I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation of what sort of mathematical object a physical unit (meter, kilo, second etc) is. There are plenty of bones of contention between maths and physics, but this one bothers me the most. Anyone interested in coming at physics from a mathematics perspective should read Arnold's mechanics book.
Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
41–50 of 63 posts
Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#42Hi, this is the author. I've been coming back to this project off and on over the past few years but I often think of these articles as mostly something I'm writing for myself, so I'm really happy to see that some other people might be getting something out of them! I'd definitely love to hear if anyone knows anything I got wrong or can think of a way any particular explanation might be made better. I should also tak…
Nic was tutoring me in proof-based foundational maths when I worked as a research engineer and I have nothing but praise for him and his tutoring service. He created a hyper personalized syllabus and was able to focus in on the areas in which my understanding was shaky incredibly quickly. I only studied very foundational concepts with him, but you can glean from the articles on his website how far and wide his knowle…
Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#43I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation of what sort of mathematical object a physical unit (meter, kilo, second etc) is. There are plenty of bones of contention between maths and physics, but this one bothers me the most. Anyone interested in coming at physics from a mathematics perspective should read Arnold's mechanics book.
Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#44Spivak (of differential geometry fame) wrote a book with this precise title: https://archive.org/details/physics-for-mathematicians-mecha... It's a very interesting take on classical mechanics.
I own a copy of that book, and I also highly recommend it! (The full title is "Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics I", but sadly we're now never going to get a "Mechanics II".) It has a different goal than my notes --- he's more interested in building up classical mechanics very, very carefully from first principles --- but it's a fun journey if you have the time to spend on it.
Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is the measure not a satisfactory answer? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure_(mathematics)
Unfortunately, even though it is said to be a "generalization" of these things, mathematical measure theory has nothing to do with physical units of measure or dimensional analysis.
Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#46I’d really love to see a rigorous explanation of renormalization, plus why it doesn’t work for gravity, with no handwaving. As a non-physicist, that has always been the point where I hit a wall on traditional treatments of QFT.
I'm gonna give it a shot and give an analogy with a comp. science audience in mind. All Quantum Field Theories are effective theories. Effective means that they work up to certain energy-range, they do not intend to be fundamental. For example, the Fermi theory of beta decay is an effective theory that works only up to the energy of W and Z bosons. Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), the theory of electromagnetism and pho…
Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#47I've never gotten a satisfactory explanation of what sort of mathematical object a physical unit (meter, kilo, second etc) is. There are plenty of bones of contention between maths and physics, but this one bothers me the most. Anyone interested in coming at physics from a mathematics perspective should read Arnold's mechanics book.
Examples of discrete quantities are the amount of substance and the electric charge.
The discrete quantities are just counted, so their values are integer numbers. They have a natural unit. Nevertheless, for those that are expressed in very large numbers it may be convenient to choose a conventional unit that is a big multiple of the natural unit, for instance the mole and the coulomb in the SI system of units.
All the continuous physical quantities are derived in some way from the measures of space and time, which is the reason for their continuity. For instance the electric charge is discrete, but the electric current is continuous, because it is the ratio between charge and time and time is continuous.
In order to measure a continuous physical quantity, a unit must be chosen. The unit may be chosen arbitrarily or it may be chosen in such a way as to eliminate universal constants from the formulae that express the relationships between physical quantities.
In either case, the value of a measurement is the result of a division operation between the measured value and the chosen unit, which is a real number, though it is normally approximated by a rational number.
In order to be able to define a division operation on the set of values of a physical quantity that has as a result a scalar, the minimum algebraic structure of that set of values is an Archimedean group.
That means that it must be possible to add and subtract and compare the values of the physical quantity and given two values it is always possible to add one of them with itself multiple times and eventually there will be a multiple greater than the second value (which will determine that the second value lies between two consecutive multiples of the first).
Based on the axioms of Archimedean groups it is possible to devise an algorithm that can multiply a value by a rational number and which can determine that a second value lies between two rational multiples that are as close as desired, producing by passing to the limit a real scalar. Thus any value can be divided by another value chosen as unit.
In practice, all the continuous physical quantities have richer algebraic structures, they are vector spaces over the real numbers, so the division of two collinear vectors is the scalar that multiplies one to give the other.
Nevertheless, the fact that the continuous physical quantities form vector spaces over the real numbers can be demonstrated based only on the supposition that they are Archimedean groups.
So the units of continuous physical quantities are just arbitrarily chosen values of those physical quantities, which are normally vector spaces with one dimension or with more dimensions, while the measured values are just rational approximations of the scalars obtained by division.
This division process is very obvious in the structure of the analog-digital converters used to measure voltages. These ADCs have two inputs, the voltage to be measured and the reference voltage, which is the arbitrarily chosen unit. The ADCs produce a rational number that is the approximate result of the division of the measured voltage by the reference voltage. If the reference voltage is not equal to the conventional unit, i.e. 1 V, the measurement result will be converted by multiplying with an appropriate conversion factor. The division operation can be done in the ADC for example by successive approximation, i.e. by binary search of the two multiples of a fraction of the reference value between which the measured value lies. The fraction of the reference voltage may be generated by a resistive or capacitive divider, while its multiples can be generated by a multiplying DAC.
Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I own a copy of that book, and I also highly recommend it! (The full title is "Physics for Mathematicians: Mechanics I", but sadly we're now never going to get a "Mechanics II".) It has a different goal than my notes --- he's more interested in building up classical mechanics very, very carefully from first principles --- but it's a fun journey if you have the time to spend on it.
As a former physicist, I never understood the full math behind Schrodinger's equation. Since then I ventured into CS, so I wonder if this book will be a good refreshment.
Look at it again with that understanding in your head: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MathWikib...
H acting on a state gives you the time translation of the state. That's the crux of it.
Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#49Re: Physics for Mathematicians – Introduction
#50Florian Scheck's textbooks in the Springer Graduate Texts in Physics series could also serve as a bridge. Though very challenging for the non-mathematician I've grown quite fond of "Mechanics: From Newton's laws to Deterministic Chaos" and plan to read the other Scheck books in the series as well.
The thing that irks me most is using higher-level concepts, like the existence of a atom, to illustrate lower level concepts that led to the discovery of the atom in the first place.