Do physicists have to know as much math and in so much detail as mathematicians do?

Question

Im in high school and I love science (.....math second) and I love to study and read about atoms and radiation and subatomic particles. So as a career I want to become a nuclear physicist b/c they study the atomic nucleus and all of the interesting features of it. But I may find math a bit fun but when I see the work mathematicians do it kind of scares me b/c I dont understand one bit of it and I just dont have the love for math to go that far into it. And I know Einstein and many other great physicists could do that kind of math. So do physicists have to know math that fluently?

Answer 1

Generally, no. The sort of mathematics that physicists and engineers use is but a small fraction of what formal mathematics is. Engineers and physicists use applied mathematics (partial differential differential equations, statistics, and computer science) as a sort of language to comprehend and model various phenomena encountered in the natural world. They are somewhat less concerned with formalized proofs, thoerems and lemmas. In fact, Einstein remarked that once the mathematicians formalized his tensor calculus, even he didn't even understand relativity anymore!

Answer 2

Some physicists know math that well, but most probably don't want, or need to adhere to all the gory details mathematicians do.

It doesn't mean they do things wrong, but mathematicians are the ones that build the framework for their theories; what is possible, what is not, how one thing relates to another, different ways something can be computed, or easier ways to go about accomplishing a certain task say.

Physicists don't need to bother with formalities the way the mathematicians do. They put into practice (per se) what the mathematicians put forth. They *use* that mathematical language and don't need to re-invent the wheel and apply this math-language to their needs.

When we use say Maxwell's equations, or Stoke's Theorem, we apply it as needed, we don't need to show where it comes from how how it comes about. We *can* do that, but in most cases the interest isn't the math it's the result.

It's like when an engineer designs a gear-puller for a say the gear-train stack-up on an old Detroit inline 77 right-hand rotating engine. The mechanic that uses it doesn't have to know the theory of how it works, he/she just needs to know it works and how to use it, because the goal is to remove the gear. Some mechanics *may* know the theory behind it, but they are probably not the majority. Same with mathematicians and physicists.

Does this help at all? I feel like I've said everything *but* what you want/need to know.

:\

Answer 3

Physics uses a ton of math. As a physicist, depending on your specific approach, you might use exclusively math from day to day. When learning physics in school, you'll have to learn a lot of math, but some physicists could presumably be doing research that doesn't require a lot of math... it seems unlikely though.

You'll learn the math though! If you are interested in physics go for it!

Answer 4

Erm... yes!

But don't worry, when you study physics, in the lessons, the teachers usually go through the maths and show you how to work out the maths. It is just a technique and you'll never need to know more maths than you were taught in Physics.

Maths is taught gradually at higher levels, just think of maths as a method, rather than a talent.

Answer 5

Math is nearly a hammer. Its a gadget. with out somebody to pound a nail with the hammer its valueless and merely lays there by using itself doing no longer something effective. Physics is like the wood worker. he's magnificent with the hammer yet with out the hammer he's nearly screwed. the ethical of the story?: they want one yet another... besides the undeniable fact that, the wood worker can do different issues and not employing a hammer, merely as a physicist can do lots with out using math. concept experiments are examples of this. Lab artwork customarily on occasion falls below this catagory. on occasion you have phenomenon that modern-day math constructs won't be in a position to describe. So first you need to interrupt down the project, think of it by using and in ordinary terms THEN observe the maths to define it. As for me, i be conscious of physicists greater, in all possibility because of the fact i'm one. Physicists and mathematicians do no longer continually get alongside o.k., frequently because of the fact mathematicians can discover elegance interior the numbers on my own, in spite of in the event that they do no longer make experience. form of like an artform in itself, as though the equations themselves have been artwork. Physicists, on the different hand, in many situations won't see elegance in a series or sequence till it explains some fascet of certainty. Like an artwork critic who can in ordinary terms savour "clever" artwork like a vehicle with surprising strains as adverse to the ineffective wall portray that the mathematician is drooling over. If I had to be a throwdown at the two math or physics i could decide for physics, palms down. greater human beings willl keep in mind who you're, there is greater universal popularity avaliable and the roles pay greater effective. Plus you get to think of exterior the field and into different sciences lots greater. :)

Answer 6

Physicists often skirt mathematical details that make mathematicians turn green. For instance, Fourier used the classic trionometric series that bears his name to solve physical problems, but it wasn't mathematically proven valid until after his death!

Answer 7

my brother is a teacher/physicist at jh university. but his first 2 degrees in college were for mathematics