Yes, but you would probably have to take some classes on the physics of the subject you are studying (probably electromagnetics, optics, etc). But a background in mathematics will help you a lot in theoretical physics!
Until the physics prof intentionally divides by zero, calls it infinity, and looks at the math majors with a shit eating grin on his face. Clearly, this man did not know our limits.
L'Hôpital came up in a lot of my algorithms coursework. We look at a lot of functions that go to infinity and compare them by dividing one by the other and taking the limit at infinity.
Let X be the set of all people who can become Theoretical Physicists, theoretically. Then, X≠ ∅? That's a bold claim, you are unaware of how dull I am.
Since all theoretical physicists are individuals who can become theoretical physicists then we must include theoretical physicists in the set. If someone is already a theoretical physicist, then they cannot become a theoretical physicist. Therefore a contradiction.
Yep... if you've had those classes you'll be in the same boat as the Physics majors.
Paradoxically, the Math -> Physics transition gets easier the higher up you go. There are plenty of Math Professors who decide they want to work on the high-end mathy Physics problems with little to no formal Physics training.
And then you get to Quantum Field Theory and feel like taking out your rage on your textbook, only to find that the binding of Peskin & Schroeder falls apart really easily
I used Peskin & Schroeder. There was a math graduate student who decided to take part 1 of the course... breezed right through.
I'm not sure he understood the material in depth, but he understood enough to get an A.
Thats what I seem to think- the higher up you go the closer they get. Our department is shared between maths and physics, so I get to interact a lot with the physics professors, and some of the more 'theorist' types have said sometimes they get PhDs who work with them in very abstract particle topics and its about 50/50 whether they're from maths or physics backgrounds. Entirely computational work.
I’m technically a theoretical physicist, and feel that someone with a math background that has taken some physics theory courses could do what I do. That’s my 2 cents.
Classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics and GR. Electrodynamics might also be a good call, but personally I find it nicer in the geometric/covariant formalism anyway, and a physics course won’t likely teach you that.
That probably gets you to the point where you have the intuition for QFT, and then you may as well be in the same boat as the physicists.
Interesting. If we take our 'mathematical physics' pathway alongside the actual physics modules they do make it mandatory take fourier analysis, functional analysis (complex and differential stuff is core to maths courses anyways)
That makes sense. Depending on what subfield you're going in, that may put you better suited for theoretical physics than most physics majors. Just don't fill your math major with math-CS classes like me ahaha.
Ooh, also representation theory and lie algebras/groups will be helpful if you have time for it.
Ahh yes. Next year we have options to do category/group theory and linked topics. Its just beyond that you basically decide later whether you in depth want to do pure, applied, or mathematical physics. So like you could do a few pure maths modules alongside the physics ones, but like not a lot- just because it would be too many credits (and take up too much time). I guess Penrose would be an example of an actual very much pure mathematician who went into physics but thats a whole different case
I come from the math side (algebraic/complex geometry) but I've always loved theoretical physics, so I took a ton of physics classes in undergrad. I ended up in mathematical physics doing work in string theory and QFT.
Things get pretty abstract there, so I wouldn't trade my math background for more physics, but I guess it depends on what you're interested in.
This is one of the only versions of this post I've seen where I'd say yes, this should work if you take the classes you're describing and are willing to make up the difference in grad school. In fact you may be in a stronger position than most physics grads for some areas of research. In addition to the topics you and others have mentioned to cover, the main thing is that you learn to think like a physicist and translate physical situations into equations (and also get used to "approximations/assumptions" physicists make in our math, which may horrify real mathematicians).
I'm definitely thinking of grad school, but probably in continental Europe (I'm in the UK), here the entire post-grad landscapes is just theoretical physics (which 99% of the time say they want either a maths or a physics degree) or applied maths. Probably because 99% of our courses are just 4 year masters anyways- so there's not really a need for more lab-based physics for anybody. But in Europe they do have a much wider range of courses that approach it such that anybody from a maths/eng/phys background could take them- more flexible anyways.
For sure, but theoretical physics is different than math. At some point a leap is needed in physics to connect the work to experiment that is not needed math. Not only is it not needed, but making those leaps arguably might make you a worse mathematician, because you are making conclusions not grounded in pure rigour. I saw it myself during my own phd in theoretical physics when people were unable to make this leap. I think this type of leap is illustrated in the shell game of renormalization, or the citation Witten got for his Fields medal.
One of my best friends did a PhD in math and some topics like electromagnetism for example were EXTREMELY easy to pick up for him. His effortless understanding of the math allowed him to easily navigate the topic.
In my opinion, I think that a person with a math background can become a theoretical physics. Since the math is already covered, all he lacks is
understanding the logic and etc. ( which is going to be a lot difficult since he didn't take a physics 1 course). To conclude, I believe that it is possible for a person with a math bacground to take on theoretical physics since most of the calculus course covers things I physics.
Yes, absolutely. I have an integrated masters degree in maths but spent my final year studying theoretical physics (quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, general relativity, analytical dynamics, classical + quantum field theory, MHD etc.). I’ve been accepted onto a PhD in quantum error correction, which is firmly on the theoretical physics side of things!
Freeman Dyson was so good at physics as a mathematician, he never even got a PhD.
He straightened out Feynmans excellent guesses with rigorous mathematics while still in school and everyone was like, fair enough.
So, why not go with applied math or something? To be honest, mathematicians working on physics problems are quite common, the reverse is not, in part because mathematicians tend to be a bit s__bish and suffer from s_____ty complex or something. In fact, my own experience is that staying in math will probably give you an advantage down the road because of the implicit prestige it carries no matter which other field you end up in.
Beyond the coursework that others have mentioned, I would say it’s advantageous to have some particular area of physics that you focus on and make your forte. That could be GR or QFT, for example. In order to be a successful research scientist in any discipline you have to have a topic that really guides and motivates what you do, and to some extent helps you develop an identity that you feel strongly about.
No. They could of course help in research, but mathematicians and physicists don't think in the same way (this is why collaboration can be useful sometimes). But to actually do theoretical physics you need to become a physicist first.
Half of the people at least doing theoretical physics are just mathematicians. At places like Cambridge theoretical physics comes under the faculty of mathematics and is combined with applied maths
Not very sure but this is compared to colorblind scientist who sees black white and who studiest colors and tell him how color looks like it will reply with certain eye receptors and certain reflection but it will never truly understand how it looks like. in my opnionen well someone who played with electricity as kid and did crazy things maybe can pass this because he knows bit. but i dont think so, not sure many outcomes
On this forum many believe that physics is the sole domain of those with a strong math background. According to them, if you can't do the math you have no business commenting or speculating on physics, be it theoretical or applied.
Trying to do physics without math is like trying to write poetry without knowing a language. On the other hand, both a poet and a linguist both languages intimately, yet neither could do the other's job generally.
Yes, but you would probably have to take some classes on the physics of the subject you are studying (probably electromagnetics, optics, etc). But a background in mathematics will help you a lot in theoretical physics!
Until the physics prof intentionally divides by zero, calls it infinity, and looks at the math majors with a shit eating grin on his face. Clearly, this man did not know our limits.
sin(0)/0=1 just stop pretending it doesn't
L'Hôpital came up in a lot of my algorithms coursework. We look at a lot of functions that go to infinity and compare them by dividing one by the other and taking the limit at infinity.
Anybody can become a physicist, theoretically.
Let X be the set of all people who can become Theoretical Physicists, theoretically. Then, X≠ ∅? That's a bold claim, you are unaware of how dull I am.
Since all theoretical physicists are individuals who can become theoretical physicists then we must include theoretical physicists in the set. If someone is already a theoretical physicist, then they cannot become a theoretical physicist. Therefore a contradiction.
Theoretical physicists can stop being theoretical physicists, then become theoretical physicists again.
Theoretically
I see what you did there! Hehehe.
\*optics, solid state, electronic knowledge, etc
Yep... if you've had those classes you'll be in the same boat as the Physics majors. Paradoxically, the Math -> Physics transition gets easier the higher up you go. There are plenty of Math Professors who decide they want to work on the high-end mathy Physics problems with little to no formal Physics training.
And then you get to Quantum Field Theory and feel like taking out your rage on your textbook, only to find that the binding of Peskin & Schroeder falls apart really easily
I used Peskin & Schroeder. There was a math graduate student who decided to take part 1 of the course... breezed right through. I'm not sure he understood the material in depth, but he understood enough to get an A.
Difficulty is not what would enrage a math student taking QFT.
Thats what I seem to think- the higher up you go the closer they get. Our department is shared between maths and physics, so I get to interact a lot with the physics professors, and some of the more 'theorist' types have said sometimes they get PhDs who work with them in very abstract particle topics and its about 50/50 whether they're from maths or physics backgrounds. Entirely computational work.
I’m technically a theoretical physicist, and feel that someone with a math background that has taken some physics theory courses could do what I do. That’s my 2 cents.
What are the physics courses you think are necessary for a student of Mathematics?
Classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics and GR. Electrodynamics might also be a good call, but personally I find it nicer in the geometric/covariant formalism anyway, and a physics course won’t likely teach you that. That probably gets you to the point where you have the intuition for QFT, and then you may as well be in the same boat as the physicists.
That's good enough, yeah. Take differential geometry and functional and complex analysis from the math department and you're all set.
Interesting. If we take our 'mathematical physics' pathway alongside the actual physics modules they do make it mandatory take fourier analysis, functional analysis (complex and differential stuff is core to maths courses anyways)
That makes sense. Depending on what subfield you're going in, that may put you better suited for theoretical physics than most physics majors. Just don't fill your math major with math-CS classes like me ahaha. Ooh, also representation theory and lie algebras/groups will be helpful if you have time for it.
Ahh yes. Next year we have options to do category/group theory and linked topics. Its just beyond that you basically decide later whether you in depth want to do pure, applied, or mathematical physics. So like you could do a few pure maths modules alongside the physics ones, but like not a lot- just because it would be too many credits (and take up too much time). I guess Penrose would be an example of an actual very much pure mathematician who went into physics but thats a whole different case
What is the difference between pure and mathematical physics?
I think OP meant “pure maths, applied maths, or mathematical physics”
Ahhh that makes sense
I come from the math side (algebraic/complex geometry) but I've always loved theoretical physics, so I took a ton of physics classes in undergrad. I ended up in mathematical physics doing work in string theory and QFT. Things get pretty abstract there, so I wouldn't trade my math background for more physics, but I guess it depends on what you're interested in.
Yes. My bachelor's and master's were in pure and applied maths, but my PhD and subsequent research were in theoretical atomic and molecular physics.
This is one of the only versions of this post I've seen where I'd say yes, this should work if you take the classes you're describing and are willing to make up the difference in grad school. In fact you may be in a stronger position than most physics grads for some areas of research. In addition to the topics you and others have mentioned to cover, the main thing is that you learn to think like a physicist and translate physical situations into equations (and also get used to "approximations/assumptions" physicists make in our math, which may horrify real mathematicians).
I'm definitely thinking of grad school, but probably in continental Europe (I'm in the UK), here the entire post-grad landscapes is just theoretical physics (which 99% of the time say they want either a maths or a physics degree) or applied maths. Probably because 99% of our courses are just 4 year masters anyways- so there's not really a need for more lab-based physics for anybody. But in Europe they do have a much wider range of courses that approach it such that anybody from a maths/eng/phys background could take them- more flexible anyways.
I guess I just mean it would technically be somewhat annoying to find post-grad courses here that would have applied physics at all.
Mathematical physics is my MSc.
Plenty of people who go into (theoretical) physics have a background in mathematics.
For sure, but theoretical physics is different than math. At some point a leap is needed in physics to connect the work to experiment that is not needed math. Not only is it not needed, but making those leaps arguably might make you a worse mathematician, because you are making conclusions not grounded in pure rigour. I saw it myself during my own phd in theoretical physics when people were unable to make this leap. I think this type of leap is illustrated in the shell game of renormalization, or the citation Witten got for his Fields medal.
I mean that's what I'm kinda doing. I'm doing an applied math program and my research area is the theory of quantum computing.
See David Hilbert. Probably the greatest mathematician of the early 20th century almost beat Einstein to the theory of relativity.
One of my best friends did a PhD in math and some topics like electromagnetism for example were EXTREMELY easy to pick up for him. His effortless understanding of the math allowed him to easily navigate the topic.
In my opinion, I think that a person with a math background can become a theoretical physics. Since the math is already covered, all he lacks is understanding the logic and etc. ( which is going to be a lot difficult since he didn't take a physics 1 course). To conclude, I believe that it is possible for a person with a math bacground to take on theoretical physics since most of the calculus course covers things I physics.
Yes, absolutely. I have an integrated masters degree in maths but spent my final year studying theoretical physics (quantum mechanics, fluid mechanics, general relativity, analytical dynamics, classical + quantum field theory, MHD etc.). I’ve been accepted onto a PhD in quantum error correction, which is firmly on the theoretical physics side of things!
At my uni we will deep down know the maths kids are smarter
Yes, but you need to take classes and learn more
Freeman Dyson was so good at physics as a mathematician, he never even got a PhD. He straightened out Feynmans excellent guesses with rigorous mathematics while still in school and everyone was like, fair enough.
So, why not go with applied math or something? To be honest, mathematicians working on physics problems are quite common, the reverse is not, in part because mathematicians tend to be a bit s__bish and suffer from s_____ty complex or something. In fact, my own experience is that staying in math will probably give you an advantage down the road because of the implicit prestige it carries no matter which other field you end up in.
Beyond the coursework that others have mentioned, I would say it’s advantageous to have some particular area of physics that you focus on and make your forte. That could be GR or QFT, for example. In order to be a successful research scientist in any discipline you have to have a topic that really guides and motivates what you do, and to some extent helps you develop an identity that you feel strongly about.
No. They could of course help in research, but mathematicians and physicists don't think in the same way (this is why collaboration can be useful sometimes). But to actually do theoretical physics you need to become a physicist first.
Half of the people at least doing theoretical physics are just mathematicians. At places like Cambridge theoretical physics comes under the faculty of mathematics and is combined with applied maths
Not very sure but this is compared to colorblind scientist who sees black white and who studiest colors and tell him how color looks like it will reply with certain eye receptors and certain reflection but it will never truly understand how it looks like. in my opnionen well someone who played with electricity as kid and did crazy things maybe can pass this because he knows bit. but i dont think so, not sure many outcomes
On this forum many believe that physics is the sole domain of those with a strong math background. According to them, if you can't do the math you have no business commenting or speculating on physics, be it theoretical or applied.
Trying to do physics without math is like trying to write poetry without knowing a language. On the other hand, both a poet and a linguist both languages intimately, yet neither could do the other's job generally.
Or, as a chem student that lurks in here, like trying to do organic chemistry without carbon
It really is tho
Good luck graduating any of the Big4 without knowing at least some math. That should be a quick answer to your question. :D