Talk:Mathematical physics

message: : "but in practice, most physics is done on a more intuitive/approximate or even questionable level."
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)
thread_title:  POV ? 

message: 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?
:"Experimental physicist" ?  :-)
:More to the point (and beyond just how to do the experimental side) a lot of physics is very closely focussed on the implications for a particular physical domain of interest, rather than on developing mathematical approaches.
:If you look at the definition from the journal at the top of the article, that does define something distinctive, I think.  -- Jheald 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quantum mechanics cannot be understood without a good knowledge of mathematics.
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)
replies: text:  it is not sensible to try to understand QM from a "purely physical point of view".  It makes little sense in terms of our macroscopic experience.  It can only be understood mathematically, anything else is a fiction.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.195.2.125 (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

text: also you might add that newtons principia came before algebra and he did most of his proofs and explanations with diagrams or sp my professor tells me - i havent actually read it - so maybe Newton would be a non mathematical physicist :), also lack of understanding is not necessily a barrier to correct application. Planck didnt really understand introducing the quanta when he did it but hey it still worked :)129.67.61.143 19:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: um, Principia did not come before algebra, it came before calculus, in fact Newton invented calculus and introduced it in that book. So he used calculus to prove his conjectures and, therefore, is a mathematical physicist. Calcmen 04:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Some recompense for the fact that mathematicians tend to call researchers in this area physicists and that physicists tend to call them mathematicians is provided by the breadth of physical subject matter and beauty of various unexpected interconnections in the mathematical structure of rather distinct physical situations.
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)

text: The very core of physics does involve with the experiment.  Without the observations its not physics, its not science.  It is often taught and reminded over and over by physicists that math is a tool not the answer.  Experimentalists usually do need to know math but not the same math theorists or phenomenologists need to know.  It depends on which area (condensed matter, plasma, etc.) or which angle (theory, phenomenology, computational, experimental, et al.), at the level of math.  Mathematical physics has its place and at a time (over a century ago i think) there was a movement away from math in terms of theory.  I think mathematical physics has contributed enough to both physics & math to make it a valid path for a scientist.  however, physicts arent (or shouldnt) be afraid to break a math rule once in awhile (or be creative); thats how some of the great theoretical "discoveries" were made in the 20th century.  --Blckavnger 21:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Mathematical Physics?!? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Off topic 

message: 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)
thread_title:  relations 

message: 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)
replies: text: And by the way, who is the third one in "Gauss (along with Euler) is considered by many to be one of the three greatest mathematicians of all time."? Perhaps just leave out Euler and three? (There are only 10 types of people in the world — those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those who mistake it for binary.) Dmcq (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

text: I think the whole section should be deleted.  The attempt at summarizing physics is awful, especially the "Relativistic" subsection. — DAGwyn 71.121.204.138 (talk) 14:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

text: While the very inclusion of the section or particular people on it seems to be an unresolved controversy, for the time being I'd focus on its readability – it probably should be a bullet list instead of comma separated wall of text Doa1996 (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent mathematical physicists 

message: 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)
replies: text: Calm down. Although it could be phrased differently, I think that what the person who wrote that sentence meant is crystal clear. In any case, if you do believe that no practicing mathematician relies on empirical evidence to guide his intuition, then you are completely wrong (or you have a very naive vision of mathematical research).--84.74.41.238 (talk) 17:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit alert 

message: A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of . 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)
replies: text: Thank you for the heads-up! I've reviewed these edits: he added the names of several prominent Islamic scholars. While it's debatable whether "antecedents of mathematical physics" belong to this page, the whole section "Prominent mathematical physicists" is so badly in need of streamlining that it doesn't truly matter. Arcfrk (talk) 03:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: 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)
thread_title: Original research?

message: Mathematical physics refers to any of the following:
*A discipline applying mathematical rigor to physics problems, historically concentrated in    
:1.quantum field theory, especially the precise construction of models;
:2.statistical mechanics, especially the theory of phase transitions; and
:3.nonrelativistic quantum mechanics (Schrödinger operators), including the connections to atomic and molecular physics,
:such as found in the works of Barry Simon, Elliott H. Lieb, Michael Atiyah, Lincoln Chayes, and many Berkeley Mathematics Faculty; and, as Sir Michael Atiyah espouses in his depiction of Edward Witten, "...application of physical insight leading to new and deep mathematical theorems." (The description of concentrations appeared on Barry Simon's former Caltech research brochure for mathematical physics. Dynamical systems theory and  field theory are classical mathematical physics, for the most part, notably associated with applied mathematics — see Brown University, The Division of Applied Mathematics. Emerging focus areas include string theory (algebraic geometry, differential geometry, symplectic geometry and topology) and gravitational lensing (singularity theory) — see Duke University 'Center' for Geometry and Theoretical Physics. Edward Witten's research exemplifies the former, while Arlie O. Petters' work is in the latter, which has been called mathematical astronomy.) 
*Mathematical methods in physics, e.g., Arfken's Mathematical Methods for Physicists. 
*Synonym for theoretical physics, e.g., Robert had arrived in Europe as a somewhat inept and ineffectual laboratory physicist and left as a young maven of mathematical physics. (J. Robert Oppenheimer Centennial at Berkeley)
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.   
:Its purpose is the publication of papers in mathematical physics–that is, the application of mathematics to problems in physics and the development of mathematical methods suitable for such applications and for the formulation of physical theories. The mathematics should be written in a manner that is understandable to theoretical physicists. Occasionally, reviews of mathematical subjects relevant to physics and special issues combining papers on a topic of current interest may be published. --72.193.73.84 (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Definitions

message: 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)
thread_title:  Perhaps more accurate on history of mathematics than of Einsteinian physics 

message: Substituted at 23:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061003233339/http://jmp.aip.org/jmp/staff.jsp to http://jmp.aip.org/jmp/staff.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: 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)
replies: text: If Spohn’s on the list, why not Hermann Flaschka ? He did get the Wiener prize.--2600:1700:1C60:45E0:1AF:1F15:C122:8829 (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Abel Prize should be mentioned (forward), but counting and updating individuals is part of that article. Abel is not Nobel. KR 17387349L8764 (talk) 09:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent enough? 

message: This looks interesting: Michael Stöltzner,  Opportunistic Axiomatics: Von Neumann on the Methodology of Mathematical Physics,  .  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)
replies: text: Yes, very good: "I would say that theoretical physics deals rather with the formation and mathematical physics rather with the exploitation of physical theories. However, when a new theory has to be evaluated and compared with experience, both aspects mix." ... Since you mentioned "vs. pure math" in your section heading: Meta-math or Philosophy. KR  17387349L8764 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  mathematical physics vs pure math 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree - 173.206.33.141 (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

text: "Physical mathematics" is a phrase that connotes aspirational use of mathematics. J.W. Gibbs and A. Macfarlane were early "mathematical physicists" acknowledged as such. Claim to the phrase by string theorists is asserted and supported by literature. As we only report in the encyclopedia, judgement is deferred. The contributions made to the shorter article indicate the late arrival of embellished physical science, such as the mixed mathematics described by Andrew Warwick. It is noted that the main article needs  work. — Rgdboer (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Important information about Orion.