most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net 2013-05-19T03:30:06Z http://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/64569 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdf http://mathoverflow.net/questions/64569/rigorising-physicists-understanding Matt Cooper 2011-05-11T06:13:05Z 2011-05-11T06:13:05Z

<blockquote> <p><strong>Possible Duplicate:</strong><br> <a href="http://mathoverflow.net/questions/64178/some-thoughts-on-zeilbergers-111th-opinion" rel="nofollow">Some thoughts on Zeilberger&rsquo;s 111th opinion</a> </p> </blockquote> <p>I am interested in the following question.</p> <p><strong>What is to point of proving rigorously things that physicists already can `explain'?</strong></p> <p>For a little while I couldn't think of any convincing argument and momentarily became depressed as I am interested in rigorous mathematical physics.</p> <p>After a little thought I came up with the following reason as to why it is worthwhile to rigorously prove things that physicists already know. Maybe the physicists knowledge about the object in question is not as deep as they think. After all if it were wouldn't a rigorous proof be easy? On the same note, the physicists may be able to predict some things in the model but their explanation for why it happens might be wrong. In the future they may, after physical experiments or theoretical arguments, realize this but the point with mathematical rigor is that after something is proven you know that your explanation is eternally correct.</p> <p>In closing I would say that rigorous proofs in mathematical physics only validate the physicists reasoning most of the time. However, sometimes they show such reasoning to be faulty and as a result we gain more insight into the object in question.</p> <p>Do you have any arguments for or against the above question?</p>