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

[^_^physicist]

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.

 

[verty]

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.

 

[^_^physicist]

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.

 

[verty]

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.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

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.

 

[^_^physicist]

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).

 

[Stingray]

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).

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

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?

 

[Stingray]

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.

 

[math_owen]

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