News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by imranq on Friday June 02, 2017 @06:26AM (#14468869)
As someone with a mathematical background, I was wondering what were some motivations for wanting to "learn physics"? Not being argumentative, just genuinely curious on what drives people to self study textbooks on physics after college/grad school.
Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by nicklaf on Friday June 02, 2017 @07:26AM (#14469099)
I will defer to others to write a general apology for mathematics. Here I will simply mention the reason Michael Spivak has given for writing books: namely, to learn the subject himself. Because of this, I would suggest that anything written by Spivak is worth reading.

So, why study physics? Answer: because Michael Spivak has written a book on the subject. Consequently, you now have available to you a map for understanding a subject with no less clarity than the mathematician who wrote it.

Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by JabavuAdams on Friday June 02, 2017 @08:56AM (#14469479)
What? Spivak is alive!? That's great. I honestly never even considered looking him up on YouTube. I just assumed he was dead.

This is like finding out that Feynman is still alive and giving lectures that I haven't seen.

Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by JabavuAdams on Friday June 02, 2017 @08:43AM (#14469415)
* I wanted to major in physics, but went into computer engineering instead.

* Physics always seemed glamorous. I know the reality is different, but studying physics makes me feel like a wizard (EDIT: in training).

* I want to be able to read pop-physics and actually be able to dissect it.

* I want to be able to simulate GR.

* I want to understand QFT

* I want to be able to simulate atoms and molecules from first-principles.

* I want to UNDERSTAND

Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by jxy on Friday June 02, 2017 @10:28AM (#14470132)

   > * I want to be able to simulate GR.
   > * I want to understand QFT
   > * I want to be able to simulate atoms and molecules from first-principles.
With the current technology, assuming standard model of particle physics (which is QFT) is the first-principle, simulating atoms would take trillions of the age of the universe, let alone molecules, or any effect of GR.
Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by smaddox on Friday June 02, 2017 @10:18AM (#14470051)
If you haven't already, I highly recommend Feynman's Lectures on Physics: http://feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

While much more advanced than typical introductory texts, it does provide deeper insights than typical introductory texts, which makes it worth the investment.

Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by 52-6F-62 on Friday June 02, 2017 @02:43PM (#14472357)
I'm a beginner, thinking about returning to school for physics, but I'm dipping in with this tome I purchased recently. He's a great explainer for someone at my level.

And I have to brush up on all of the math (and learn calculus...) in order to fully understand. It's exciting that reading him isn't just a cold hard wall. It's proving to be a great guide into what to sort of triage my studies.

I strongly second this one! (Though I have to admit that I purchased a not-cheap edition of the first volume to get started -- though I prefer reading from paper, and don't yet own an eReader and have a bit of a burgeoning library anyway. But thanks for the link! it's nice to have the rest on hand).

Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by JabavuAdams on Friday June 02, 2017 @11:33AM (#14470640)
I'm more at the level of Goldstein for Mechanics, and learning about the Lagrangian. Of course, there's still much to learn from Feynman.
Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by b_emery on Friday June 02, 2017 @01:32PM (#14471795)
For me it was that physics was about reality. In high school the key moment occurred when in a physics lab, after calculating and measuring and calculating more, we placed a cup on the floor, rolled a marble down the ramp and off the desk - and it landed in the cup! At that moment I realized that all the math I had been studying actually meant something in the real world, and was useful for explaining questions I had about the world.
Re:Mathematics for Physics (2009) [pdf] by dbranes on Friday June 02, 2017 @11:01AM (#14470378)
A lot of contemporary mathematics have physical roots. Some things I like: Donaldson theory and Seiberg-Witten theory in differential topology, Gromov-Witten theory in sympletic/algebraic geometry. Knowing physics is not necessary to learn these things, but some rough idea of what QFT is doesn't hurt.