1,876 reputation
728
bio website berkeley.academia.edu/…
location Berkeley, CA
age 24
visits member for 2 years, 11 months
seen yesterday

Currently a graduate student in mathematics at the University of California - Berkeley.

Previously obtained a MASt. in Applied Mathematics from the University of Cambridge (2013), and a B.S. in Mathematics and a B.A. in Physics from the University of Chicago (2012).


Oct
19
comment Confusion between Electric field and Magnetic field of a charged particle.
I believe your response to (i) is not quite correct. This argument would apply to the field inside an ideal conductor, but the electrons inside the conductor don't care about the field outside because the field outside does not affect their equilibrium.
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
@Phira I don't think he means "assumptions" in the sense of axioms. More likely he means something along the lines of just assuming things work out, converge, can be made percise, etc., instead of "wasting" hours worrying about how to make precise sense of a particular integral, for example.
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
That is true. Well, honestly, I love the fact that it is a physics book with a great amount of rigor, but do not like so much that it is not formatted like a mathematics book. I am probably biased, but I think it could have been organized/formatted in a much clearer way had it been written closer to the "math book" standard. In particular, I found that a lot of important content that could have stood out as 'Theorem' or 'Definition' "boxes" was hidden away in paragraphs of text.
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
Yes, I would be very interested in talking with him about this. Feel free to send me an e-mail if you would like.
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
@Domenic Could you please elaborate? It seems as if you are not the only one who thinks I have a misguided notion of what "rigor" is, means, and what it's role in theoretical physics is. Could you please explain?
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
Nope, can't say I've heard the term "concentration" since I've been here. Thanks for the input!
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
@BenjaminHorowitz You seem to be implying that Wald does not conform to a typical mathematician's level of rigor. I personally have only read the first half of the book or so, but as far as I remember, in terms of rigor, it might as well have been written by a mathematician. Do you have a specific example where it does not hold up to these standards?
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
For what it's worth, I would say that I am more interested in placing QFT on a firm foundation than "generating new knowledge". That is to say, I am interested in taking the knowledge that we currently have, and placing it on a rigorous mathematical footing.
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
@Moshe I don't understand. What is not an efficient way of making life decisions? I have spoken to as many people at Chicago as I can, and while must of their advice has been useful, I am still without a clear idea of good schools for theoretical physics are. I am excited about Cambrdige and the Perimeter Institute, but besides these places, I am afraid of going to grad school in math and not able to work on the problems I want to, or conversely, going to grad school in physics and not being able to work on the problems I want to in the way I want to. I just want the best of both worlds :)
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
Perhaps I should also mention that I am more interested in placing QFT on a mathematically rigorous foundation, so that, in my research at least, I probably would not be working "on top" of things like renormalization.
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
Unfortunately, the department I'm in has given me the impression that this attitude is more or less typical of theoretical physicists.
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
Perhaps we have differing views of what it means to be rigorous? I have only skimmed serious TP research papers before, so I can only speak to the level of rigor I have experienced in taught classes. From that experience, however, perhaps all except for one or two (theoretical) professors I've had could even define a Hilbert space, Lie group, manifold, etc. For example, my current QFT professor openly denounces questions pertaining to how to make arguments precise (he says to stop being like a mathematician).
Oct
18
comment Graduate School for Theoretical Physics
The best example I can think of a good level of rigor would be Wald's General Relativity book. An example of a bad level of rigor would be defining a Lie group to be a group whose elements can be "continuously" labeled by a finite set of parameters. If more specific examples would help, please feel free to ask.
Oct
10
comment Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view
Before studying QFT itself, I would recommend at the very least getting comfortable with special relativity and quantum mechanics. Being a student of mathematics myself, I understand how frustrating it can be to learn physics from a physicist, but at the end of the day, it will make learning QFT (or any subject of physics for that matter) much easier if you understand the physical meaning of the subject and why you are doing what you are doing. In any case, it will certainly improve your appreciation of the subject.
Oct
10
comment Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view
I second the recommendation of Folland's QFT.
Sep
29
comment How do you find the uncertainty of an weighted average?
Yes, but doing this, I arrive at $\sqrt{5}/2$. According to the practice test, this is incorrect.
Sep
10
comment Equation of Motion in a Non-Inertial (Rotating) Frame
\widehat{}. \hat{} should also work.
Sep
8
comment K3 gravitational instanton
How are you supposed to have a basic knowledge of general relativity with no knowledge of differential geometry? How would you even talk about the metric tensor?
Sep
8
comment Equation of Motion in a Non-Inertial (Rotating) Frame
Also, the centrifugal force term is $-m\mathbf{\Omega}\times \left( \mathbf{\Omega}\times \mathbf{r}\right)$. Without the parenthesis, your equation implies that the centrifugal force is $-m\left( \mathbf{\Omega}\times \mathbf{\Omega}\right) \times \mathbf{r}$, which can't possibly be the case because this is always $\mathbf{0}$. Remember, the cross-product is nonassociative. Furthermore, this is just another personal preference, but you might want to use boldface to denote vectors in \LaTeX because it makes them stand out more.
Sep
8
comment Equation of Motion in a Non-Inertial (Rotating) Frame
Instead of $\vec{i}$, you should probably write $\widehat{i}$ (similarly for $\vec{j}$ and $\vec{k}$) to indicate that these vectors are unit vectors. Furthermore, it is my personal preference to use $\widehat{x}$, $\widehat{y}$, and $\widehat{z}$ over $\widehat{i}$, $\widehat{j}$, and $\widehat{k}$ because of confusion with quaternions.