Why do physicists obsess over their place in the hierarchy of physics?

  • Thread starter eNtRopY
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Physics
In summary, the conversation discusses the perceived hierarchy among physicists, with God at the top and "the rest of society" at the bottom, and different levels of education and expertise in between. The speakers also touch on the differences between applied mathematicians and mathematical physicists, with the former focused on mathematics and the latter on using mathematics to describe the physical world. One speaker argues against the concept of a hierarchy and the idea of categorizing people by their value.
  • #1
eNtRopY
It's funny because over the years I've noticed an almost subconscious attitude among physicists that everyone should be placed somewhere in the following hierarchy.


God
...
Pure Mathematicians
Applied Mathematicians
Mathematical Physicists
Theoretical Physicists
Computational Physicists
Experimental Physicists
Applied Physicists
PhD Level Engineers / Chemists / Computer Scientists
PhD Level Scientists from Fields not Previously Mentioned
Masters Level Scientists and Engineers
Bachelors Level Engineers and Computer Scientists
Research Technicians
the Rest of Society
...
Abysmal Sludge


Don't get me wrong. I don't buy into this bullsh:t. I just wanted to point out an observation. The funny though, is that I sincerely believe that most physics people I've met wish they were at least one step higher on this list.

eNtRopY
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
arent Theoretical Physicists=Mathematical Physicists?
 
  • #3
Deja vu...

Dude, I just totally posted a thread entitled something like Loop Quantum Gravity Dreams, and then you're wavefunction totally collapsed... and here you are.

Anyway no, mathematical theorists consider themselves in a class above ordinary theorists. I know this because I once had an academic advisor who was a mathematical theorist... and he always made sure to include the word mathematical before the word theorist.

eNtRopY
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Mathematical physicists spend their time trying to make the stuff theoretical physicsts come up with rigorous. Thet do consider themselves mathematicians rather than physicists.

Theoretical physicists are often dismissive of mathematical physicists rather than honoring them. And get indignant (with suspiciously intense affect) when it is suggested the stuff they do isn't rigorous.

If you want to bug a theoretical physicst, suggest to him that neither QED or the standard model really exist, in a rigorous sense. (This is true, or at least arguable).
 
  • #5
What do you think the difference between applied mathematicians and mathematical physicists are?

I though applied mathematics was the union of mathematical physics and theoretical mechanics. I would certainly consider mathematical physics above theoretical mechanics.
 
  • #6
Originally posted by plus
What do you think the difference between applied mathematicians and mathematical physicists are?

I though applied mathematics was the union of mathematical physics and theoretical mechanics. I would certainly consider mathematical physics above theoretical mechanics.

Uh... first of all you're missing my point completely you nimrod. There is no **** hierarchy! Why do you want to categorize one type of person above another anyway? How the hell do you think the holocaust got started?

Second of all, applied mathematicians do their research in a variety of fields, but the main point is they are mostly concerned with the study of mathematics whereas mathematical physicists are mostly concerned with the study of physics.

So, you see we can point out the differences between people without having to say that one is better than the other.

eNtRopY
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #7
Personally, I prefer to think of myself as...

The God of Abysmal Sludge.
 
  • #8
Originally posted by eNtRopY
Uh... first of all you're missing my point completely you nimrod. There is no **** hierarchy! Why do you want to categorize one type of person above another anyway? How the hell do you think the holocaust got started?


Why did you do it then? And comparing one post to the holocaust is unjust. Partial ordering is allowed in whichever way it is defined.

Second of all, applied mathematicians do their research in a variety of fields, but the main point is they are mostly concerned with the study of mathematics whereas mathematical physicists are mostly concerned with the study of physics.

Applied mathematics is mostly the union of mathematical physics and theoretical physics, with other subjects being studied such as finance. As such, if applied mathematicians are concerned with mostly studying mathematics, then so are mathematical physics.


So, you see we can point out the differences between people without having to say that one is better than the other.

Only a fool would think this was the case anyway - so so are not teaching me anything. If you thought that this was the point of my post, then you were very much mistaken.
 
  • #9
Originally posted by plus
Only a fool would think this was the case anyway - so so are not teaching me anything. If you thought that this was the point of my post, then you were very much mistaken.

The point of your post was to indignantly state that you feel theoretcial physicists are inherently better people (by the fact that they are closer to God) than applied mathematicians. I don't know... maybe you feel that someday you will become one of the greatest theorists in the world, and at that point you will have the right to look down on all the lowly people of the world and grin knowing that you are better than they are... and you'll be damned if somebody on the internet is going to say that there are others out there who will feel that applied mathematicians are not included in the set of people you will be better than someday!

Anyway, it's still funny to me that you have no idea what the difference between applied mathematicians and mathematical physicists is. Like I said before, applied mathematicians are primarily concerned with mathematics. They wish to discover new mathematical relations which can be applied to the physical, economical, or computational worlds. Mathematical physicists, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with studying physics in a formalized context. They wish to use mathematics in order to describe the physical world with analytical eloquence.

The fact that you feel you have the right to categorize people by their value is completely classist. Of course, I can tell by your previous posts that you're simply a self-righteous, yet completely worthless, dilettante. You probably spent many years at a proper English boarding school thinking about how offended you would be if you ever had to meet someone from the working class.

eNtRopY
 
  • #10
Originally posted by eNtRopY
The point of your post was to indignantly state that you feel theoretcial physicists are inherently better people (by the fact that they are closer to God) than applied mathematicians.


God has not been shown to exist or not to exist.


I don't know... maybe you feel that someday you will become one of the greatest theorists in the world,

Not much chance of that considering I am ditching maths in a few weeks.

Anyway, it's still funny to me that you have no idea what the difference between applied mathematicians and mathematical physicists is. Like I said before, applied mathematicians are primarily concerned with mathematics. They wish to discover new mathematical relations which can be applied to the physical, economical, or computational worlds. Mathematical physicists, on the other hand, are primarily concerned with studying physics in a formalized context. They wish to use mathematics in order to describe the physical world with analytical eloquence.


At my university, the applied mathematics group is divided into mathematical physicists and theoretical mechanics sections. Having done modules in each section and a dissertation within theoretical mechanics, I can state that I found the theoretical mechanics far easier. This is a general viewpoint held my almost anyone I speak to.

As for your definition of mathematical physicists and applied mathematics, maybe the discrepancy occurs due to a different definition of applied mathematics within USA and Europe. Not my fault - don't get so wound up about it.

The fact that you feel you have the right to categorize people by their value is completely classist.

I said nothing about value, just it is possible to rate people. You could of course classify people by their time to run 100 metres. No one would object to this, or if you wanted to instill a partial ordering based on time, there can be no argument.

Of course, I can tell by your previous posts that you're simply a self-righteous, yet completely worthless, dilettante. You probably spent many years at a proper English boarding school thinking about how offended you would be if you ever had to meet someone from the working class.

I went to a comprehensive - not that it is any business of yours. Get a life and stop making insulting false assumptions about random people on the internet.
 
  • #11
Stop wasting my time.

eNtRopY
 
  • #12
Originally posted by eNtRopY
Stop wasting my time.

eNtRopY

You were the one who initiated the argument with accusations and your aggression.
 
  • #13
Actual hierarchy in understanding nature is as follows (and I'll drop God hypothesis due to lack of any evedence in favor of it):

If anything exists (anything at all), we then label it as "yes", or "true", or "1", or "+", etc. The lack (absence) of this "anything" is labeled as "no", "false", "0", "-", etc.

This is the ORIGIN of logic. Then mathematics follows (which is just advanced logic), then physics (=mathematically imposed rules of interaction of existing objects given certain mathematical symmetries) follows from mathematics just as a consequence.

So, universe is such because mathematics (logic) is such. By other words, universe is such because it exists.

So, please respect, nurish, cherish and worship mathematicians.

And don't forget theoretical physicists who explain how tangible objects (say, particles, atoms, crystals, stars, etc) and sensible properties (say: color, mass, taste, love, etc) originate from math.

Start supporting one near you today! You contribution, no matter how humble it is, can be the one which let's him/her to buy that last bottle of beer (or vodka) to finish his/her TOE.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14


Originally posted by BoulderHead
Personally, I prefer to think of myself as...
The God of Abysmal Sludge.
right :wink: .. cut the crap .. inbetween

About the hierarchy, it reminds hierarchy of church, who's closer to 'god'. Sure, one can rate people, but to classify based on areas of work is to cause sort of stagnation


http://ebtx.com/math/mathouse.htm
 
  • #15
lol, I would say 'applied mathematicians' would go considerably lower, perhaps near computational physicists.

It's funny, there is a similar hierarchy in the social sciences, with economics at the top...
 

1. What is the Hierarchy of Physics?

The Hierarchy of Physics is a concept that organizes the various branches of physics into a hierarchical structure based on the scales at which they operate. It is a way to understand how different areas of physics are connected and build upon each other.

2. What are the levels of the Hierarchy of Physics?

The levels of the Hierarchy of Physics, from smallest to largest scale, are: quantum mechanics, atomic and molecular physics, condensed matter physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. These levels are not strictly defined and there can be overlap between them.

3. How does the Hierarchy of Physics help us understand the world?

The Hierarchy of Physics allows us to see how the laws and principles of physics apply at different scales. By understanding the connections between different levels, we can better understand the behavior of matter and energy in our everyday lives as well as in the universe as a whole.

4. Can the Hierarchy of Physics change?

Yes, the Hierarchy of Physics is not a fixed concept and can change as our understanding of the universe evolves. New discoveries and advancements in technology can lead to the creation of new levels or the merging of existing ones.

5. How is the Hierarchy of Physics relevant to other scientific fields?

The Hierarchy of Physics is relevant to other scientific fields because it provides a framework for understanding the fundamental principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy. It also highlights the interconnectedness of different areas of science and how they all contribute to our understanding of the world.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
33
Views
5K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
8
Views
826
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
29
Views
8K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
12
Views
14K
Back
Top