If the 1000 smartest pure mathematicians under 35 switched over

>>7736874
both would slow down a LOT while people relearn stuff, then gradually get back to the same

>>7736874
"As science began to rely more and more upon mathematics to produce its physical conclusions, mathematics began to rely more and more upon scientific results to justify its own procedures." --M. Kline

They both have serious influence on each other.

reminder that when general relativity came out barely any phycists understood it but mathematicians understood it right away

>>7736874
It would come to a near halt as your force people to abandon their passion and interests in favor of an arbitrary social experiment.

>>7736902
math is just an illusion not a passion

>>7736874
Mathematicians:

Will have to take on the practical skills to operate things like the LHC and be able to actually get data. This will take them about a year of almost no publications and after that they will continue publishing as normal, probably even getting a hold of a detail about some model that physicists never noticed.

Physicists:
Realize that they actually know nothing about how pure mathematics is done. They start looking back at when mathematics separates itself from everything else so they can start studying from there. The more they look they see how far they have to actually go. All physicists end up going back to undergrad to get a Bachelors degree in Pure Mathematics realizing that even the first class they took in college, which was Calculus I was extremely different when taken by pure mathematicians, where it resembled more real analysis and was completely proof based.

4 years for the physicists to graduate undergrad. Some even fail and just off themselves. Then 2 more years for the masters. Then 8 more years for the PhD. And after just 1 out of the hundreds of physicists earns a PhD in pure mathematics he dies of old age.

No new theorem was ever proven by a physicists. However, by this time, all of the problems in physics have been completely solved and there was no mistery left in the universe and as such the mathematicians went back to mathematics and first looked through the physicists notes to see where they will have to pick up. They see nothing except for one paper that seemed to be a Thesis where one of the physicists asked 'What is the derivative of 1?' but then the rest was completely blank.

Mathematicians go back to normal as if they had never gone because no work was done.

File: helicopter.png (659KB, 855x481px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 855x481px

>>7736909
>retard

>No new theorem was ever proven by a physicists
>a physicists

Before we get into mathematical history, why don't we learn some english first, k?

>>7737010
Prove me wrong then.

Is there any modern field of mathematics that a physicist could immediately jump in without much re education?

>>7737015
>I'm going to take one small typo and blow it out of proportion so it seems like that discredits his entire opinion!
>I'm so smart for doing this! I bet no one has ever done this one before.

>>7737010
>I'm going to call him a mean word!
>I bet no one has ever done this one before!

Yup. This is the mental sharpness you can expect of a physicist.

>>7737020
No, retard. The burden of proof is on you.

>much re education
In order to publish a result, even in theoretical physics, a physicist probably only needs the first three chapters in any given mathematical text (for sufficiently advanced subject matter, ie not Calc 1 or Real Analysis).
Heisenberg discovered matrix mechanics without knowing what a matrix was at all. Just because mathematicians once in a while get to share in a physicists glory doesn't mean that without the physicist they'd still be just a bunch of ivory tower dicks in a library.

>>7737036
Well. You can look into any modern paper on Analysis, Topology, Algebra or Number Theory and you won't see anything that even resembles your physics book.

That is my proof. I just hope you know where to find free mathematical papers online so you can confirm the truth.

>>7737111
math is just a game involving symbols

you're literally a fucking chess player

when was the last time you saw a chess player making fusion reactors or rockets?

>>7737122
>when was the last time you saw a chess player making fusion reactors or rockets?

I did mention in my first post that the mathematicians would have to spend time learning the practical skills needed to do physics.

You actually have no argument against me. You just don't know how to read. And it really shows your insecurity in your own field when even though I'm not contradicting you, you feel the need to shitpost against me.

>>7736909
>Will have to take on the practical skills to operate things like the LHC and be able to actually get data.

It literally says 'theoretical physicists' in the OP. Theoreticians do not operate particle accelerators...

>>7737123
> did mention in my first post that the mathematicians would have to spend time learning the practical skills needed to do physics.

Yes, and the amount of time required for you to learn practical skills is longer than the time needed to learn the math you already knew, because as I said, math a game.

The fact that this wasn't readily apparent to you just shows how out of touch mathematicians are with the real world.

You're all fucking autistic manchildren as far as I'm concerned.

>>7737122
>math is just a game involving symbols
all human communication and recorded knowledge is "just a game involving symbols" you retarded monkey.

>>7737130
With what authority are you talking exactly? Have you even learned any math? Have you learned the "practical skills" a theoretical physicist needs? I'll wager you haven't done either (hell, you haven't taken an introductory class in modern physics or analysis) and you're just angrily shitposting because you're really bad academically and are jealous

>>7737132
Yes glad we are on the same page now

>>7737130
>Yes, and the amount of time required for you to learn practical skills is longer than the time needed to learn the math you already knew, because as I said, math a game.

What is easier?

Teach someone Pure Calculus (as in no applications shown, resembling a class of basic real analysis) and then teach them mechanics or to teach someone mechanics (with just the calculus he needs) and then teach them Pure Calculus/Real Analysis

I think the latter would be an uphill battle while the former would just be reading 'Applications of Calculus'.

File: hurrdurrpurr.gif (348KB, 500x238px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 500x238px

>>7737010
>disagrees
>doesn't have an actual response to justify disagreement
>calls him retard to compensate

retard detected

>>7737132
>>7737134
>samefagging this hard

Thanks for proving me right

I feel so bad for you I'll let you have the last word, that's the least I can offer.

But let me say this first. Every revolution in physics happened because a phycists came up the mathematics to model some new phenomenon in his head. It doesn't matter whether mathematicians already discovered it previously because the physicists rederived it indepedently.

And the only reason this is all true is because mathematicians, the supposed "know it alls", aren't sharp enough to make the connections in the first place.

Physicists invent what is needed, because it's obvious to them. Because they are intelligent and efficient enough to do so. Because they don't need to expend more thought then necessary.


Mathematicians are like blind rats wandering around in a gigantic maze, feeling the need to map out every corner of every dead end because that's the only way they know how to make progress.

I'll put it in a retard analogy since it's so obvious you've had alcohol put in your blood surrogate

physicists = Sherlock Holmes
mathematicians = police department

>>7736909
>This will take them about a year of almost no publications and after that they will continue publishing as normal, probably even getting a hold of a detail about some model that physicists never noticed.

Mathematicians exist in their own world of complete abstractness. I have a feeling it will take them a lot more than one year to get intuition for the real world and the very different way in which physicists operate. Every physics undergrad usually takes AT LEAST 4 semesters worth of purely experimental courses. This skill set is not something you can just ignore, even for a theoretical physicist.

>All physicists end up going back to undergrad to get a Bachelors degree in Pure Mathematics realizing that even the first class they took in college, which was Calculus I was extremely different when taken by pure mathematicians, where it resembled more real analysis and was completely proof based.

A theoretical physicist would probably already have the same level of knowledge as someone with a masters in a physics relevant math field. Maybe more than that if they work on something like String Theory.


>No new theorem was ever proven by a physicists.

This is just wrong.

>>7737154
>whining with absolutely nothing of substance

stay mad, stay bad

>>7737159
physicists normally don't have much knowledge of pure math, if at all. they have knowledge in applied math.

>highest math needed to understand all of modern physics
>calculus and linear algebra


>highest phsyics needed to understand math
>undefined

>>7737162
>physicists normally don't have much knowledge of pure math, if at all. they have knowledge in applied math.

OP specified theoretical physicists. You can't learn the math needed to become something like a GR theorist in a purely applied way. You will have to learn rigorous upper graduate level Riemann Geometry and PDE theory just like math students. And obviously to study that stuff you will need to have knowledge of undergrad level pure math.

>>7737176
I don't know man, the diff eq classes that they made us take with physicists are a real fucking joke. I really can't believe that physicists would do PDEs with a functional analysis base anywhere. They just go through methods and ideas.

>>7737205
I am not talking about an undergrad physics major's PDE class. I am talking about a PDE course needed to become a GR Theorist. EFEs are not exactly trivial. Maybe take a look at a book like this: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0199230722

>>7737205

They do if they are PhD physicists in a highly mathematical area like GR or String Theory

>>7736909

Physicists do take calculus. And some areas of physics do use math, Steven Weinberg was learning some group theory when I met him at my university.

File: Von_Neumann_5.jpg (61KB, 590x400px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 590x400px

>>7736894
>implying computer scientists weren't miles ahead of the mathematicians in understanding

>>7736874
we would lose progress as each person would have to learn what the others were missing in order to begin to contribute anything.

would probably lose 1-2 years and have a net loss productivity after everything is stabilized since you're forcing people to do things they normally don't want to do.

>>7737143

Someone I knew in college was doing pure math and had several graduate courses in things like algebraic geometry, algebraic topology, etc. but waited till his senior year to take the required physics electives (e.g. mechanics, E&M), he thought they were pretty easy but tedious. Most people have calculus and mechanics when they take real analysis but they still think it's hard.

>>7737308

von Neumann was a mathematician though

>>7737165
Sorry my friend but you are a wrong, I have covered topology, pdes, Lin alg, abstract alg and I'm doing experimental physics not theoretical

>>7737143
>I think the latter would be an uphill battle while the former would just be reading 'Applications of Calculus'.
This is why a mathematician would suck at doing physics. You can not view even something like mechanics as just applied calculus. There is a ton of physical intuition involved and a lot of the principles are justified only by experimental data.

>>7737256
Jesus christ the tremendous number of stamps in here is mind-boggling. I couldn't bear to learn physics. For what I've eyed they do use certain facts from math (e.g. stoke's theorem) but man, it's a mess in my eyes. The style in which it's written is so different from math.

>>7737162
There is a history of physicists making up the math they need on the spot. See the origins of functional integration for an example (they are called Feynman path integrals for a reason). It is not rigorously developed, but a physicist doesn't care about mathematical rigor, only that the thing works. So, it is a rather large jump for both. The pure mathematicians would have to adapt to playing hard and fast with the rules to produce meaningful models, while the physicists would have to get used to the necessary rigor of pure mathematics.

>it's a thinly veiled mathematicians vs physicists thread
should've added engineers to this delicious bait stew, OP

>>7737334
>The style in which it's written is so different from math.
That is because you have to be able to make a lot of explicit calculations. In this case it is much more efficient to write equations using tensor calculus than the more abstract notation used in pure math books.

>>7737347
Not really what I meant. It's written like a novel, full of facts and pompous ideas with no rigor.

File: Screen Shot 2015-12-22 at 2.19.02 AM.png (318KB, 691x846px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 691x846px

>>7737353
I would not consider that book to have no rigor.

>>7737357
I didn't say the main results had no rigor, I said it's full of facts and pompous ideas with no rigor, which are there as a filler it seems.

Also your screenshot is particularly bad in that it's tons of stamps and cuts right before the proof, which would actually (hopefully) show some rigor. Are you sure you're not just surprised by the pretty symbols and deluded by that thinking that means rigor?

>>7736909
Kek

>>7737368
Those are rigorous mathematical definitions. It is not the job of a physics book to prove mathematical theorems. If it did that this ~900 page book would probably be almost double that length.

>>7737377
How the fuck do you assess the rigor of a book by the definitions instead of the proofs? Because they got pretty symbols? You can't be serious.

>>7737386
The mathematical rigor comes from the fact the book actually justifies what it does by properly stating the relevant mathematical theorems that allow them to do what they do. Shoving proofs of every theorem into the book would just be a waste.

Basically nothing, the biologists would carry on saving the world like they always have.

>>7737391
>Shoving proofs of every theorem into the book would just be a waste.

You have absolutely no idea of what rigor means. It's not stating things and saying they work just because. Luckily, the book HAS the appropriate proofs for the main results, as I already said.

>>7737401
You don't seem to understand the mathematical rigor of a physics book is not determined in the same way as a math book.

>>7736902
It's just a prank bro

File: You+Keep+Using+That+Word.jpg (56KB, 585x341px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 585x341px

>>7737402

The mathematicians would spend a hopeless eternity trying to figure out the axioms.

>>7736874
Physics:
>Mathematicians will immediately phase out experiments and then spend the first period of time trying to work out some common rigorous foundations and other formalisms.
>They'll then spend the next period of time generalizing all results in as many ways as they can.
>Finally physics will evolve into an formal abstract structure where no one doing research cares if the general public understands it or if it even has any application to reality.

Mathematics:
>Physicists would spend the next several years trying to find examples of things for each abstract structure and then running experiments to see if these examples really do satisfy the abstract structure.
>Eventually it would devolve into the study of special cases that apply to specific cases in real life.

In other words, eventually physics would become mathematics and mathematics would become physics.

>>7736909
Edward Witten has won a fields medal, you arrogant twat