The mathematization of theoretical physics

This seems to be a sentiment expressed every now and then by members here on this forum and mentioned often when I've debated with others about physics in real life.In essence many feel that theoretical physics has given itself over to the beauty of mathematics and is now more concerned with "Topology and Groups" than explaining the natural world.I would like to know what has made people feel this way and what areas of physics do they feel have particularly given into it.This topic might lead itself into:
1. The difference between Mathematical physics and Theoretical Physics, which is an important distinction that often isn't made very clear.
2. The major attempts at a axiomisation of physics currently under way."Is it science?", would perhaps be the best place for this.

Do you believe this is more a problem in the study of our fundamental theories (General Relativity, Quantum Field Theory) or the subjects which use the theories (Particle Physics, Cosmology)?Usually people express more doubt in Cosmology than General Relativity for instance.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-14-2006 07:13 PM

LinkThis is a link which attempts to explain the difference between the two disciplines. Any queries just ask. I still believe this is an over blown view of theoretical physics that comes from reading popular-science, which gives the impression that everybody does high-energy (Planck scale) particle physics and also gives a false impression of what particle physicists are actually doing.I find people having a similar view of cosmology. I'd like to know what exactly causes this view. What particular theories evoke this response.

Well in 2007 in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, we'll be attempting to verify or falsify the remaining wackiness from the late 1970s, but mostly the wackiness from the 80s, such as the GUTs and supersymmetry.However most work in theoretical physics can be experimented on now. Such as research into the Navier-Stokes equations and Condensed matter physics and non-perturbative QCD.
These are three huge areas of theoretical physics that require almost no advancement in experimental technology.
(Particularly the last one) The majority of theoretical work from the 1920s to the 1970s has basically been verified. I would also keep in mind that the majority of what is thought up today isn't anywhere near as anti-intuitive as Quantum Field Theory was when it arrived on the scene.
In fact some would argue that what we do today is playing it too safe, in terms of ideas.

Do you mean such as String Theory, e.t.c.
Post-Standard Model physics for example. I'm not sure what you mean.
I was saying, that some think we aren't making a brave enough conceptual leap when we attempt to formulate Planck-Scale Physics.I don't understand what mathematics checking out has to do with this, as it deals with the conceptual foundations which come before the mathematics. What do you mean?
I just want to be clear on what you're trying to get across. Thats true for relativity, but certainly not true for QM.
In the case of General Relativity Einstein went out and found Tensor calculus before formulating his theory.
For QM and QFT however the maths was there from the start and lead very much to both frameworks' foundations.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-16-2006 07:42 AM

How inconsistent of us.I just always saw the foundation of relativity as more conceptual. In that Einstein often used thoughtful physical situations. Even though his inspiration was Maxwell's equations, I still view it as largely a conceptual exercise.
Where as QM was inspired by experimental results, but the thinking through of the things was mathematical.In other words I saw it as:Relativity: Conceptual theory, inspired by a mathematical observation.
QM: Mathematical Theory, inspired by a physical observation.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-16-2006 08:12 AM

Bleh, what am I doing?Part of the confusion that surrounds theoretical physics is that it is separated in the ideas and the mathematics.
By analysing QM and Relativity like this, I am only adding to the confusion.The truth is both are frameworks based on concepts gained from looking at the natural world.
However these are mathematical concepts. There is no such things as "concepts" and "maths", as if they are placed in two separate boxes and the latter called in to help former out. In physics they are practically one and the same.

I need a specific example, because I'm in the field I might not be able to see what an outsider would view as "more concerned with deriving an 'elegant' mathematical solution."
Where is this happening? I think you're picking up what we're saying incorrectly.First of all understanding physics does require knowing a lot of mathematics.
What I'm trying to get at is the impression people have that there is a conceptual model of the theory, which we then convert into maths.
Instead what we actually do is think with mathematical concepts which we then write down.A lot of this, in my experience, comes from people seeing mathematics as a "thing" or a "stranger", rather than just a language.This is why, as somebody in the field it seems confusing to me when people say we are more concerned with mathematics, because:
(a)We're nothing like pure mathematicians, we don't operate in the same manner at all.
(b)The criticism is like attacking a novelist for using fancy words.However you could be right, but it depends what area of theoretical physics you're talking about.

Unfortunately we can't. As cavediver has said, I don't know that much about it. All I know is a collection of things that make it different from normal QFT and an assorted collection interesting properties about it.
If it gets confirmed, I'll have a lot of reading to do. Okay, I can see why you think this of Dark matter. Hopefully this will bolster people's opinions of our Cosmological models:
WMAP three year test.
This is basically the "uber-test" cosmologists have been waiting for, for the past three years. It has just been released and contains very strong evidence of Dark Matter and (my personal favourite) multiply connected topology. Of the other (at my count) 20 alternate theories of gravity, five of which are of a strong-weak variety, none survived these results.
Only General Relativity + Inflation + Dark Matter and Energy, matches the predictions. I don't think you'd meet a physicist who would consider the Standard Model elegant. It's mathematically extremely ugly.
(Standard Model Lagrangian)
The Standard Model got this ugly because nobody cared about mathematical elegance, only about making a phenomenological model.
In fact their are those who say this about QFT in general. QFT has some hidden ugliness (Haag's Theorem). Particle Physics definitely isn't beautiful (to the mathematician).As for unconfirmed particles, their is only one, the Higgs boson and given the success of the Standard Model (over 400 confirmed predictions), we're letting it stand until the LHC tests in 2007 can search for the Higgs boson.(For an example of experimental particle physics, here is a two day old set of results of Further determination of the top quark mass.)This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-21-2006 06:47 AM

If you're talking about the Pioneer anomaly, most of us aren't interested because there is 99.95% chance that it was just a systematic.
Also the satellite being sent out to test it won't be ready for about a year or two.

What? There is a 99.95% chance it is a systematic. It was something that was blown out of all proportion by the media.
However given that, we are still testing it by sending out the first in a series of satellites two years from now.So yes, I think that does make my case, as does my previous post.EDIT:Systematic, not schematic.This message has been edited by Son Goku, 03-21-2006 08:45 AM

What do you think the WMAP three year study was for. Every single Cosmologist was waiting for it.
I said we weren't interested in the Pioneer anomaly, because it is most likely a systematic, just because something is "big news" in the media doesn't mean it has that much merit.
However it is still going to be tested, because as unlikely as it is we're still interested enough to make sure we aren't missing something.The WMAP study shows General Relativity still stands and the WMAP is the harshest set of cosmological tests I've ever seen.I'm going to ask you where is the evidence we're dismissing?
From what source?
I also don't see where this "elegant solution" criticism comes in.