This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mathematical physics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Mathematical physics:
|
This line makes me think that this was written by a math-person. I don't feel informed enough about this topic to flesh-out the stub, nor do I wish to try and make this have less of a negative physics view.
-- Richard Boyer 03:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have refocussed the article, to present mathematical physics primarily in its more general sense, ie as the general study of the application of mathematics and mathematical techniques to physics.
I think this makes sense, because
... to be continued -- Jheald 14:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The distinct concepts described are probably better termed theoretical physics and mathematical physics. Blurring the distinction is particularly unhelpful. -- MarSch 14:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I have heard the term "mathematical physicist" a lot of times, so it has made me wonder if there is such a thing as a "non-mathematical physicist" or "non-matehmatical physics" . . . isn't this kind of redundant?
Not to bash physicists or say what they do is incorrect, plenty of physics is non-mathematical. I was initially quite surprised to ecounter experimentalists who seem to be doing just fine without knowing any real mathematics whatsoever, nor (apparently) a nonvague idea what math is. IMHO, what is unfortunate is that they pass this absence of mathematical awareness to their students. The following sentence in the artcle is not really true:
Plenty of popular physics texts on QM are full of mathematical inaccuracies. Take, for example, Sakurai, which is used in many graduate QM courses. But physicsts trained in such a manner seem to understand QM, from a purely physical point of view, just fine. Mct mht 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello 129, I hate to break it to you but this conversation is over a year old and doesn't show much sign of perking back up. I have this article on my todo list and I will get around to it eventually.-- Cronholm 144 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentence:
Rigorous is rigorous, no matter who's doing it. Someone like, say, Barry Simon, is clearly considered a bona fide mathematician by other mathematicians. Mct mht 09:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no dissention in this article. Many inventors and engineers have repeatedly stated that this "branch" of physics is, um, useless. The article makes it seem like this is the best thing since sliced bread! 134.193.168.249 16:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
what jobs can people with a degree in mathematical physic get?
I have looked through your discussions, and while I think your arguments should certainly be heard, the focus of this discussion page should be centered on the more glaring flaws within the article and not some perceived bias. There are many things that need to be done so focus your energies there. Cronholm144 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone should point out that even when a theory is physically well established, and its applications well understood, often it is the attempt to put it on a mathematically rigorous footing that exposed philosophical flaws. The obvious example is electromagnetism being unified. Maxwell's unification exposed the conflict in it (not being invariant under Galilean transforms) which led inexorably to special relativity being discovered. Perhaps it would be fair to say that Physicists create new physics in order to explain puzzling observations or account for experimental results, and the results are often disjointed from related disciplines, and mathematical physics helps to put this on a firm mathematical footing and so expose the relations between them. Notice the way that the use of the quanta came before the wave equation and the mathematical formalism that explained it and so on. 129.67.61.143 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Maxwell's Equations revisited" - http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf - Ivor Catt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.30.218 ( talk) 10:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This article seems to state that mathematical physics is the mathematically rigorous subset of theoretical physics. However, it also states that Quantum field theory is part of mathematical physics. I do not see how both can be true. The path integral formalism of QFT has not been proven mathematically, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.245.69 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, September 8, 2007
I have expanded the lead section. It is still very rough, but at least it is more than two lines. The summations of fields in mathematical physics, are a bit arbitrary, a mostly follow from my experiences in mathematical physics. Feel free to expand and/or replace these with more appropriate examples. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
The style of this section diverges from Wikipedia's usual conventions. Why awkward full names, why dates of birth and death, if the names are wikilinked anyway? I also find the emphasis on the nationalities disturbing, and certainly unnecessary. In some cases the areas associated with a particular scientiest are listed parenthetically, and in other they flow with the text (I prefer the latter). Before making wholesale changes, I'd like to hear if there are compelling reasons to keep the things the way they are now, so comments will be appreciated. Arcfrk ( talk) 03:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
However, this definition does not cover the situation where results from physics are used to help prove facts in abstract mathematics which themselves have nothing particular to do with physics.
There is no such thing as "fact" in mathematics. We speak of truths or falsehoods, not facts. A fact is something for which there is empirical evidence, and empiricism does not apply in any way to mathematics, which is utterly and inseparably aprioristic.
The quoted statement is nonsensical. It describes a situation that cannot occur, and is conceptually self-contradictory. Why is it in this article? -- 75.5.77.18 ( talk) 03:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 3 edits by Jagged 85 in August 2008. Tobby72 ( talk) 20:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that describing Newton, Gauss and other famous physicists and mathematicians as "mathematical physicists" is OR. Same with the fields of study. Something like linear algebra is simply mathematics (but not "mathematical physics"), and something like hydrodynamics is simply physics, no matter how much math it uses. Biophys ( talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Mathematical physics refers to any of the following:
The article seems to focus mostly on the last meaning, despite the Journal of Mathematical Physics official website's definition (included in the article) clearly elucidating all of the above.
I just revised the article by adding some 3 500 characters. I could not think of how to correct the severe errors in history and philosophy of physics, concerning special relativity and general relativity, without simply explaining the development and relation to Newton's theory of motion. Although this is more certainly theoretical physics than mathematical physics, it seemed to me called for so that mathematic perspective does not clash with the theoretic perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.40.31 ( talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I just added another 3 500 characters. May no one attempt to stone me. I think, though, that the organization and explanations render things more readable and clearer, especially to a novice, the target audience, although one might have difficulty discerning who is a mathematical physicist versus who is a theoretical physicist. Really, I think that that particular ambiguity is somewhat fitting, as Newton thoroughly blurred the division, more or less erased by Feynman, while Witten continues this legacy of union. The clear division today is between theorists and experimentalists. I think other sections of the article—outside the section that all my edits are in—do well to explain the heuristic difference between mathematical physics and theoretical physics, namely that of mathematical rigor via calculations versus explanatory rigor via deductivenomological model. With that understanding, one can then discern a mathematician from a theorist.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mathematical physics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article covers material that is considered more important in mathematics than it is physics, hence the difference in importance ratings. Needs history, motivation, examples, successes, limitations... Tompw 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mathematical physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Karen Uhlenbeck's Wikipedia page notes she received the Abel Prize for her “her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics".[4] BUT her name does not appear on this page for Mathematical Physics. ?18:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Dhrosier ( talk)
This looks interesting: Michael Stöltzner, Opportunistic Axiomatics: Von Neumann on the Methodology of Mathematical Physics, doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-2012-0_4. Paywalled but there is preview of the first 2 pages. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 ( talk) 09:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Physical mathematics into Mathematical physics. I think that the content in the Physical mathematics article can easily be explained in the context of Mathematical physics, and the Mathematical physics article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Physical mathematics will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Physical mathematics lacks notability and is an extreme stub. To a large extent, it represents a distinction without a difference. Furthermore, the vast majority of readers stumbling onto Physical mathematics will in fact be looking for the Mathematical physics article. If Physical mathematics is notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, it should be done in the Mathematical physics article rather than in a second, confusing article. Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
00:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)I need to connect with someone to share this info I have about a wormhole / Orion . I have pictures and explanation of this and need to show someone who can understand this . Please respond when you see this 2603:6081:943E:26F5:A801:9F51:CFA7:77D2 ( talk) 03:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mathematical physics article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Mathematical physics:
|
This line makes me think that this was written by a math-person. I don't feel informed enough about this topic to flesh-out the stub, nor do I wish to try and make this have less of a negative physics view.
-- Richard Boyer 03:59, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have refocussed the article, to present mathematical physics primarily in its more general sense, ie as the general study of the application of mathematics and mathematical techniques to physics.
I think this makes sense, because
... to be continued -- Jheald 14:12, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
The distinct concepts described are probably better termed theoretical physics and mathematical physics. Blurring the distinction is particularly unhelpful. -- MarSch 14:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I have heard the term "mathematical physicist" a lot of times, so it has made me wonder if there is such a thing as a "non-mathematical physicist" or "non-matehmatical physics" . . . isn't this kind of redundant?
Not to bash physicists or say what they do is incorrect, plenty of physics is non-mathematical. I was initially quite surprised to ecounter experimentalists who seem to be doing just fine without knowing any real mathematics whatsoever, nor (apparently) a nonvague idea what math is. IMHO, what is unfortunate is that they pass this absence of mathematical awareness to their students. The following sentence in the artcle is not really true:
Plenty of popular physics texts on QM are full of mathematical inaccuracies. Take, for example, Sakurai, which is used in many graduate QM courses. But physicsts trained in such a manner seem to understand QM, from a purely physical point of view, just fine. Mct mht 08:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello 129, I hate to break it to you but this conversation is over a year old and doesn't show much sign of perking back up. I have this article on my todo list and I will get around to it eventually.-- Cronholm 144 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the following sentence:
Rigorous is rigorous, no matter who's doing it. Someone like, say, Barry Simon, is clearly considered a bona fide mathematician by other mathematicians. Mct mht 09:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no dissention in this article. Many inventors and engineers have repeatedly stated that this "branch" of physics is, um, useless. The article makes it seem like this is the best thing since sliced bread! 134.193.168.249 16:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
what jobs can people with a degree in mathematical physic get?
I have looked through your discussions, and while I think your arguments should certainly be heard, the focus of this discussion page should be centered on the more glaring flaws within the article and not some perceived bias. There are many things that need to be done so focus your energies there. Cronholm144 09:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Someone should point out that even when a theory is physically well established, and its applications well understood, often it is the attempt to put it on a mathematically rigorous footing that exposed philosophical flaws. The obvious example is electromagnetism being unified. Maxwell's unification exposed the conflict in it (not being invariant under Galilean transforms) which led inexorably to special relativity being discovered. Perhaps it would be fair to say that Physicists create new physics in order to explain puzzling observations or account for experimental results, and the results are often disjointed from related disciplines, and mathematical physics helps to put this on a firm mathematical footing and so expose the relations between them. Notice the way that the use of the quanta came before the wave equation and the mathematical formalism that explained it and so on. 129.67.61.143 19:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Maxwell's Equations revisited" - http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x18j73.pdf - Ivor Catt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.30.218 ( talk) 10:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This article seems to state that mathematical physics is the mathematically rigorous subset of theoretical physics. However, it also states that Quantum field theory is part of mathematical physics. I do not see how both can be true. The path integral formalism of QFT has not been proven mathematically, correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.115.245.69 ( talk • contribs) 21:26, September 8, 2007
I have expanded the lead section. It is still very rough, but at least it is more than two lines. The summations of fields in mathematical physics, are a bit arbitrary, a mostly follow from my experiences in mathematical physics. Feel free to expand and/or replace these with more appropriate examples. ( TimothyRias ( talk) 10:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC))
The style of this section diverges from Wikipedia's usual conventions. Why awkward full names, why dates of birth and death, if the names are wikilinked anyway? I also find the emphasis on the nationalities disturbing, and certainly unnecessary. In some cases the areas associated with a particular scientiest are listed parenthetically, and in other they flow with the text (I prefer the latter). Before making wholesale changes, I'd like to hear if there are compelling reasons to keep the things the way they are now, so comments will be appreciated. Arcfrk ( talk) 03:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
However, this definition does not cover the situation where results from physics are used to help prove facts in abstract mathematics which themselves have nothing particular to do with physics.
There is no such thing as "fact" in mathematics. We speak of truths or falsehoods, not facts. A fact is something for which there is empirical evidence, and empiricism does not apply in any way to mathematics, which is utterly and inseparably aprioristic.
The quoted statement is nonsensical. It describes a situation that cannot occur, and is conceptually self-contradictory. Why is it in this article? -- 75.5.77.18 ( talk) 03:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 3 edits by Jagged 85 in August 2008. Tobby72 ( talk) 20:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that describing Newton, Gauss and other famous physicists and mathematicians as "mathematical physicists" is OR. Same with the fields of study. Something like linear algebra is simply mathematics (but not "mathematical physics"), and something like hydrodynamics is simply physics, no matter how much math it uses. Biophys ( talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Mathematical physics refers to any of the following:
The article seems to focus mostly on the last meaning, despite the Journal of Mathematical Physics official website's definition (included in the article) clearly elucidating all of the above.
I just revised the article by adding some 3 500 characters. I could not think of how to correct the severe errors in history and philosophy of physics, concerning special relativity and general relativity, without simply explaining the development and relation to Newton's theory of motion. Although this is more certainly theoretical physics than mathematical physics, it seemed to me called for so that mathematic perspective does not clash with the theoretic perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.40.31 ( talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I just added another 3 500 characters. May no one attempt to stone me. I think, though, that the organization and explanations render things more readable and clearer, especially to a novice, the target audience, although one might have difficulty discerning who is a mathematical physicist versus who is a theoretical physicist. Really, I think that that particular ambiguity is somewhat fitting, as Newton thoroughly blurred the division, more or less erased by Feynman, while Witten continues this legacy of union. The clear division today is between theorists and experimentalists. I think other sections of the article—outside the section that all my edits are in—do well to explain the heuristic difference between mathematical physics and theoretical physics, namely that of mathematical rigor via calculations versus explanatory rigor via deductivenomological model. With that understanding, one can then discern a mathematician from a theorist.
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mathematical physics/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
This article covers material that is considered more important in mathematics than it is physics, hence the difference in importance ratings. Needs history, motivation, examples, successes, limitations... Tompw 12:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC) |
Last edited at 23:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 23:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mathematical physics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
Karen Uhlenbeck's Wikipedia page notes she received the Abel Prize for her “her pioneering achievements in geometric partial differential equations, gauge theory and integrable systems, the fundamental impact of her work on analysis, geometry and mathematical physics".[4] BUT her name does not appear on this page for Mathematical Physics. ?18:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC) Dhrosier ( talk)
This looks interesting: Michael Stöltzner, Opportunistic Axiomatics: Von Neumann on the Methodology of Mathematical Physics, doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-2012-0_4. Paywalled but there is preview of the first 2 pages. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DF95 ( talk) 09:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose to merge Physical mathematics into Mathematical physics. I think that the content in the Physical mathematics article can easily be explained in the context of Mathematical physics, and the Mathematical physics article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Physical mathematics will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Physical mathematics lacks notability and is an extreme stub. To a large extent, it represents a distinction without a difference. Furthermore, the vast majority of readers stumbling onto Physical mathematics will in fact be looking for the Mathematical physics article. If Physical mathematics is notable enough to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, it should be done in the Mathematical physics article rather than in a second, confusing article. Footlessmouse ( talk) 20:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
00:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
02:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)I need to connect with someone to share this info I have about a wormhole / Orion . I have pictures and explanation of this and need to show someone who can understand this . Please respond when you see this 2603:6081:943E:26F5:A801:9F51:CFA7:77D2 ( talk) 03:42, 2 March 2022 (UTC)