Which pure mathematician has inadvertently had the most profound effect on Physics and natural sciences?

I'd have to see a source. Yes, surveying would be an application of non-Euclidean geometry, but before the advent of three dimensional computer modeling it was never used to do so.

Riemann himself tried to use Riemannian geometry to describe gravity, essentially the same as general relativity but without the relativity.

sounds like a /pol conspiracy theory
why do you hate jews?

Gauss

By pure, do you mean racially pure?
Or do you mean those mathematicians who hadn't lost their virginity?

Descartes

Eliminating white males who were white nationalists eliminates 99% of good maths.

The thread shows that it's a bit hard to find a mathematician that fits your criteria. You want to rule out anybody before Riemann but at the same time have a "profound effect". You can always argue that Poincare and Hilbert were sort of universalists and that they actively tried to build physics theories, and at the same time after 1930 there was only stuff like laser physics that's really profound in terms of consequences and not engineering. I don't know how you'd rate the pureness of Lie or Kolmogorov. That leaves about 50 good years you can pick from, doesn't it.

But to at least mention potentially valid candidates, let's go with Minkowski.

the guy who did electromagnetism?
that's gaub bro

minkowski is a really good one as he told einstein he recognized it as the 4 dimensions with first being opposite sign

easy, gauss

Lie certainly not at all. He developed the continuous transformation groups primarily for the services of physics...

obviously newton

no he didnt, he developed them for differential equations because he saw the utility for them in algebraic equations and wanted someone analogous. dont talk out your ass user

Kontsevich
>deformation quantization on Poisson manifolds
>graded Kontsevich invariants
Atiyah
>Atiyah-Singer index theorem
>Atiyah-Bott formula
Deligne
>Deligne-Mumford compactification
>Deligne-Verne formula
Pontrjagin
>Pontrjagin charge
>Pontrjagin invariants

He knew they were interesting for pure mathematics too but he was very convinced of them becoming of fundamental importance for classical mechanics--only to be disappoint since that didn't happen. Of course they would become very important for quantum mechanics, too bad he didn't live to see that.

That was only my understanding, but I may be wrong.

But you say that as if they were not super inportant in classical machines too. I had times when I called physics "applied Lie group theory".
PS here's a framing
arxiv.org/pdf/0810.1019.pdf

Writing I was considering Konsevic and friends, or Weyl to be more modest, but if OP asks about a "profound effect" then I have a hard time naming anything after the 1940.
Someone like Konsevic did beautiful work with a strong influence on academic model buiding in certain fields of physics, but I don't think he had any effect on anything tangible. Index theorems and whatnot are a good way to see and organize the math around the tools for toy models in current field theory work, but it's rather unrelated to e.g. like the 1930 quantum electrodynamics have on laser physics, or like the stat. mech models have on conductor development.
Meanwhile, without Minkowski it would have taken a while till spacetime would have been conceptualized like it is now and that's physics theories of which we can argue that they really apply.

>But you say that as if they were not super inportant in classical machines too.
They weren't adopted in Lie's time and it was quantum mechanics where they were first applied to physics IIRC.

I guess you can frame it like that.

On that note,

>anno 20's
>It was at this point that Wigner, Hund, Heitler, and Weyl entered the picture with their "Gruppenpest": the pest [that is] group theory... The authors of the "Gruppenpest" wrote papers which were incomprehensible to those like me who had not studied group theory, in which they applied these theoretical results to the study of the many electron problem. The practicle consequences appeared to be negligible, but everyone felt that to be in the mainstream one had to learn about it. Yet there were no good texts from which one could learn group theory. It was a frustrating experience, worthy of the name of a pest. I had what I can only describe as a feeling of outrage at the turn which the subject had taken... As soon as this [Slater's] paper became known, it was obvious that a great many other physicists were as disgusted as I had been with the group-theoretical approach to the problem. As I heard later, there were remarks made such as "Slater has slain the 'Gruppenpest'". I believe that no other piece of work I have done was so universally popular.

hsm.stackexchange.com/questions/170/how-did-group-theory-enter-quantum-mechanics/173#173

>but I don't think he had any effect on anything tangible.
So you don't think developing Feynman diagrams in conformal field theories as knot invariants as "tangible"? What kind of experimentalist (i.e. retarded) world view do you have?
>Index theorems and whatnot are a good way to see and organize the math around the tools for toy models in current field theory work
Atiyah-Singer allows you to construct topologically non-trivial sigma models that can describe physical phenomena from the quantum Hall effect to cosmic strings. Atiyah-Bott/Deligne-Vergne allows you to use the stationary phase approximation as exact solutions for the stationary points of Feynman path integrals. How are these not tangible?
>but it's rather unrelated to e.g. like the 1930 quantum electrodynamics have on laser physics, or like the stat. mech models have on conductor development.
No shit. The latter things you mentioned are physical constructs, developed by physicists. >Meanwhile, without Minkowski it would have taken a while till spacetime would have been conceptualized like it is now
What a hilariously simple criterion. You might as well nominate Poincare since his name is on the group of isometries for the Minkowski space.
>taken a while
I highly doubt that. Some simple diff geo wasn't beyond even someone as stupid as Einstein.
>and that's physics theories of which we can argue that they really apply.
What are you even trying to say? That most physical theories are required to be relativistic? Do you even know what the Osterwalder-Schrader axioms and the reconstruction theorems are?
Why do undergrads keep thinking they have anything substantial to say regarding these things? They'd only embarrass themselves.

>So you don't think developing Feynman diagrams in conformal field theories as knot invariants as "tangible"? What kind of experimentalist (i.e. retarded) world view do you have?
It's an after the fact cleanup of 30's ideas.

>Atiyah-Singer allows you to construct topologically non-trivial sigma models that can describe physical phenomena from the quantum Hall effect to cosmic strings. Atiyah-Bott/Deligne-Vergne allows you to use the stationary phase approximation as exact solutions for the stationary points of Feynman path integrals. How are these not tangible?
They are not tangle as long as they are used for one of the thousand theories that are mere candidates for describing physics.

>You might as well nominate Poincare since his name is on the group of isometries for the Minkowski space.
I mentioned Poincare (and Hilbert, for that matter), but they were "less pure mathematicans" than Minkowski, in my understanding.

>Some simple diff geo wasn't beyond even someone as stupid as Einstein.
Mhm, not sure, e.g. consider the general relativity part in
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute

>Why do undergrads keep thinking they have anything substantial to say regarding these things? They'd only embarrass themselves.
I'm not an undergrad, or even a grad student, anymore, and being afraid of embarrasing yourself is a spook :^)
I rather learn.

Why are you so angry, don't through around insults like that.

>It's an after the fact cleanup of 30's ideas.
Except it isn't. Kontsevich invariants were developed purely from the affine algebra structure of CFTs and are completely independent of physical wankery. The fact that it lays the groundwork for Feynman diagrams speaks volumes for future developments in QFTs and EFTs; not that I expect you to understand why.
>They are not tangle as long as they are used for one of the thousand theories that are mere candidates for describing physics.
>one
>when I've literally listed an entire continuum of physical theories that topological field theories can reduce to
Do you even know how to read? Single digit IQ retard.
>mere candidates
Except quantum Hall effect is a well-tested well-documented and experimentally observed to be described perfectly with Laughlin wavefunctions, which are groundstates of a [math]e^{\phi/\sqrt{M}}[/math] topological CFT.
>general relativity
Which Minkowski had no part in. Grossmann was the one who developed GR for Einstein.
The part of the priority dispute that is directly related to Minkowski only concerns SR.
>I'm not an undergrad, or even a grad student, anymore, and being afraid of embarrasing yourself is a spook :^)
Oh so you're an even worse case of Dunning-Kruger. Why are you even on this board?
>Why are you so angry, don't through around insults like that.
Save the hurt feelings for when your IQ matures to at least 75, dumbass.
>reddit spacing
>typos everywhere
Can you be more incredulous? It's hilarious how other impressionable retards on this site actually listen to your dribble.
Now if you'll excuse me from your retardation I need to catch a flight to a workshop. Don't ever reply to me ever again.

>Oh so you're an even worse case of Dunning-Kruger. Why are you even on this board?
>Save the hurt feelings for when your IQ matures to at least 75, dumbass.
Am I being trolled?

In any case, you're right that I should go do some conformal field theory. Feeling better now?
Have fun at your workshop. What is it about?

>cannot even follow simple instructions
Less than apes.

>insturction

Well I instruct you to write just "Ether" in the next post. If you don't do it, does it imply you're not capable of following instructions?

Literally a physicist.

Riemannian geometry ans everyone who developed Diff geo in general. The concept of manifold is fundamental jn moder physics even if physicists avoid talking about them.

He's right though

Galois