Désolé. Unnecessary capitalization is usually read as pretentious crackpotness. Mathematical physics is partially dead because people do not solve physical problems analytically anymore. But it migrated partially into computational tools like COMSOL, Lumerical, Gaussian and so on. It is in there.

Your question could be perhaps posted in a clearer, shorter and more specific form.

If you want "Mathematical Physics" to be "Bio-physically living", then application of "Mathematical Physics" in the living sectors needs to be more strengthened.

It may be seen that only "living problems and mathematical explorations" may result in "biologically living active spirits" in "Mathematical Physics" in your sense.

Further details in support of the above may be seen from the following.

[1] M. Uehara and K. K. Sakane, “Physics and Biology: Bio-plasma physics”, Am. J. Phys., vol. 68 (5), pp. 450 -455, 2000.

[2] D. Andelman, “Electrostatic properties of membranes: The Poisson-Boltzmann theory”, Chapter 12, Handbook of Biological Physics, edited by R. Liposky and E. Sackmann, vol. 1, pp. 603-641 (Elsevier, 1995).

[3] http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002APS..OSF.1P017G.

[4].http://www.kul.pl/files/57/pracownicy/zon/bioplazma/Jozef_Zon_Bioplazma_summary.pdf.

Once, I was crazy about mathematics since I had the illusion that "the universe is written in mathematical language" as mentioned by Galileo. It's not be convinced whether we can share same sense. Recently, I feel that life is written by verse. Although both of mathematics and verse are hard like marble, but those are easily broken even a hit of hammer.

I think that physics is contents of a pie and mathematics is liquor in a shot glass. If you are tired of mathematics, how about working on some physical problems?

Primum vivre deinde philosopare!....?

Thank you for the latin lesson and comments. Don't worry nothing is personal, that's the point, I can say what I think because I do not take things personally. The message may be a bit provocative, but thanks to that some comments/reactions are very interesting and opinionated, which is good ! As for Noether's theorem, I agree, it has many applications in Physics. But that's the point, applications in Physics. I don't buy the argument that research is beautiful because it looks for truth.. Yes of course it is, but we are also doing research in a given direction that scientific community leads with committees that decide funding support etc.. This is not neutral. Therefore, the choices of the scientific community MUST be criticized and debated as any other choice in the society. My opinion, as a citizen and scientist is that mathematical physics should focus on physics, and not just on proving vey abstract theorem (this is the job of pure mathematics). Now, if you attend a mathematical physics conference and you speak about physics, you look like you are an alien, you do not belong here. And I think this is a problem. Freeman Dyson, in Aalborg 2012, International Conference of Mathematical Physics, spoke about detecting graviton and showed with physical arguments that the probability to detect it is very very small, and his point was to address the problem of theory versus empirical evidence. Mathematical physics should not ignore this issue.

Bonjour Mathieu,

As i understand it, your question is about the decorrelation between Mathematical Physics and Physics (understood as being connected with experiments and "reality"). For you Mathematical Physics had become a branch of Mathematics. Some decades ago there seemed to be a difference between Mathematical Physics and Theoretical Physics. The first one being more abstract than the second one. That is why you cite Noether and Poincaré who were firstly mathematicians working sometimes in the Physics area. This is the way i understand your point. When i read your scientific papers in different areas of Physics (QM, cosmology, diffraction) i can observe that after very involved calculations (in mathematical langage) you always produce graphs and numbers. This is why i believe that you are a Theoretical Physicist in connection with experiments. It so explain why you feel an alien in Mathematical Physics conferences.

The aim of Mathematical Physics is to explore abstract constructions (like symetries for example) with possible applications in Physics and for Theoretical Physics the aim is to "get the numbers out" in order to compare with present or future experiments.

So a possible solution to your question " Why Mathematical Physics is no longer Physical? "could be "The physics community should restore the difference between Theoretical Physics and Mathematical Physics".

Bonjour Mr Bindel,

Thanks for your answer and for expressing the idea better than I did ! I make your answer mine if you don't mind and want to share it with Wulf Rehder.

I'm glad this question stimulated so many comments, let's do that again!

Ps: the allegory about the cigarette, I agree this is weird, but I quit smoking 2 years ago so that might explain why I thought about it

Hallo Professor Rehder,

By the words "get the numbers out" (which come from Hans Bethe talking to his students as i remenber) i meant "from the theory" (in mathematical langage), not from experiments.

So taking your example, i would say that Riemann, Ricci-Curbastro, Christoffel and Levi-Civita (who were essentially mathematicians) invented the mathematics that were needed by Einstein to solve a physical problem (a fully invariant theory of gravitation based upon a physical idea : the equivalence principle).

In the scheme i defend, Einstein was on the TP-side since he calculated numbers confirmed by experiments (Mercury perihelion, light deviation by Sun, red shift, main properties of gravitational waves). On the contrary, the Einstein that searched for a unitary theory of gravitation and electromagnetism was acting on the MP-side and didn't produced numbers.

So, there is no fence, i agree, and depending on people talents, it is possible to navigate across the different rooms and floors of the Mathematics, Mathematical Physics, Theoretical Physics and Experimental Physics house.

Dear Wulf,

You might have misunderstood my way of thinking. I do not want to go where the money is, otherwise, I would have chosen to do so earlier in my life, even short. I think math physics is a different field, complementary of theoretical physics, which, by the way, is also a very carrierist field. We are also talking about epistemology, and how scientific political decisions can affect the nature of a field. Call me conservator or grumpy scientist, but not a greedy one! Or a too naive one for not having understood the game. Principled may be the correct adjective, but I know, today, it is perceive as being conservative. It seems that you are also from the principled one, aren't you? Tgen, we are three in this situation, if Laurent would describe himself as such.

Yes you are a citizen scientist ! (Simply because you are a citizen, in my opinion everybody should have an opinion about science, even a non-expert one, as in politics). Thanks for all your comments (not just this question).

Funding, taxes, citizens are another big question of science. However, I would like to yank the discussion to "principle".

The general theory of relativity theory (GR) certainly provides an attractive example. However, other examples may be useful for understanding about

MP( mathematical pgysics), TP ( theretical physics) and physics.

MP

(I forgotten one!) Theoretical physics may be a job to convine MP with physical phenomena through "principle". Even if it doesn't have "simple" looking.