TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction

233 点作者 irsagent超过 1 年前

16 条评论

nicf超过 1 年前
Hi, this is the author. I&#x27;ve been coming back to this project off and on over the past few years but I often think of these articles as mostly something I&#x27;m writing for myself, so I&#x27;m really happy to see that some other people might be getting something out of them! I&#x27;d definitely love to hear if anyone knows anything I got wrong or can think of a way any particular explanation might be made better.<p>I should also take this chance to mention that I work as a private tutor and I have openings for students! Much more info here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nicf.net&#x2F;tutoring&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nicf.net&#x2F;tutoring&#x2F;</a>
评论 #39310087 未加载
评论 #39316237 未加载
评论 #39321874 未加载
rck超过 1 年前
Spivak (of differential geometry fame) wrote a book with this precise title:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;physics-for-mathematicians-mechanics-spivak" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.org&#x2F;details&#x2F;physics-for-mathematicians-mecha...</a><p>It&#x27;s a very interesting take on classical mechanics.
评论 #39308858 未加载
评论 #39309362 未加载
nilkn超过 1 年前
I’d really love to see a rigorous explanation of renormalization, plus why it doesn’t work for gravity, with no handwaving. As a non-physicist, that has always been the point where I hit a wall on traditional treatments of QFT.
评论 #39309151 未加载
评论 #39309722 未加载
dawnofdusk超过 1 年前
Skimmed some of the articles, particularly those nearer to my field. Seems like a generally good set of informal notes.<p>Random comments:<p>&gt;when the states evolve in time and the observables don’t we are using Liouville’s picture; when the observables evolve in time and the states don’t we are using Hamilton’s picture.<p>I have never heard this terminology, I have only heard Schrodinger&#x27;s picture vs. Heisenberg&#x27;s picture.<p>&gt;This means that, very unlike on a Riemannian manifold, a symplectic manifold has no local geometry, so there’s no symplectic analogue of anything like curvature.<p>Perhaps the only enlightening comment I have ever heard about the tautological 1-form&#x2F;symplectic approach to Hamiltonian mechanics.
评论 #39308451 未加载
Y_Y超过 1 年前
I&#x27;ve never gotten a satisfactory explanation of what sort of mathematical object a physical unit (meter, kilo, second etc) is. There are plenty of bones of contention between maths and physics, but this one bothers me the most.<p>Anyone interested in coming at physics from a mathematics perspective should read Arnold&#x27;s mechanics book.
评论 #39306630 未加载
评论 #39307093 未加载
评论 #39306593 未加载
评论 #39307697 未加载
评论 #39308093 未加载
评论 #39312140 未加载
评论 #39310973 未加载
评论 #39313234 未加载
seydar超过 1 年前
&gt; The presence of the negative signs in (1) may seem surprising at first, but this is due to the fact that (1) is describing the effect of a passive change of units rather than an active change of the object {x}.<p>This is where the limits of my brain were reached. Is there a translation of this into category theory terms? Is this where category theory could help formalize units in physics?<p>However, his paragraph after that is pretty interesting, which I read as sort of treating units as variables since you couldn&#x27;t combine them, and he only has length, mass, and time for these examples. But then there&#x27;s an exponent piece? Okay now I&#x27;m lost again.
评论 #39310072 未加载
评论 #39307887 未加载
评论 #39307947 未加载
tippytippytango超过 1 年前
This is really cool. Can also serve as a Rosetta Stone for physicists wanting to better understand the language of mathematicians.
评论 #39324728 未加载
scionthefly超过 1 年前
Okay...I think this might be interesting. I&#x27;ve seen and read a lot of &quot;math for dumb physicists&quot; works, which as a physicist...yeah, I see their point. This could help me understand the math wizards a little better.
评论 #39307625 未加载
max_超过 1 年前
For those looking for alternatives, Leonard Suskid&#x27;s &quot;Theoretical Minimum&quot; books in 2 Volumes are way more accessible and easier to read.
评论 #39308153 未加载
hintymad超过 1 年前
This introduction must assume that the reader already understands physics deeply, right? For instance, the page on Hamiltonian mechanics stated that force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time. I can&#x27;t imagine how one will understand the intuition behind the definition without having already learned at least college-level physics.
评论 #39309692 未加载
2716057超过 1 年前
Florian Scheck&#x27;s textbooks in the Springer Graduate Texts in Physics series could also serve as a bridge. Though very challenging for the non-mathematician I&#x27;ve grown quite fond of &quot;Mechanics: From Newton&#x27;s laws to Deterministic Chaos&quot; and plan to read the other Scheck books in the series as well.
评论 #39313792 未加载
sydbarrett74超过 1 年前
I am neither a physicist nor a mathematician, but this looks like an awesome undertaking that will benefit both communities! :)
Koshkin超过 1 年前
A bit on a tangent, I have been always curious as to how much of the modern theoretical physics is just math. That is, how little print space the standard treatment of physical theory could be compressed into if all the purely mathematical stuff is assumed known (or delegated to a separate text).
syxp超过 1 年前
There is always the classical lecture notes by Dolgachev on this. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dept.math.lsa.umich.edu&#x2F;~idolga&#x2F;physicsbook.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;dept.math.lsa.umich.edu&#x2F;~idolga&#x2F;physicsbook.pdf</a>
评论 #39313810 未加载
paulpauper超过 1 年前
This seems way too advanced for an intro. imho you&#x27;d be better off with textbooks. this assumes you are very strong in math
ysofunny超过 1 年前
euler is the last titan of pure raw &#x27;classic&#x27; mathematics because gauss was a pretty strong &#x27;theoretical&#x27; physicist.<p>how have the mathematical contributions of quantum physics affected mathematics? have they??<p>maybe the field that&#x27;s really lagging in recognizing the implications of &quot;recent&quot; scientific revolution (QM) is philosophy?<p>finally, I wonder how will the schizm in mathematics that is the IUT (mochizuki&#x27;s theory) will finally pan out. apparently euler also left stuff behind that took over 70 years to be understood so I ain&#x27;t holding my breath.