Most theoretical physicists need a PhD level of mathematical knowledge. Witten, who is a string theorist, won a Fields Medal. My own PhD is in mathematical physics, but I am now retired from university teaching.
Thank you for this! I am currently a freshman in Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and planning to take Physics in my Master’s and Doctorate. I’m doing my best.☺️
Clearly u don't need any advice since you look mature enough about what you're doing. But, I want to say please not for a moment, ignore the importance of mathematics. I am a bachelor's in Physics and stupidly enough, i didn't pay attention to Maths class. Now, I'm having hard time studying Physics cz the soul of Physics is Maths. One who's good at Maths, will do great in Physics. I wish your all the best for your journey ahead.
I plan to! Any specific parts you’d want to know / day in the life / reading papers etc.? I can also share some ideas with the lab I’ve been working with
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 any of those seem great, but I think I would love to see a video of you going through the process of absorbing the info in a paper(s)
My physics undergrad degree is close to 2 decades old , even though I did well this information would have been incredibly useful back then. Might use it if I go back to grad school . Thanks!
Excellent talk. I started in applied math which was math and physics. I was not sure where I would go in life but I knew if I wound up in EE that applied math would be key. I had a PDE professor that stressed what became called systems biology would be the future for applied math I got into computational neuroscience in grad school. I had already focused in digital signal processing from the math depth (not EE dept) so that was practical. I have been in signal analytics and machine learning in my career and applied math is key. I used to tutor Calculus and that showed me people are just afraid of math. You need a good math teacher. I took Classical Mechanics and had a professor who said the best pre-req was working on a farm and learning about pulleys and levers first hand
At my university, math was somehow dismissed and during my undergrad physics, I had only the basics of calculus, some differential equations and a bit of algebra. They replaced the love for physics with disappointment and frustration
Hey, great video, I like the relaxed but concise way you explain:). I'd love a more in depth view of the neccesary maths in different fields. I'm at the end of my bachelor in physics and have had some of all the maths areas you've talked about and most of the examples you've talked about. It was a cool overview, but i'd love some more insight, for people thinking about which direction to go into in their masters. Maybe with some more in depth examples or talking about the way you have to think in those areas of math. (also just the topics you're most acustom to would be awesome!)
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 I think that insights about the field that are less covered in mainstream are interesting(getting the feel to how working in physics really is). Ps: would also recommend having a little bit of script, making your speech flow more, not that it’s a big problem, but I feel like it helps the viewer to maintain focus, which is important with technical topics.
Excellent video! I'm studying Hopf Algebras for particle physics. Deep and profound how math sets the mood for physics. Both truths inextricably connected.
Going into my masters of pure mathematics (basically the theoretical math degree) I can for sure do all of these things separately and tell u all about them but physics is one of the math things that bridge all of these ideas of math together and that I am bad at lol. I will stick to my niches in my math degree lol
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42yes please make a video about Group theory in particle physics and suggest from where to start and some resources for self study.. Thanks❤
All Physics equations are technically Theoretical Physics. Even undergrad Physics textbook like University Physics with Modern Physics questions trains and prepares your brain for Theoretical Physics.
Thanks man, good video. Physics is awesome, keep making more videos to educate the masses. Also, can you make a video on the nature of current and elaborate what it means for electrons to move across the conduction band of atoms. I am not a physics major, but I find it beautiful. Thanks man.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature: Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.) Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree. String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring? What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine. Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules: “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr (lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958) The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics? When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry. Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other. Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change. ===================== Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons? Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension? Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons . Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase. Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length ) The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge. Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms. In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137. 1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface 137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted. The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.) How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter? Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles? I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles. .====
Nice illustration! Now if we can get people to see that there is little to no gravity to slow down light between galaxies until the light enters into a galaxy where time slows down and distance contracts, slowing down the speed of light. This is the reason superluminal motion is perceived to be seven times the speed of light since our measures of time and distance are being projected into outer space where time runs faster and the measure of distance is much larger relative to ours. Of course nothing ever exceeds the speed of light. It’s that the assumed measures of time and distance are off. Another little secret of general relativity is that the speed of light is NOT constant because the measures of time and distance are not constant throughout the universe. Looking at a galaxy is not like looking at a cat or dog where the measures of time and distance are constant because they are not constant from here to outer space between galaxies. The measures of time and distance appear to be constant or flat to us locally but they are not flat over great distances, especially outside of galaxies and in between galaxies.
I think You should a video about how to learn physics (self taught). outline: 1) Books. a. Text Books b. Non Fiction c. Paper for Understanding. 2) Online Course( Paid and free) {Free will be great} 3) Physical Material we need to buy ( if possible). 4. How to learn? 5. What should be avoid. 🥽🥽 Be a Physics Sorcerer for Humanity.
I've 2 Math Degrees & currently starting a Masters. IMO, Advanced Math is basically 3 broad divisions: *Pure Math *Applied Math *Statistics Of the 3, if u don't have a strong proficiency in the 'Applied', then Physics or any sub-division of it, will be a challenge. Some Math programmes have an Engineering Math sequence as core /electives, do them to get the experience. Of the topics mentioned, Linear Alg, Diff Eqs & Complex Analysis are the easiest topics. ALL the Physics related disciplines are difficult....again IMO, but good luck to those brave to maybe make a switch....🤔
Could a single geometrical process square ψ², t², e², c², v² forming our mathematics? We need to go back to r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670. The Universe could be based on simple geometry that forms the potential for evermore complexity. Forming not just physical complexity, but also the potential for evermore-abstract mathematics.
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 yes , actually I am working on a project related to Reissner Nordstrom metric 90% work has been done but I need a stimulation for a geodesics equation near that blackhole
All you need is basic algebra, but the more math you know the better. I say all you need is Algebra because you could build something good if you have the talent or insight.
Hi I am a mathematician (postdoc) and I was looking at physics just for fun in my spare time. What do you think about Susskind's books? I feel like they are really nice - you do not miss out on the math. For example I had two courses on Riemannian geometry and then his General relativity felt quite easy. On the other hand if one is not familiar with the math, he does great job to explain all the math you need. I guess the exercises are the only thing missing, but as I am not a student anymore I would not have time for them anyway. 😂
Its not that we dont have time, its just that we wont slog unless we know what we are doing, wheras a student will slog anyways hoping that at some point he will figure out whats going on. Banking some pointless "marks" in the meantime too.
I'm on my 3 year undergrad and love quantum field theory so much(eventhough i discovered it by accident after taking third year class of introduction to particle physics in my second year lol). Maybe you can make some mind map of quantum field theory and their prerequisite. Thank you in advance
I teach electrical engineering and I can say with a decade of experience of teaching engineering students, majority of them hate math and are really bad it. They just want plug and chug math, they do not want to derive anything but still want to "understand".
This video seems a bit dated for 2023. I'm a little curious about the mention of complex analysis, Maxwell's laws and the cross product because Cambridge University is home to professors such as Anthony Lasenby and others who have been promoting the Geometric Algebra and Geometric Calculus formalism championed by David Hestenes in the U.S.A. for more than two decades now. There is no mention of this formalism and how it can help students get to the research frontiers of physics modeling faster. For example, Quantum Mechanical models can be introduced earlier, from within Classical Mechanics, using spinor particle mechanics. Geometric Calculus can also help to unify mathematical concepts and remove some of the redundant mathematical formalisms being used in physics and assist in creation of a generalized worldview similarly to the birds of a feather ideas in "Similarities in Physics" by John N. Shive. I would have thought I would hear more about statistics for Quantum Mechanics. Probability Theory: The Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes Both David Hestenes and Edwin T. Jaynes have written papers or essays commenting on the mathematical prowess of physicists that is echoed here but not in as much depth. GAME2020 3. Professor Anthony Lasenby. A new language for physics. ruclips.net/video/m7v2IUJtC3g/видео.html New Foundations for Classical Mechanics by David Hestenes Review: Am. J. Phys. 58, 703-704 (1990) Geometric Algebra for Physicists by Doran and Lasenby Geometric Algebra, University of Cambridge geometry.mrao.cam.ac.uk/ bivector.net/index.html Oersted Medal Lecture 2002: Reforming the mathematical language of physics David Hestenes Am. J. Phys. 71, 104-121 (2003) It seems a bit strange that a quant should feel any need to take the course. It's not like gauge theory gravity predicts the dollar has passed an event horizon or anything like that. Passing the course means one can do accredited research in theoretical physics but seems frivolous for someone working as a quant. It seems like another example of how Universities are out of touch with the world of work and business Physics from Finance: A gentle introduction to gauge theories, fundamental interactions and fiber bundles Book by Jakob Schwichtenberg
What maths degree did you do in your undergrad? Which school did you go to, and did you find that the modules you took prepared you well for a masters degree in theoretical physics at Cambridge? Thanks for the video btw!
@afiqhatta3244 Yeah, a video on your academic journey would be nice. And how you went from doing a bachelors in mathematics to a masters degree in theoretical physics. Plus, all the modules you took and how relevant you felt they were in the end
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 I know it might be a long one, but a comprehensive video with each class you took, a short overview on it, and a textbook recommendation would be truly amazing!
Hi, can you tell about the books or tips you followed to understand and solve problems in these topics? (Specially the subjects like Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics)
Hey, I don’t know if you reply to comments but I’ll give it a go. Do I need to learn python for Cambridge’s Part III I’m a student at OU and I want to go into the theoretical physics masters at Cambridge like you did but I may also not do a masters at all in the subject because of programming
I also atrack to science, but my enviroment neighbourhood too disturbing me, for instance, when i am solving simple mechanical quantum problem, i always facing in strugle situation in my neighbour, on my family and too much strugle, if i want to learning out of my house is so disappointed.
I'm studying vehicle engineering in college, but I'm fascinated by higher level physics and university made me an addict on math. A lot of people complain that after university they can't stand looking at equations, but for me it had the opposite effect. I might drop by on some of these classes you mentioned to get a basic understanding of them, and then later improve my knowledge of them on my own.
Good that you debunk the myth that Einstein "wasn't very good at math" as you hear say oftentimes. He was. Are you saying Noether's work was philosophical in nature?
Since your title is "The Math You Need..." I expected that you would mention math topics such as calculus, algebra, and geometry and explain how they are significant for studying theoretical physics instead of the otherwise. And, man, do you learn mechanics from Lev Landau's book? I read the "Classical Theory of Fields" and "Fluid Mechanics" of the series. But it didn't work. I think the series is more like summaries of materials in which readers are assumed to be experts, rather than doing a preliminary study. Books such as those written by David Griffiths give a much more intuitive approach. I used to collect books such as Cambridge monographs of mathematical physics and Springer graduate text, but all of them are too advanced and abstract. Although it is great to be rigorous in math, I think it is better to start with a more intuitive approach. Anyway, it is just my opinion. And if you disagree, I would be very happy to have a discussion.
How about the math for computing the distribution of steel down 1400 foot skyscrapers and the distribution of mass for computing the Conservation of Momentum in a less than 30 second collapse? Since 9/11 Physics has been History!
Even posing the difference between philosophy and science is nonsense. It is posed just because usually philosophers are more critical than scientists towards the strict dominant scientific paradigms; also because philosophers have historically been more productive on the human sciences; but again, are human sciences not part of science?! If you equate philosophy with theoretical and foundational inquiry, then every scientists do philosophy.
Hello Afiq, You are obviousely very clever, and I admire yor passion. In your section on Quantum Mechanics, you hit the nail on the head when you said to solve Schrodinger's equasion, it often requires guesswork. Un fortunately, the whole of the standard model of both Quantum Mechanics and cosmology is based on mathematical equations constructed using ' Probability Theory ', ' Uncertainty Principle ', ' Imaginery Numbers and the like ', at the expence of logic. This is why rediulous theories such a the ' Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation theory ', which defies all known laws of physics, has supposedly been proven right by mathematics. In classical physics, we can observe and measure acurately the parameters the equations are constructed on, but in the Quantum world we can't view or measure directly the component of the atom. The standard model description of the atom dosn't work logically, nor is the relationship between the nucleus and the electron properly explained, it is a fudge and excused away by probability. If you look at it logically how can a single electron carrying the whole of the negative charge of the atom, ( in the case of the hydrogen atom ), form a cloud. When you start to more deeply rationalize the description, it is explained that the opposite charges don't combine, because a physicist in the past has said the electron is not allowed to, (Exclusion Principle ). If it is tried to explain that it is angular momentum stopping it, to initiate and maintain that momentum would require energy, which would have to come from somewheree, where?. The same kind of problems come up in Cosmology, where one impossible theory, the 'Big Bang ', where all of the billions of tons of matter are said to have emerged from a singularity, smaller than an atom, can only be held up by another impossible theory of ' Cosmic Inflation ', where this singularity expanded to fill the whole of the universe in a fraction of a billionth of a second. Absolute Alice in Wonderland rubbish. There is absolutely a place for mathematic in QM and Cosmology, but without all the manipulation of the parameters used to construct the equations, at the expence of logic. come up with the ideas that fit with logic, then prove them with maths. I have a complete hypothesis, which is a radical, logical and feasable alternative to the standard model. I will happily send you a copy of my lates draft, if you are interested in possible new physics. You may find it interesting, or you may think it is complete rubbish, in which case you could do another video proving me wrong, and make me look a complete idiot. I am not a ' Nutcase ', I am a 73 year old independent theoretical particle / astrophysicist and successful inventor with patents granted. I have a background in both mechanical and electrical engineering, and worked for 11 years in the technical side of ‘ British Telecom ‘, as a technical testing engineer trouble-shooting. I am also a ‘Seer‘, often being able to see past problems that others can’t, and have spent my life solving problems. Following watching a ‘ Royal Institution ‘ lecture on Quantum Mechanics ( QM ) nearly two years ago, I was struck by the fact that there were so many unanswered problems in the standard model that have persisted for around 100 years. I have looked at these problems from the perspective of an inventor using logic. I have compiled a complete hypothesis, which is a radical logical alternative to the standard model of Quantum Mechanics, and Cosmology. This hypothesis answers most of the outstanding problems, and unifies the different fields of physics and cosmology. My hypothesis is a complete model based on logic, as opposed to mathematics, to explain how everything fits together in the first instance. I explain the rationale behind this, which is fully explained in the hypothesis. I honestly believe that what I propose could answer many of the outstanding problems in physics at the present time, including The Missing Monopoles: Dark Matter: Dark Energy: Antimatter: Cosmic Nucleosynthesis: and Two Forces of Gravity: and more. An alternative explanation for the atom: An alternative explanation for a static non-expanding universe, eliminating the Big Bang. An alternative explanation for the CMB and Redshift, which are the cornerstones for the Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation theory. I do realize that what I say about the particles making up the standard model of particles, will not sit easily with people at the LHC. However, my remarks are not as derogatory as they first may seem. The point I make is this, the only thing that can be accepted as true with these particles, is that they are pieces of atomic matter broken off of an atom. Everything else is just conjecture. May I just respectfully ask, that you take a look at my hypothesis objectively, and see whether or not, what I propose makes sense. It just might provide you with the new physics you are looking for. At the very least, would you be so kind as to just acknowledge this email. Kind Regards, Tony Marsh.
Thanks for the video. Very interesting! However, showing these stock videos is unnecessary. It looks kind of ridiculous. I would better leave it out in the future.
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 Of course I always find that interesting! Perhaps I put it a bit harshly. After all, it's just my personal opinion. But somehow I've become allergic to such stock videos. And with good videos (like yours) they tend to detract from the quality - and not the other way around.
As you said, lots of people did undergraduate mathematics before they into theoretical physics. May I ask do they study any physics courses in their mathematics undergraduate degree or just study mathematics courses only in their undergraduate?
@afiqhatta3244 Thank you. Just curious, did you choose only mathematics courses in your mathematics degree? Or you have taken some physics courses along with your mathematics undergraduate degree?
Hey man, had a question. I'm doing an undergrad in CS, but since I am also self studying physics, would it be possible to enroll in a Masters Programme in Physics?
What is the importance of Lie Algebra, Virasoro, or Heisenberg Algebras, or Representation Theory? And how are symmetries actually used, like Universal Algebra concepts, Ideals and Centers? I’m a newbie…
CLASSICAL PHYSICS FIRST ! Vector field calculus and partial differential equation to get mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, deflexion mechanics etc. Matrix (rotation, unitary, diagonnalisation stuff), start to study quantum physics for single electron or scattering. Hard now: Fock states, more about operator for multi electron quantum physics. The rest (for QED) is not necessary, because it is false physics (standard model, QED, all of your shit in the university).
Modern Physics =/= Theoretical Physics, the applied branches of physics are way more active by a very wide margin. I don't know where the myth that these days physicists only do relativity and QM comes from, but it's nonsense
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 that's so cool! I didn't know Malaysians also share that surname. Regardless, you're still a huge inspiration for Indos like me who share a passion in physics!
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 if you are making a seperate video for condensed matter physics, do a seperate overview of theoretical and experimental sides
I'm 17 and Indian, will be writing my graduation exam of +2 in 2024, how should I proceed to become a physicist, my parents scare me saying there's no money in being a physicist and I'll be poor
Hey, I'm a Physics bachelor student in Germany and would like to be a theoretical Physicist. Is there any books/ online lectures which would be helpful for me ?
Re: conservation of energy surely proves that energy is created as a product of space and time not in a single moment in a hypothetical big bang. Why? Because all and every object has a wavelength, a wavelength is a measure of energy so if an object say an extremely stable lump of a few tons of iron is flying through space the energy in that lump is conserved but every Planck time unit that passes it emits wavelength/energy in every and all directions. So the conserved energy is conserved in the system and energy is created and emitted as a product of time (that's a lot of energy) so the longer that lump stays moving through space the more energy is created as emissions via wavelength (Theoretically if we can contain the energy emitted by wavelength we will harness unlimited energy, Tesla probably saw the obvious that has escaped millions of others). The 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong (and the big bang with it) please explain if you think it is me who is wrong.
Thanks for your reply, sir. I do enjoy physics, although I sometimes get frustrated when I can't grasp a concept. However, I've heard that to become a physicist, one also needs to pursue bsc or MSc degree in mathematics alongside with physics."
I keep getting this itching feeling that relative velocity to the surface of force produced is a more appropriate factor to multiply mass by to get force and that maybe acceleration only works when its magnitude is the same as the velocity relative to the surface experiencing force.
Hey, I’m matriculating in 2 years time and am wondering if you would recommend a degree with a primary major in physics and secondary major in mathematics or vice versa.
considering the current concensus in physics. from people who have become the leaders in the field. and can do the math you say is required to become successful. cant explain the observable fact without needing to invent excuses for the contradictions. but me with only basic math, can come up with an idea that fits everything i can find and cant find anyone to give me a reason to dismiss the idea. that dosent require conforming to their beliefs based on their faith. why would i spend years and a small fortune studying the faith that cant offer a concise explanation. i had the answer to the yang mils mass gap problem before i knew what it was. fluid dynamics. three body problem. but i cant get people qualified to write the calculations to even consider it. unless i present the complete equasions. i thought the scientific comunity was open to ideas. at least until they could find a reason to dismiss it. but it seems my lack of qualifications to have the idea is reason enough. i challenge you to find a flaw. it should be easy. if it is wrong.
It does not work this way, mere ideas worth nothing. You should make all the calculations by yourself first and only then show it to the scientists asking to find a flaw. No one will do this work for you.
I comment without watching this video, because I know there is a thick book (and usually a course associated with it) titled "mathematical physics". I don't think anyone can finish the book in 15 minutes (unless s/he studied it before), so this video is simply a scam and I thus downvoted it.
1. You should good at classical mechanics and advanced classical mechanics
2. Electromagnetism (field theory)
3. quantum field theory
5. Algebra, geometry, differential equations, integrations,
6. Complex analysis, reimannian geometry, topology, lie algebra, Clifford algebra
7. Gravitation
8.conformal mapping
9.tensors
😅
A very small fraction of all maths 🙌😭 thank the gods. Start invoking graph theory with partial mechanics and see what you get out!
Most theoretical physicists need a PhD level of mathematical knowledge. Witten, who is a string theorist, won a Fields Medal. My own PhD is in mathematical physics, but I am now retired from university teaching.
Whatever you hid behind classical mechanics you did well😂
Thank you for this! I am currently a freshman in Bachelor of Science in Mathematics and planning to take Physics in my Master’s and Doctorate. I’m doing my best.☺️
Clearly u don't need any advice since you look mature enough about what you're doing. But, I want to say please not for a moment, ignore the importance of mathematics. I am a bachelor's in Physics and stupidly enough, i didn't pay attention to Maths class. Now, I'm having hard time studying Physics cz the soul of Physics is Maths. One who's good at Maths, will do great in Physics. I wish your all the best for your journey ahead.
@@mirzaammar3815 i am grateful for you message.♥️thank you very much!.
Please keep making these/videos sharing what you've learned throughout your academic (independent and otherwise) journey!
I plan to! Any specific parts you’d want to know / day in the life / reading papers etc.? I can also share some ideas with the lab I’ve been working with
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 any of those seem great, but I think I would love to see a video of you going through the process of absorbing the info in a paper(s)
@@something-uj4eq cool - I think for the next video I wanted to through how I learnt group theory for particle physics
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 sounds awesome!
Great video, thank you for summarizing all of this. It seems very helpful to orientate an undergrad
My physics undergrad degree is close to 2 decades old , even though I did well this information would have been incredibly useful back then. Might use it if I go back to grad school . Thanks!
Excellent talk. I started in applied math which was math and physics. I was not sure where I would go in life but I knew if I wound up in EE that applied math would be key. I had a PDE professor that stressed what became called systems biology would be the future for applied math I got into computational neuroscience in grad school. I had already focused in digital signal processing from the math depth (not EE dept) so that was practical. I have been in signal analytics and machine learning in my career and applied math is key. I used to tutor Calculus and that showed me people are just afraid of math. You need a good math teacher. I took Classical Mechanics and had a professor who said the best pre-req was working on a farm and learning about pulleys and levers first hand
woah man thats a really interesting path!
1. Calculus
2. Multivariable calculus
3. Differential equations
4. Group Theory
5. Differential Geometry
At my university, math was somehow dismissed and during my undergrad physics, I had only the basics of calculus, some differential equations and a bit of algebra. They replaced the love for physics with disappointment and frustration
Hey, great video, I like the relaxed but concise way you explain:). I'd love a more in depth view of the neccesary maths in different fields. I'm at the end of my bachelor in physics and have had some of all the maths areas you've talked about and most of the examples you've talked about. It was a cool overview, but i'd love some more insight, for people thinking about which direction to go into in their masters. Maybe with some more in depth examples or talking about the way you have to think in those areas of math. (also just the topics you're most acustom to would be awesome!)
Sure - more in-depth examples in certain topics? I might do a video specifically my about group theory and particle physics
Very interesting and helped me sort things a little better, thank you very much.
No problem! Anything you’d like to see in future videos?
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 I think that insights about the field that are less covered in mainstream are interesting(getting the feel to how working in physics really is).
Ps: would also recommend having a little bit of script, making your speech flow more, not that it’s a big problem, but I feel like it helps the viewer to maintain focus, which is important with technical topics.
@@denisbelov5223 noted sir, thank you for the feedback - i've already recorded my next video and editing it but next time will try to be more smooth
Excellent video! I'm studying Hopf Algebras for particle physics. Deep and profound how math sets the mood for physics. Both truths inextricably connected.
I like the plug for Gil's book. Pretty much the only Prof that could make the subject approachable in practical terms.
Going into my masters of pure mathematics (basically the theoretical math degree) I can for sure do all of these things separately and tell u all about them but physics is one of the math things that bridge all of these ideas of math together and that I am bad at lol. I will stick to my niches in my math degree lol
It was very good I wanna be a particle physicist and doing particle physics know the very much importance of Group theory
Might do a video on learning group theory for particle physics down the line
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42yes please make a video about Group theory in particle physics and suggest from where to start and some resources for self study.. Thanks❤
Thank for this. It is important to point north for beginners like me. Thank so much
All Physics equations are technically Theoretical Physics. Even undergrad Physics textbook like University Physics with Modern Physics questions trains and prepares your brain for Theoretical Physics.
Thanks man, good video. Physics is awesome, keep making more videos to educate the masses. Also, can you make a video on the nature of current and elaborate what it means for electrons to move across the conduction band of atoms. I am not a physics major, but I find it beautiful. Thanks man.
Conservation of Spatial Curvature:
Both Matter and Energy described as "Quanta" of Spatial Curvature. (A string is revealed to be a twisted cord when viewed up close.)
Is there an alternative interpretation of "Asymptotic Freedom"? What if Quarks are actually made up of twisted tubes which become physically entangled with two other twisted tubes to produce a proton? Instead of the Strong Force being mediated by the constant exchange of gluons, it would be mediated by the physical entanglement of these twisted tubes. When only two twisted tubules are entangled, a meson is produced which is unstable and rapidly unwinds (decays) into something else. A proton would be analogous to three twisted rubber bands becoming entangled and the "Quarks" would be the places where the tubes are tangled together. The behavior would be the same as rubber balls (representing the Quarks) connected with twisted rubber bands being separated from each other or placed closer together producing the exact same phenomenon as "Asymptotic Freedom" in protons and neutrons. The force would become greater as the balls are separated, but the force would become less if the balls were placed closer together. Therefore, the gluon is a synthetic particle (zero mass, zero charge) invented to explain the Strong Force. An artificial Christmas tree can hold the ornaments in place, but it is not a real tree.
String Theory was not a waste of time, because Geometry is the key to Math and Physics. However, can we describe Standard Model interactions using only one extra spatial dimension? What did some of the old clockmakers use to store the energy to power the clock? Was it a string or was it a spring?
What if we describe subatomic particles as spatial curvature, instead of trying to describe General Relativity as being mediated by particles? Fixing the Standard Model with more particles is like trying to mend a torn fishing net with small rubber balls, instead of a piece of twisted twine.
Quantum Entangled Twisted Tubules:
“We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct.” Neils Bohr
(lecture on a theory of elementary particles given by Wolfgang Pauli in New York, c. 1957-8, in Scientific American vol. 199, no. 3, 1958)
The following is meant to be a generalized framework for an extension of Kaluza-Klein Theory. Does it agree with some aspects of the “Twistor Theory” of Roger Penrose, and the work of Eric Weinstein on “Geometric Unity”, and the work of Dr. Lisa Randall on the possibility of one extra spatial dimension? During the early history of mankind, the twisting of fibers was used to produce thread, and this thread was used to produce fabrics. The twist of the thread is locked up within these fabrics. Is matter made up of twisted 3D-4D structures which store spatial curvature that we describe as “particles"? Are the twist cycles the "quanta" of Quantum Mechanics?
When we draw a sine wave on a blackboard, we are representing spatial curvature. Does a photon transfer spatial curvature from one location to another? Wrap a piece of wire around a pencil and it can produce a 3D coil of wire, much like a spring. When viewed from the side it can look like a two-dimensional sine wave. You could coil the wire with either a right-hand twist, or with a left-hand twist. Could Planck's Constant be proportional to the twist cycles. A photon with a higher frequency has more energy. ( E=hf, More spatial curvature as the frequency increases = more Energy ). What if Quark/Gluons are actually made up of these twisted tubes which become entangled with other tubes to produce quarks where the tubes are entangled? (In the same way twisted electrical extension cords can become entangled.) Therefore, the gluons are a part of the quarks. Quarks cannot exist without gluons, and vice-versa. Mesons are made up of two entangled tubes (Quarks/Gluons), while protons and neutrons would be made up of three entangled tubes. (Quarks/Gluons) The "Color Charge" would be related to the XYZ coordinates (orientation) of entanglement. "Asymptotic Freedom", and "flux tubes" are logically based on this concept. The Dirac “belt trick” also reveals the concept of twist in the ½ spin of subatomic particles. If each twist cycle is proportional to h, we have identified the source of Quantum Mechanics as a consequence twist cycle geometry.
Modern physicists say the Strong Force is mediated by a constant exchange of Gluons. The diagrams produced by some modern physicists actually represent the Strong Force like a spring connecting the two quarks. Asymptotic Freedom acts like real springs. Their drawing is actually more correct than their theory and matches perfectly to what I am saying in this model. You cannot separate the Gluons from the Quarks because they are a part of the same thing. The Quarks are the places where the Gluons are entangled with each other.
Neutrinos would be made up of a twisted torus (like a twisted donut) within this model. The twist in the torus can either be Right-Hand or Left-Hand. Some twisted donuts can be larger than others, which can produce three different types of neutrinos. If a twisted tube winds up on one end and unwinds on the other end as it moves through space, this would help explain the “spin” of normal particles, and perhaps also the “Higgs Field”. However, if the end of the twisted tube joins to the other end of the twisted tube forming a twisted torus (neutrino), would this help explain “Parity Symmetry” violation in Beta Decay? Could the conversion of twist cycles to writhe cycles through the process of supercoiling help explain “neutrino oscillations”? Spatial curvature (mass) would be conserved, but the structure could change.
=====================
Gravity is a result of a very small curvature imbalance within atoms. (This is why the force of gravity is so small.) Instead of attempting to explain matter as "particles", this concept attempts to explain matter more in the manner of our current understanding of the space-time curvature of gravity. If an electron has qualities of both a particle and a wave, it cannot be either one. It must be something else. Therefore, a "particle" is actually a structure which stores spatial curvature. Can an electron-positron pair (which are made up of opposite directions of twist) annihilate each other by unwinding into each other producing Gamma Ray photons?
Does an electron travel through space like a threaded nut traveling down a threaded rod, with each twist cycle proportional to Planck’s Constant? Does it wind up on one end, while unwinding on the other end? Is this related to the Higgs field? Does this help explain the strange ½ spin of many subatomic particles? Does the 720 degree rotation of a 1/2 spin particle require at least one extra dimension?
Alpha decay occurs when the two protons and two neutrons (which are bound together by entangled tubes), become un-entangled from the rest of the nucleons
. Beta decay occurs when the tube of a down quark/gluon in a neutron becomes overtwisted and breaks producing a twisted torus (neutrino) and an up quark, and the ejected electron. The production of the torus may help explain the “Symmetry Violation” in Beta Decay, because one end of the broken tube section is connected to the other end of the tube produced, like a snake eating its tail. The phenomenon of Supercoiling involving twist and writhe cycles may reveal how overtwisted quarks can produce these new particles. The conversion of twists into writhes, and vice-versa, is an interesting process, which is also found in DNA molecules. Could the production of multiple writhe cycles help explain the three generations of quarks and neutrinos? If the twist cycles increase, the writhe cycles would also have a tendency to increase.
Gamma photons are produced when a tube unwinds producing electromagnetic waves. ( Mass=1/Length )
The “Electric Charge” of electrons or positrons would be the result of one twist cycle being displayed at the 3D-4D surface interface of the particle. The physical entanglement of twisted tubes in quarks within protons and neutrons and mesons displays an overall external surface charge of an integer number. Because the neutrinos do not have open tube ends, (They are a twisted torus.) they have no overall electric charge.
Within this model a black hole could represent a quantum of gravity, because it is one cycle of spatial gravitational curvature. Therefore, instead of a graviton being a subatomic particle it could be considered to be a black hole. The overall gravitational attraction would be caused by a very tiny curvature imbalance within atoms.
In this model Alpha equals the compactification ratio within the twistor cone, which is approximately 1/137.
1= Hypertubule diameter at 4D interface
137= Cone’s larger end diameter at 3D interface where the photons are absorbed or emitted.
The 4D twisted Hypertubule gets longer or shorter as twisting or untwisting occurs. (720 degrees per twist cycle.)
How many neutrinos are left over from the Big Bang? They have a small mass, but they could be very large in number. Could this help explain Dark Matter?
Why did Paul Dirac use the twist in a belt to help explain particle spin? Is Dirac’s belt trick related to this model? Is the “Quantum” unit based on twist cycles?
I started out imagining a subatomic Einstein-Rosen Bridge whose internal surface is twisted with either a Right-Hand twist, or a Left-Hand twist producing a twisted 3D/4D membrane. This topological Soliton model grew out of that simple idea. I was also trying to imagine a way to stuff the curvature of a 3 D sine wave into subatomic particles.
.====
Afiq Keep it up this is really good content
Great video
Thank you :)
In other words, learn everything that has ever been observed and recorded in any form.
Nice illustration! Now if we can get people to see that there is little to no gravity to slow down light between galaxies until the light enters into a galaxy where time slows down and distance contracts, slowing down the speed of light. This is the reason superluminal motion is perceived to be seven times the speed of light since our measures of time and distance are being projected into outer space where time runs faster and the measure of distance is much larger relative to ours. Of course nothing ever exceeds the speed of light. It’s that the assumed measures of time and distance are off.
Another little secret of general relativity is that the speed of light is NOT constant because the measures of time and distance are not constant throughout the universe. Looking at a galaxy is not like looking at a cat or dog where the measures of time and distance are constant because they are not constant from here to outer space between galaxies. The measures of time and distance appear to be constant or flat to us locally but they are not flat over great distances, especially outside of galaxies and in between galaxies.
the variational principles of mechanics by cornelius lanczos good book
An excellent book
Espace vectoriel, théorie des groupes, mechanic analytique: théorie quantique des champs (RR + mécanique quantique)
I think You should a video about how to learn physics (self taught).
outline:
1) Books.
a. Text Books
b. Non Fiction
c. Paper for Understanding.
2) Online Course( Paid and free) {Free will be great}
3) Physical Material we need to buy ( if possible).
4. How to learn?
5. What should be avoid.
🥽🥽
Be a Physics Sorcerer for Humanity.
Calculus is used to calculate the area of 2D curved shapes and next level calculus to calculate the volume of curved 3D shapes
Wow so helpful thank you!
THANK YOU ALOT!!! i am studying applied mathematics you helped
I've 2 Math Degrees & currently starting a Masters.
IMO, Advanced Math is basically 3 broad divisions:
*Pure Math
*Applied Math
*Statistics
Of the 3, if u don't have a strong proficiency in the 'Applied', then Physics or any sub-division of it, will be a challenge.
Some Math programmes have an Engineering Math sequence as core /electives, do them to get the experience.
Of the topics mentioned, Linear Alg, Diff Eqs & Complex Analysis are the easiest topics.
ALL the Physics related disciplines are difficult....again IMO, but good luck to those brave to maybe make a switch....🤔
Great video❤
Could a single geometrical process square ψ², t², e², c², v² forming our mathematics?
We need to go back to r² and the three dimensional physics of the Inverse Square Law. Even back to the spherical 4πr² geometry of Huygens’ Principle of 1670. The Universe could be based on simple geometry that forms the potential for evermore complexity. Forming not just physical complexity, but also the potential for evermore-abstract mathematics.
Subscribed because you're genuine keep it up 🎉
Thank you Faraz, is there anything you'd like to learn about specifically? Trying to plan my next set of videos
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 yes , actually I am working on a project related to Reissner Nordstrom metric 90% work has been done but I need a stimulation for a geodesics equation near that blackhole
This is so fantastic. Thank you!
All you need is basic algebra, but the more math you know the better. I say all you need is Algebra because you could build something good if you have the talent or insight.
Hi I am a mathematician (postdoc) and I was looking at physics just for fun in my spare time. What do you think about Susskind's books? I feel like they are really nice - you do not miss out on the math. For example I had two courses on Riemannian geometry and then his General relativity felt quite easy. On the other hand if one is not familiar with the math, he does great job to explain all the math you need. I guess the exercises are the only thing missing, but as I am not a student anymore I would not have time for them anyway. 😂
Its not that we dont have time, its just that we wont slog unless we know what we are doing, wheras a student will slog anyways hoping that at some point he will figure out whats going on. Banking some pointless "marks" in the meantime too.
My son has a master's in theoretical physics, 4 year course. Didn't do a maths degree before, just A level maths.
From where?
@@sppmuniversity of Ohio
Dunning krueger hitting hard with this one.
you did a great job explaining this, thank you for this video!
Von Neumann Algebra in group theory related to theoretical physics
Nice videos. Can you also do a bookshelf tour?
Sure :) I’ll put it on the list
I'm on my 3 year undergrad and love quantum field theory so much(eventhough i discovered it by accident after taking third year class of introduction to particle physics in my second year lol). Maybe you can make some mind map of quantum field theory and their prerequisite. Thank you in advance
Sure!
7:41 the edition linear algebra “with application” by the same author is much more useful for studying Linear Algebra
I teach electrical engineering and I can say with a decade of experience of teaching engineering students, majority of them hate math and are really bad it. They just want plug and chug math, they do not want to derive anything but still want to "understand".
This video seems a bit dated for 2023. I'm a little curious about the mention of complex analysis, Maxwell's laws and the cross product because Cambridge University is home to professors such as Anthony Lasenby and others who have been promoting the Geometric Algebra and Geometric Calculus formalism championed by David Hestenes in the U.S.A. for more than two decades now. There is no mention of this formalism and how it can help students get to the research frontiers of physics modeling faster. For example, Quantum Mechanical models can be introduced earlier, from within Classical Mechanics, using spinor particle mechanics. Geometric Calculus can also help to unify mathematical concepts and remove some of the redundant mathematical formalisms being used in physics and assist in creation of a generalized worldview similarly to the birds of a feather ideas in "Similarities in Physics" by John N. Shive.
I would have thought I would hear more about statistics for Quantum Mechanics.
Probability Theory: The Logic of Science by E.T. Jaynes
Both David Hestenes and Edwin T. Jaynes have written papers or essays commenting on the mathematical prowess of physicists that is echoed here but not in as much depth.
GAME2020 3. Professor Anthony Lasenby. A new language for physics.
ruclips.net/video/m7v2IUJtC3g/видео.html
New Foundations for Classical Mechanics by David Hestenes
Review: Am. J. Phys. 58, 703-704 (1990)
Geometric Algebra for Physicists by Doran and Lasenby
Geometric Algebra, University of Cambridge
geometry.mrao.cam.ac.uk/
bivector.net/index.html
Oersted Medal Lecture 2002: Reforming the mathematical language of physics
David Hestenes
Am. J. Phys. 71, 104-121 (2003)
It seems a bit strange that a quant should feel any need to take the course. It's not like gauge theory gravity predicts the dollar has passed an event horizon or anything like that. Passing the course means one can do accredited research in theoretical physics but seems frivolous for someone working as a quant. It seems like another example of how Universities are out of touch with the world of work and business
Physics from Finance: A gentle introduction to gauge theories, fundamental interactions and fiber bundles
Book by Jakob Schwichtenberg
Thank you very much
I am doing my bachelors first year and it is somehow going well.I hope i will finish and do masters in optics or quantum physics
What maths degree did you do in your undergrad? Which school did you go to, and did you find that the modules you took prepared you well for a masters degree in theoretical physics at Cambridge?
Thanks for the video btw!
Yo! I went to school in Malaysia, did math also at Camb and mainly did applied math modules - is that something you’d like to see a video on?
@afiqhatta3244 Yeah, a video on your academic journey would be nice. And how you went from doing a bachelors in mathematics to a masters degree in theoretical physics. Plus, all the modules you took and how relevant you felt they were in the end
@@koifishes got it - I think I’ll do this for my next one
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 I know it might be a long one, but a comprehensive video with each class you took, a short overview on it, and a textbook recommendation would be truly amazing!
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42definitely
Hi, can you tell about the books or tips you followed to understand and solve problems in these topics? (Specially the subjects like Classical Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics)
Next vid!
Hey, I don’t know if you reply to comments but I’ll give it a go.
Do I need to learn python for Cambridge’s Part III
I’m a student at OU and I want to go into the theoretical physics masters at Cambridge like you did but I may also not do a masters at all in the subject because of programming
I also atrack to science, but my enviroment neighbourhood too disturbing me, for instance, when i am solving simple mechanical quantum problem, i always facing in strugle situation in my neighbour, on my family and too much strugle, if i want to learning out of my house is so disappointed.
could you make a video on math fields those are not related to physics? e.g. topology, set, logic, computer science
wait till u realize those maths are also related to physics
@@lexs7218 there many fields in math not driven by physics but rather computer science, engineering, economics, finance
Why theoretical physics as it deals with numbers rather than laws.
I'm studying vehicle engineering in college, but I'm fascinated by higher level physics and university made me an addict on math. A lot of people complain that after university they can't stand looking at equations, but for me it had the opposite effect. I might drop by on some of these classes you mentioned to get a basic understanding of them, and then later improve my knowledge of them on my own.
“The Final Theory: Rethinking Our Scientific Legacy “, Mark McCutcheon for proper physics.
Good that you debunk the myth that Einstein "wasn't very good at math" as you hear say oftentimes. He was.
Are you saying Noether's work was philosophical in nature?
Very philosophical, also look at landaus textbooks and the foundations
I wouldn't mind learning geometric algebra for physics, but I can't find any courses in it.
Since your title is "The Math You Need..." I expected that you would mention math topics such as calculus, algebra, and geometry and explain how they are significant for studying theoretical physics instead of the otherwise.
And, man, do you learn mechanics from Lev Landau's book? I read the "Classical Theory of Fields" and "Fluid Mechanics" of the series. But it didn't work. I think the series is more like summaries of materials in which readers are assumed to be experts, rather than doing a preliminary study. Books such as those written by David Griffiths give a much more intuitive approach.
I used to collect books such as Cambridge monographs of mathematical physics and Springer graduate text, but all of them are too advanced and abstract. Although it is great to be rigorous in math, I think it is better to start with a more intuitive approach.
Anyway, it is just my opinion. And if you disagree, I would be very happy to have a discussion.
How about the math for computing the distribution of steel down 1400 foot skyscrapers and the distribution of mass for computing the Conservation of Momentum in a less than 30 second collapse?
Since 9/11 Physics has been History!
science and physics needs more intelligent natural philosophers
Bro science is literally the natural philosophy 🤣
Even posing the difference between philosophy and science is nonsense. It is posed just because usually philosophers are more critical than scientists towards the strict dominant scientific paradigms; also because philosophers have historically been more productive on the human sciences; but again, are human sciences not part of science?! If you equate philosophy with theoretical and foundational inquiry, then every scientists do philosophy.
@@stephenbarr5972he means we need more people who understand that and treat it that way.
wait, you mean the current ones are not intelligent enough?!? 😮
@@HoSza1it’s not about intelligence. Its about maintaining sight of the bigger picture.
I also like QFT , fields are cool
I love how he said 'subscribe if you want'😂
I need this
Hello Afiq, You are obviousely very clever, and I admire yor passion. In your section on Quantum Mechanics, you hit the nail on the head when you said to solve Schrodinger's equasion, it often requires guesswork. Un fortunately, the whole of the standard model of both Quantum Mechanics and cosmology is based on mathematical equations constructed using ' Probability Theory ', ' Uncertainty Principle ', ' Imaginery Numbers and the like ', at the expence of logic. This is why rediulous theories such a the ' Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation theory ', which defies all known laws of physics, has supposedly been proven right by mathematics.
In classical physics, we can observe and measure acurately the parameters the equations are constructed on, but in the Quantum world we can't view or measure directly the component of the atom. The standard model description of the atom dosn't work logically, nor is the relationship between the nucleus and the electron properly explained, it is a fudge and excused away by probability. If you look at it logically how can a single electron carrying the whole of the negative charge of the atom, ( in the case of the hydrogen atom ), form a cloud.
When you start to more deeply rationalize the description, it is explained that the opposite charges don't combine, because a physicist in the past has said the electron is not allowed to, (Exclusion Principle ). If it is tried to explain that it is angular momentum stopping it, to initiate and maintain that momentum would require energy, which would have to come from somewheree, where?.
The same kind of problems come up in Cosmology, where one impossible theory, the 'Big Bang ', where all of the billions of tons of matter are said to have emerged from a singularity, smaller than an atom, can only be held up by another impossible theory of ' Cosmic Inflation ', where this singularity expanded to fill the whole of the universe in a fraction of a billionth of a second. Absolute Alice in Wonderland rubbish.
There is absolutely a place for mathematic in QM and Cosmology, but without all the manipulation of the parameters used to construct the equations, at the expence of logic. come up with the ideas that fit with logic, then prove them with maths.
I have a complete hypothesis, which is a radical, logical and feasable alternative to the standard model. I will happily send you a copy of my lates draft, if you are interested in possible new physics. You may find it interesting, or you may think it is complete rubbish, in which case you could do another video proving me wrong, and make me look a complete idiot.
I am not a ' Nutcase ',
I am a 73 year old independent theoretical particle / astrophysicist and successful inventor with patents granted. I have a background in both mechanical and electrical engineering, and worked for 11 years in the technical side of ‘ British Telecom ‘, as a technical testing engineer trouble-shooting. I am also a ‘Seer‘, often being able to see past problems that others can’t, and have spent my life solving problems.
Following watching a ‘ Royal Institution ‘ lecture on Quantum Mechanics ( QM ) nearly two years ago, I was struck by the fact that there were so many unanswered problems in the standard model that have persisted for around 100 years.
I have looked at these problems from the perspective of an inventor using logic.
I have compiled a complete hypothesis, which is a radical logical alternative to the standard model of Quantum Mechanics, and Cosmology. This hypothesis answers most of the outstanding problems, and unifies the different fields of physics and cosmology.
My hypothesis is a complete model based on logic, as opposed to mathematics, to explain how everything fits together in the first instance. I explain the rationale behind this, which is fully explained in the hypothesis.
I honestly believe that what I propose could answer many of the outstanding problems in physics at the present time, including The Missing Monopoles: Dark Matter: Dark Energy: Antimatter: Cosmic Nucleosynthesis: and Two Forces of Gravity: and more.
An alternative explanation for the atom:
An alternative explanation for a static non-expanding universe, eliminating the Big Bang.
An alternative explanation for the CMB and Redshift, which are the cornerstones for the Big Bang and Cosmic Inflation theory.
I do realize that what I say about the particles making up the standard model of particles, will not sit easily with people at the LHC. However, my remarks are not as derogatory as they first may seem.
The point I make is this, the only thing that can be accepted as true with these particles, is that they are pieces of atomic matter broken off of an atom. Everything else is just conjecture.
May I just respectfully ask, that you take a look at my hypothesis objectively, and see whether or not, what I propose makes sense. It just might provide you with the new physics you are looking for.
At the very least, would you be so kind as to just acknowledge this email. Kind Regards,
Tony Marsh.
did you complete your phd? if so, why did you leave physics for finance?
Thanks for the video. Very interesting!
However, showing these stock videos is unnecessary. It looks kind of ridiculous.
I would better leave it out in the future.
yo! sure, i'll leave it out - how about the images? (I drew most of them myself)
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42
Of course I always find that interesting!
Perhaps I put it a bit harshly. After all, it's just my personal opinion.
But somehow I've become allergic to such stock videos. And with good videos (like yours) they tend to detract from the quality - and not the other way around.
As you said, lots of people did undergraduate mathematics before they into theoretical physics. May I ask do they study any physics courses in their mathematics undergraduate degree or just study mathematics courses only in their undergraduate?
Yes - for sure. That’s what I did
@afiqhatta3244 Thank you.
Just curious, did you choose only mathematics courses in your mathematics degree?
Or you have taken some physics courses along with your mathematics undergraduate degree?
Hey man, had a question. I'm doing an undergrad in CS, but since I am also self studying physics, would it be possible to enroll in a Masters Programme in Physics?
why not 🤔
What is the importance of Lie Algebra, Virasoro, or Heisenberg Algebras, or Representation Theory? And how are symmetries actually used, like Universal Algebra concepts, Ideals and Centers? I’m a newbie…
Hey yes so I will probably do a video on group theory and particle physics - seems popular
Gonna cover that in the next couple of videos
CLASSICAL PHYSICS FIRST !
Vector field calculus and partial differential equation to get mechanics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, deflexion mechanics etc. Matrix (rotation, unitary, diagonnalisation stuff), start to study quantum physics for single electron or scattering. Hard now: Fock states, more about operator for multi electron quantum physics. The rest (for QED) is not necessary, because it is false physics (standard model, QED, all of your shit in the university).
Then try to answer my questions on Phystacks before you're dead
Hello Attiq ... Can you talk about how can student from non-UK countries apply for Math part |||
Ahhh so you are you discovered and not invented guy 3:42 I side with John Lennox when we suggested Maths was both discovered and invented
This also me just giving you crap for no reason, good video!! Loved it
conjectures are invented, theorems are discovered, proofs are invented.
the problem with modern physics, how can anyone call it physics if it is theoretical....hhmm what to do
Modern Physics =/= Theoretical Physics, the applied branches of physics are way more active by a very wide margin. I don't know where the myth that these days physicists only do relativity and QM comes from, but it's nonsense
What Maths for Theoretical Cosmology ? Their probably lumped into Theoretical Astrophysics. Math on always !
How did you learn quantitative trading?
You need theoretical math.
10:35 about differential geometry being "globally important". Unintentional pun?
Hahaha
Unrelated question, but I'm really curious about your name. Are you Indonesian by any chance?
Yo close! Malaysian but Indonesian name hahaha
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 that's so cool! I didn't know Malaysians also share that surname. Regardless, you're still a huge inspiration for Indos like me who share a passion in physics!
what about condensed matter physics
Good question - that’s one of my favourite fields which I intend to do a video on - anything you’d like to see other than the maths involved?
@@CasualPhysicsEnjoyer42 if you are making a seperate video for condensed matter physics, do a seperate overview of theoretical and experimental sides
Landau is a power. Russian physical school!!!
Hi from MIPT)
how do you get the time to make these videos alongside your quant research role at Goldman? isn't it many hours there?
I’d like to do Quant research at Goldman and Sachs. How do I jump onboard with that?
I'm 17 and Indian, will be writing my graduation exam of +2 in 2024, how should I proceed to become a physicist, my parents scare me saying there's no money in being a physicist and I'll be poor
@@boncoderz1430 kinda same situation .. all the best for jee
Just read The Road to Reality by Penrose
Hey, I'm a Physics bachelor student in Germany and would like to be a theoretical Physicist. Is there any books/ online lectures which would be helpful for me ?
you're doing the bachelor degree lol
MIT lectures on the topics he mentioned
Can do a book review!
Re: conservation of energy surely proves that energy is created as a product of space and time not in a single moment in a hypothetical big bang. Why? Because all and every object has a wavelength, a wavelength is a measure of energy so if an object say an extremely stable lump of a few tons of iron is flying through space the energy in that lump is conserved but every Planck time unit that passes it emits wavelength/energy in every and all directions. So the conserved energy is conserved in the system and energy is created and emitted as a product of time (that's a lot of energy) so the longer that lump stays moving through space the more energy is created as emissions via wavelength (Theoretically if we can contain the energy emitted by wavelength we will harness unlimited energy, Tesla probably saw the obvious that has escaped millions of others). The 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong (and the big bang with it) please explain if you think it is me who is wrong.
Do I have to complete bsc or msc in mathematics also ? If I wish to be a physicist 'pls guide
The only prerequisite for being a physicists is doing physics
I would say start reading math and physics textbooks to see if you enjoy it - I’ll do a video on this soon!
Thanks for your reply, sir. I do enjoy physics, although I sometimes get frustrated when I can't grasp a concept. However, I've heard that to become a physicist, one also needs to pursue bsc or MSc degree in mathematics alongside with physics."
Please say arithmetic! Please say arithmetic!!! 🤞🤞
Well it was all sanskrit
No need, I have a theoretical degree in physics
VERY annoying music in the background
Hahah, i took notes boss!
I keep getting this itching feeling that relative velocity to the surface of force produced is a more appropriate factor to multiply mass by to get force and that maybe acceleration only works when its magnitude is the same as the velocity relative to the surface experiencing force.
i am a physics major too😊
What a smart cutie❤
of course, all U need to learn all advanced maths
Hey, I’m matriculating in 2 years time and am wondering if you would recommend a degree with a primary major in physics and secondary major in mathematics or vice versa.
Hey there I would probably do math as primary but honestly at the early stages the difference is minimal
considering the current concensus in physics. from people who have become the leaders in the field. and can do the math you say is required to become successful. cant explain the observable fact without needing to invent excuses for the contradictions. but me with only basic math, can come up with an idea that fits everything i can find and cant find anyone to give me a reason to dismiss the idea. that dosent require conforming to their beliefs based on their faith. why would i spend years and a small fortune studying the faith that cant offer a concise explanation.
i had the answer to the yang mils mass gap problem before i knew what it was. fluid dynamics. three body problem.
but i cant get people qualified to write the calculations to even consider it. unless i present the complete equasions.
i thought the scientific comunity was open to ideas. at least until they could find a reason to dismiss it. but it seems my lack of qualifications to have the idea is reason enough.
i challenge you to find a flaw. it should be easy. if it is wrong.
It does not work this way, mere ideas worth nothing. You should make all the calculations by yourself first and only then show it to the scientists asking to find a flaw. No one will do this work for you.
@@samedy00 I did. the calculations are easy. basic math. want to try.
What problem exactly you are talking about?
@@samedy00 unified gravity.
Unified with what?
Kill the annoying music please
Physics has devolved into poor philosophy. Who needs such shit
I comment without watching this video, because I know there is a thick book (and usually a course associated with it) titled "mathematical physics". I don't think anyone can finish the book in 15 minutes (unless s/he studied it before), so this video is simply a scam and I thus downvoted it.
How Asian are you? Yes.
No. You are enliven 2 birds with 1 stone. You should not be killing anything.