Timeline for Books you would like to read (if somebody would just write them…)
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2021 at 20:42 | comment | added | John Baez | "But it seems to me that they usually go native in the process, with the result that I cease to be able to understand what they are saying. with the result that I cease to be able to understand what they are saying. It could be that this is just an irreducibly necessary feature of physics, but I doubt it." I'd argue that this is partially true: physics is full of concepts that when learned transform your outlook on reality, and it's very hard to go back and talk like you don't know this stuff. Math is this way too. | |
| Feb 13, 2011 at 14:26 | comment | added | Gil Kalai | I also would like to ask about the IAS quantum fields and string that Greg mentioned. Also how is Penrose's book "a road to reality" for such a purpose? | |
| Feb 2, 2011 at 2:43 | comment | added | Rob Harron | I really like Folland's book "Quantum field theory, A tourist guide for mathematicians". | |
| Jan 31, 2011 at 18:09 | comment | added | Arend Bayer | ...when physicists tomorrow re-tweak or expand their model, then lacking their computational intuition, we at first again won't understand what they are doing, and we have to restart translating physics into mathematics. (And of course, as it took a couple of years to translate the previous model into mathematics, "tomorrow" will of course already have happened a while ago.) I don't think of this as a bad state of affairs though, it also means that the input from theoretical physics will continue to be surprising and interesting. | |
| Jan 31, 2011 at 18:04 | comment | added | Arend Bayer | My personal opinion is that unfortunately such a book cannot possibly exist. Physicists derive a lot of intuition their intuition from their rich experience doing computations (starting with their undergraduate homework, continued through graduate classes to basically every single paper they work on). Based on this intuition, they develop models, tweak them, expand them, generalize them, discard them. Now, for any specific model, and given a couple of years, we mathematicians can translate everything in this model into mathematics (and develop some great mathematics on the way). But... | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 22:59 | comment | added | gowers | I ought to say, in case anyone gets the wrong idea, that I like the articles in the Princeton Companion to Mathematics that deal with theoretical physics. However, there's a difference between a PCM article and an entire book. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 22:36 | comment | added | Dick Palais | I have the new Spivak volume, and yes it is only about Classical mechanics, and yes it is written with Spivak's usual style and clarity. It is the first volume of a projected series, the next according to Mike will be on E&M. You can get the Book directly from Spivak (Publish or Perish Press) at a good price. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 22:29 | comment | added | Peter Shor | I second this, for a book with emphasis on mathematics related to quantum optics. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 20:08 | comment | added | Simon Lyons | Darryl Holm's two-volume "Geometric Mechanics" may be worth looking at. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 17:53 | comment | added | Greg Marks | How about the two-volume series "Quantum Fields and Strings: A Course for Mathematicians" (eds. Deligne, Etingof, Freed, Jeffrey, Kazhdan, Morgan, Morrison, Witten)? | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 17:43 | comment | added | Franz Lemmermeyer | Perhaps "physics for mathematicians" is a little bit on the unmodest side; among the more specialized courses I like "Manifolds and mechanics" by Jones, Gray and Hutton, and "Group theory and physics" by Sternberg. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 16:41 | comment | added | arsmath | Have you read Vladimir Arnold's "Mathematical Methods in Classical Mechanics"? I would say that it fits the bill, but maybe you've read it and it falls short in some way. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 16:32 | comment | added | Dylan Wilson | +lots. Physics books are usually written in a way that teaches the mathematics through physical intuition... The trouble is that I have no physical intuition. I'd like a book that teaches the physics through mathematical intuition. | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 15:36 | comment | added | Vectornaut | "Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics I" is apparently a reworked and expanded version of these notes: math.uga.edu/~shifrin/Spivak_physics.pdf. Now that I know about it, I'm really looking forward to reading it!!! +1 | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 15:07 | comment | added | Gonçalo Marques | Michael Spivak has recently written a book called "Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics I". I haven't seen it and it's a bit expensive on Amazon, but it might be just what you want (but as far as I can tell it's "only" about classical mechanics...) | |
| Jan 24, 2011 at 14:55 | history | answered | gowers | CC BY-SA 2.5 |