3 ms·
Regarding geometry and Noether's theorem, I disagree. That stuff is way overblown in general, it gives you very little ( in classical mechanics) for the time an
by posix_me_less 6y ago
Regarding geometry and Noether's theorem, I disagree. That stuff is way overblown in general, it gives you very little ( in classical mechanics) for the time and page count the subject requires. I had a lecture on this topic from enthusiast well-respected physicist, and I kept thinking, this stuff is interesting math but completely useless to a physicist.
- mhh__ 6y agoClassical mechanics is ultimately just masturbation compared to the "real thing", it's all a warm-up for the mind rather than teaching you how to calculate stresses on a beam - Full on symplectic geometry is niche but the basics of Noether's theorem and symmetries are central to classical and quantum field theories which are ultimately the language in which the cutting edge of fundamental physics speaks. So I sort of agree, but take the two Oxford books on QFT and Statistical physics - they pack in enormous amounts of detail in a 3 or 4 hundred pages. There's room to spare if the book is the right shape.
- spekcular 6y agoWhat are the titles of the two Oxford books you mentioned? I'd like to look at them.
- mhh__ 6y agoQuantum Field Theory for the gifted amateur (well not quite...) Concepts in thermal physics Not at the same level as L&L but they are absolute masterpieces in pedagogy and the formula should be extended to a 800page tome to cover more material. It's the way MTW should be written...