Linked Questions
24 questions linked to/from The Role of Rigor
38
votes
6answers
5k views
Formalizing Quantum Field Theory [duplicate]
I'm wondering about current efforts to provide mathematical foundations and more solid definition for quantum field theories. I am aware of such efforts in the context of the simpler topological or ...
0
votes
0answers
186 views
Is mathematical rigour irrelevant in most physics fields? [duplicate]
Are mathematical notions like closed sets, limits of sequences, measures, and function spaces basically irrelevant in the day to day work of a physicist? Naturally, such concepts are the foundations ...
3
votes
0answers
160 views
Is rigorous functional analysis useful for theoretical physics? [duplicate]
I'm an undergraduate physics without much quantum mechanics at all under my belt. I'm studying functional analysis, and I want to know whether or not this will be useful for me in theoretical physics ...
85
votes
11answers
27k views
Quantum Field Theory from a mathematical point of view
I'm a student of mathematics with not much background in physics. I'm interested in learning Quantum field theory from a mathematical point of view.
Are there any good books or other reference ...
35
votes
18answers
8k views
Can a mathematical proof replace experimentation?
I know that this is very similar to How important is mathematical proof in physics? as well as Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense? and The Role of Rigor. However, none of the answers to ...
52
votes
7answers
11k views
Rigor in quantum field theory
Quantum field theory is a broad subject and has the reputation of using methods which are mathematically desiring. For example working with and subtracting infinities or the use of path integrals, ...
18
votes
9answers
5k views
Is physics rigorous in the mathematical sense?
I am a student studying Mathematics with no prior knowledge of Physics whatsoever except for very simple equations. I would like to ask, due to my experience with Mathematics:
Is there a set of ...
34
votes
3answers
2k views
What is the issue with interactions in QFT?
I've started studying QFT this year and in trying to find a more rigorous approach to the subject I ended up find out lots of people saying that "there is no way known yet to make QFT rigorous when ...
32
votes
2answers
9k views
Wick rotation in field theory - rigorous justification?
What is the rigorous justification of Wick rotation in QFT? I'm aware that it is very useful when calculating loop integrals and one can very easily justify it there. However, I haven't seen a ...
21
votes
5answers
3k views
What happened with Hilbert's sixth problem (the axiomatization of physics) after Gödel's work?
I'll write the question but I'm not fully confident of the premises I'm making here. I'm sorry if my proposal is too silly.
Hilbert's sixth problem consisted roughly about finding axioms for physics (...
7
votes
2answers
6k views
How important is mathematical proof in physics?
How important are proofs in physics? If something is mathematically proven to follow from something we know is true, does it still require experimental verification? Are there examples of things that ...
16
votes
1answer
1k views
What does it mean for a QFT to not be well-defined?
It is usually said that QED, for instance, is not a well-defined QFT. It has to be embedded or completed in order to make it consistent. Most of these arguments amount to using the renormalization ...
7
votes
2answers
1k views
Is there a way to justify perturbation theory in QFT?
I can accept that some problems do require a perturbation theory approach to be solved. The development of perturbation theory is perfectly rigorous. So at first, even though many people say that no ...
12
votes
2answers
598 views
Are derivations of physical laws less important than the laws themselves? [closed]
The proportionality between the kinetic energy of gas molecules and temperature is a well-known result. This is usually shown by considering a cubical box containing an ideal gas, and postulating that ...
1
vote
3answers
398 views
Why does the Copenhagen interpretation assert randomness if this cannot be tested?
Why does the Copenhagen interpretation of QM assert that random events occur if such a claim cannot ever be proven or disproven?
A related question:
How to tell if QM is really random?
Edit On ...