What ist better to study,for making string theory, and so on.

[Radiocloud]

What ist better to study, for making string theory, high energy physics and so on.

Maths or Physics

I think its better to study Maths, but Iam not sure, is there anyone, who has experience.

Thx

 

[odinsthunder]

You need plenty of maths and physics for both of those, none are optional.

 

[hadsed]

Definitely physics. Higher mathematics may or may not be required depending on what you decide to do in string theory. Not everyone in ST does things that Ed Witten does. Something that is really, really important is having a really strong foundation in all areas of physics.

These are the basic things that were told to me when I talked to a string theorist.

 

[nlsherrill]

What ist better to study, for making string theory, high energy physics and so on.

Maths or Physics

I think its better to study Maths, but Iam not sure, is there anyone, who has experience.

Thx

Not to sound like an ***, but how could studying math possibly be a better idea than studying physics for string theory or high energy physics? I understand that there is a lot of math involved and its highly theoretical, but physics has to be first.

 

[hitmeoff]

Not to sound like an ***, but how could studying math possibly be a better idea than studying physics for string theory or high energy physics? I understand that there is a lot of math involved and its highly theoretical, but physics has to be first.

I think it's a fair question. I'm a math major, but I have taken several junior/senior level physics classes. I can honestly say that the math used in junior/senior level physics courses is nothing like say, group theory.

(Note: I am not saying physics is easier than math as a major. Theres a reason why I've only taken 'several' courses vs. double majoring)

Abstract Algebra is often very difficult for a math major, yet you need abstract algebra (group theory), differential geometry, topology, etc to even begin to have a working knowledge of topics in Lie Groups and Lie Algebras (which theoretical physics, especially unification theories, use a whole lot of).

So a string theorist would certainly have to have at the very least a mastery of abstract math at the level of a Masters. That's kinda hard to do if you're working on your Physics PhD.

Granted, the level that you need to understand and do string theory would involved a mastery of physics well beyond that of an undergrad. So it would also be hard to learn all the physics you need while earning your PhD in Math.

As was said before, to do real work in string theory or something like it would require a deep mastery of both math and physics.

 

[Radiocloud]

My second subject will be physics, I think it is possible to learn more physics, than i will learn there.
The problem is, that the most problems in physics today are problems with maths, and i can't imagine, that a physicist is better preparet to solve this.

 

[mal4mac]

A problem in physics may come down to solving a mathematical equation, and an expert in solving that kind of equation is likely to be a mathematician. But the person who understands the problem best, and has the best conceptual grasp, has to be the physicist! (Who else!?) Read a biography of Einstein or Feynman. They took degrees in physics, and although proficient in applying *just enough of the right* mathematics, were first and foremost physicists. They called in specialised mathematicians, now and again, to do the donkey work of solving some of the equations. But Einstein and Feynman, quite rightly, got the glory.

 

[n1person]

I don't think it is overly obvious focusing on physics is necessarily the proper course for discovering new results in string theory. Look at Shing-Tung Yau, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau) who's work on the Calabi conjecture has huge implications for string theory (Calabi-Yau manifolds), and all his (formal) training has been in math.

You also have fields like mathematical General Relativity where the line between the "physics" and the "math" is extremely blurred. It will be very hard to discover new and interesting results in theoretical GR without a study of Riemannian Geometry.

 

[Radiocloud]

But there are not only diff equations, for example you must make constructions of quantumfieldtheories , quantization of gravity and so on...
Is a physicist able to do this, I think its very hard and if you are not prepared and have never done this, then why you should be better than other people, who do this for years?

 

[Klockan3]

The problem is, that the most problems in physics today are problems with maths, and i can't imagine, that a physicist is better preparet to solve this.

Do you ever wonder why physics is such a goldmine for mathematicians? Could it maybe have to do with something physicists learn in their education which mathematicians don't? Strictly speaking all problems in physics are "mathematical", it is just that physicists have in general an other approach than mathematicians on these problems. Not worse as maths geeks might say, just different. I'd say that by studying physics you will learn a lot about maths that you would never learn in any maths course.

I have studied both maths and physics to a master so I have some insight in how these subjects interact. I would recommend getting a solid foundation in elementary physical concepts such as ordinary quantum, EM etc before you start with the serious parts of mathematics. Going from intuitive to stringent is easy, the reverse is all but impossible. And trust me, you really want both. Stringent is good and all that but it is extremely slow and unwieldy in comparison so it is bad to rely solely on it.

 

[hadsed]

I don't think it is overly obvious focusing on physics is necessarily the proper course for discovering new results in string theory. Look at Shing-Tung Yau, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shing-Tung_Yau) who's work on the Calabi conjecture has huge implications for string theory (Calabi-Yau manifolds), and all his (formal) training has been in math.

You also have fields like mathematical General Relativity where the line between the "physics" and the "math" is extremely blurred. It will be very hard to discover new and interesting results in theoretical GR without a study of Riemannian Geometry.

This is what I was talking about in my earlier post. Not all string theorists work on higher dimensional topologies and geometries. Of course, there is even a mathematician in my department that works on the non-linear Schroedinger equation (otherwise known as the GP equation), but when you ask him what any of his work MEANS... no clue! This is extremely bad for someone who wants to make any progress in PHYSICS, not just higher level mathematics. Ed Witten won a Field's Medal for his work in mathematics, but he has done little really for physics.

You must have a solid foundation of physics when you tackle the problems that aren't like I described above (and there are a lot more of those then there are the Wittenesque mathematical-type problems). There is simply no substitute for learning the physics properly. Math can be learned at different levels when needed, but without knowing physics, you cannot do physics.