pretty good examples that you can surround yourself with all the science and math in the world but if you study some art or read some literature then it all might mean something. (I think that's from star trek.) :)
 
  • #83
feynman only learned Portuguese so he could pick up chicks in brazil
 
  • #84
Another reason for learning a language, if you are going into mathematics at least, is that some graduate programs in math require competancy in either French, German, Greek, Latian, or Russian, because so much work does get done in these languages (at my school from what the math students have been telling me, from their talks to advisors, is to pick up Russian if you plan on doing anything with Geometry or Mechanics).
 
  • #85
Edited to fix typo

I left the computer and came back so my post is from a conversation a few pages back.

As for knowing as much math as possible. I don't think anyone here is saying you should not study those subjects. What I did is I took humanities since I knew I was not as likely to study these on my own when I could do math (I'm a nerd like that) and I studied the math on my own. Believe me, knowing topology and differential geometry will come in handy. The problem with your list of math that one needs to know for string theory is it refers to a familiarity with that subject. You can get that from self study. Very few people would be experts in all of those fields and string theory. I don't think you could even keep up with all the advances in all of those fields. Your research will probably be a tiny bit better with all of that math, but your life would benefit significantly with some humanitites.

In the end it is you decision but I would really listen to some of their advice.
 
Last edited:
  • #86
meh personally I like to study the humanities on my own rather tha in a class, 18 years of dinner conversation has taught me that they are a subject best treated in good company.

make friends with a couple philosophy majors their usually fun.
 
  • #87
^_^physicist said:
Another reason for learning a language, if you are going into mathematics at least, is that some graduate programs in math require competancy in either French, German, Greek, Latian, or Russian, because so much work does get done in these languages (at my school from what the math students have been telling me, from their talks to advisors, is to pick up Russian if you plan on doing anything with Geometry or Mechanics).

I'd like to know who told you that a lot of work gets published in latin...
 
  • #88
Maybe some physicists really like to study 17th century physics. Principia or Corporum in gyrum anyone?:-p
 
  • #89
Posted by tmc:
I'd like to know who told you that a lot of work gets published in latin..

If you are doing any form of study relating to mechanics or possibly math history (which is what a sub-set of mathematicians do study), knowing Latin or Greek is a necessity. Many of the texts that you are dealing with are in these languages.

Other times, just knowing these two languages makes it easy to pick up other languages as necessary for your work though journals.

In fact to get into the graduate mathematics program at my univeristy you must have competensy in any of those languages I stated in my eariler post.

As for Russian, French, and German...just the standard languages to know in the math community according to my math department when asked about it.
 
  • #90
but i never in this thread referred to that type of "why". i only referred to mathematical "why"s. and it is the "mathematical whys" that many physics students are missing out on because of the restricted math used in their classes. at least that's what i believe.

Yes, not the philosophical why but the scientific why. Perhaps philosophy is a distraction from the business of science, and perhaps people turn to philosophy as a result of the starkness of science, that we have a mystical urge for the grandiose. If you (Tom) lack such a frivolous urge, so much the better.
 
  • #91
Posted by Verty:
Yes, not the philosophical why but the scientific why. Perhaps philosophy is a distraction from the business of science, and perhaps people turn to philosophy as a result of the starkness of science, that we have a mystical urge for the grandiose. If you (Tom) lack such a frivolous urge, so much the better.

Ahh but you forget, what we practice is natural philosophy . Ever wonder why they call it a PhD a Doctor of Philosophy?

Moreso, philosophy is something everyone should have some experance in; it is not frivolous, it is merely a form to allow one to cope and question the universe around oneself. Science is a particular class of philosophy, in that it limits itself to that which can be observed and can be varified with multiple observations and tests.

Additionally philosophy puts into perspective the human "element" when developing new technologies. Ethics are something a scientist should understand.

Sorry to ramble, or sound preachy, its just something I think would add to this.
 
  • #92
I'm not calling philosophy frivolous, I'm calling an urge for the grandiose frivolous. I haven't ever looked it up but I would think that Doctor of Philosophy means someone who doctors with/by means of philosophy, someone who uses knowledge to make the world better.
 
  • #93
So long as that is cleared up.

Though, based on Tom1992's knowledge and what appears to be intellegance level, visualizations of the gradiose are something that he might have the potential to reach.

Granted it wastes time, but hey having a visualization of what you want from your work, even if it frivous to some extent, it is still worth having.
 
  • #94
Yes, but I worry that when people suppose that one should have a visualization or that one should consult philosophy that they want that person to have a particular purpose. Hearing that scientists should understand ethics, I worry that it is meant that scientists should understand ethics as *I* understand it.

Read like this, it becomes a moral imperative and I am against that, especially with someone young and potentially impressionable like Tom. I think the best we can do is to let him run his own ship.
 
  • #95
^_^physicist said:
Ahh but you forget, what we practice is natural philosophy . Ever wonder why they call it a PhD a Doctor of Philosophy?

Moreso, philosophy is something everyone should have some experance in; it is not frivolous, it is merely a form to allow one to cope and question the universe around oneself. Science is a particular class of philosophy, in that it limits itself to that which can be observed and can be varified with multiple observations and tests.

Additionally philosophy puts into perspective the human "element" when developing new technologies. Ethics are something a scientist should understand.

Sorry to ramble, or sound preachy, its just something I think would add to this.

Actually it's mostly historical, the term philosophy originally was meant to indicate the broad range outside of Medicine, law and theology; since science wasn't actually a part of the language at the time. Whether we can consider science a natural philosophy or not is kind of beside the point. It's pretty much tradition.
 
  • #96
Posted by Schrodinger Dog:
Actually it's mostly historical, the term philosophy originally was meant to indicate the broad range outside of Medicine, law and theology; since science wasn't actually a part of the language at the time. Whether we can consider science a natural philosophy or not is kind of beside the point. It's pretty much tradition.

True, it is maintained primarily historical purposes; nevertheless, my point still holds because by the vague defination of philsosphy, the natural sciences still fit into there place. The natural sciences are just an outgrowth of philosophy with a distinct set of rules to indicate how it is different, from say ethics.

But we both agree on the roots and where the term comes from. (in my education a large degree of time in my humanties studies (which are required) are deticated to the development of the scientific professions).
 
  • #97
I'd forgotten to get back to this thread. Anyway, my main point was that some people who are starting out tend to have an impression that physicists use much more math than they really do. The reality is that very few theorists have a particularly strong mathematical background. It's possible to find "applications" for just about anything in any part of physics, but this hasn't been particularly useful in most cases. While learning more math is certainly helpful at the lower levels, it's not at all clear that it's worth it beyond a certain point. Saying "it can only help" is misleading. All of that time spent learning math is time taken away from learning physics. Again, I'm not saying to avoid math. I'm just trying to point out the "been there, done that" point of view. I've spent a good amount of time learning extra math on my own. Pretty much the only thing I've found useful beyond what I'm already supposed to know is distribution theory.

Anyway, some mathematical topics that are commonly used in certain fields of physics may take a very long time to get to in a standard math sequence. Hardly any physicists learn them that way, however. For that, there are several excellent books on the mathematics used in physics which are very good and essentially self-contained. These have more material than almost anyone will ever use outside of a few very specialized topics. Geroch, Nakahara, Frankel, Baez/Muniain, and Choquet-Bruhat/Dewitt-Morette are all good to read. Working through them is much more efficient than trying to take 10 math courses (there's a lot of overlap between those books).
 
  • #98
What is the distinction between a 'mathematical physicist' who does theoretical physics and a 'theoretical physicist,' who does theoretical physics?

Does a mathematical physicist rely more on logically rigorous formal mathematics and mathematical intuition to derive theories whereas the theoretical physicist, interprets experiments and observations and then models the phenomena?

Are they colloquialisms for the same profession or is there a dichotomy?
 
  • #99
A mathematical physicist is usually a mathematician who studies problems inspired by physics. What they do is usually not actual physics in the way most people would see it. Sometimes people use the term to mean any theorist though.
 
  • #100
complex philo

What's up complex?

I have no clue what came before any of this. This is only a reply to the difference between a mathematical physicist and a theoretical physicist.

To begin, the difference can be subtle if you like, and in both depts math/ physics you'll find crossovers.

Straight to the point. A mathematical physicist (MP) would work on something the theoretical physicists (TP) already considered solved. The MP is more worried about showing how these new ground breaking ideas are mathematically solid, i.e. they worry about proofs and tying in this "new physics" with the mathematical foundations of it.

A quick, obvious example is Newton. Yeah, he was a god and did it all, fine. But, with his calculus, he had these little quarks, that were unexplainable. So back in the day, the rave of mathematical physics was figuring out the mathematical frame work of his calculus. Now we consider that analysis, and a part of a "pure" mathematical training, but once, it was mathematical physics. (Correct me if I'm wrong people)

I'm only an undergrad, so I can only pass on what little I know.

Now a TP, wouldn't care about "why" you can do this or that in math. He uses a more heuristic and approximating approach. What he cares about, is that strange unexplainable phenomenon in the labs that keeps popping up.

Then there's the grey area. Things like String Theory. My school is pretty good at it. But I know the mathematicians and the theoretical physicists work together a lot on it.

I'll give you the ultimate difference, it's the defining one. Ready?

A mathematician who studies mathematical physics has to teach math classes.

A theoretical physicist who knows a ton of math, has to teach physics classes.

And of course, there is always the option for a joint appointment.

Hope that helps.

Cheers
 
Back
Top