Do I have to be good at proofs to be good at physics?

Do I have to be good at proofs to be good at physics?

I physically blanked your mom last night and I don't have any proof

No. Half of cosmology is so-so at math.

If you're fine with not know what the fuck is going on....

Most physicists are.

What proofs are there in physics? I've taken up through qm and haven't seen a single theorem or non empirical claim.

>Do I have to be good at proofs to be good at physics?
To be a good *Theoretical Physicist

Experimental Physicist brainlets don't need it.

What physicists do is more like "derivations" or calculations.
The closer your theory is to observation the less you need to derive.
You might also want to show a theory is unique, which requires some proof.

>he hasn't seen Noether's theorem
why not?

don't listen to these brainlets. you ABSOLUTELY NEED to be good math if you have any hope of succeeding in physics. i don't know where this myth of "physicists not requiring math" comes from.

There is no proof that any of these hacks have actually created any model that actually resembles reality, so that pretty much tells you all you need to know

The question was about proofs, not math. Math involves a lot more than proofs.

If you want to not know what the fuck you’re taking about or how to communicate it effectively, surely, you don’t need to have a rigorous understanding of mathematics.

At least learn group theory and real & complex analysis. That doesn’t take an expert level comprehension of proofs, but it will require some, and understanding mathematical notation and conventions makes reading math-heavy papers 10x easier.

Honestly, I was fucking astounded by how much more shit I understood when I took a course on group theory.

This is true. And it is much more likely than what many people are answering (general math ability).

You can certainly be good at physics while struggling at proofs, but your issue with proofs would have to be a narrow problem specific to mathematical proofs rather than a broad problem affecting your ability to reason, follow reasoning, understand the meaning of mathematical notation, or perform calculations like triple integrals.

If you're bad at proofs you're a brainlet and will be a bad physicist but you don't need to do any to be a good one

It doesnt work like that, user. When you become good at physics you suddenly have this clarity, understanding of the specific subject, that also includes related proofs, proofs become easy. In other words before that point getting good at proofs will likely improve your understanding of physics but they are not strictly neccesary to become good.

Most of them don't have jobs or have very bad jobs.

The "so-so at math" are either working as code monkeys or unemployed

No. You can always be an experimentalist.

why poorchan is smiling?

No, you can be an experimentalist and do computational work. Even some light theory.

The big theory guys are the ones doing proofs. Check out arxiv.org and look at the mathematical physics papers

no

you do but the good thing is you can get good at math by just practising. That and strong amphetamines. no joke, I went from getting 60-70% average to getting 98% on my thermodynamics exam. Just study harder than any other person on your course and you'll be good.

Side note, physics might not be what you think it is. A lot of the people on your course (the vast majority) are pretentious and egotistical. From my experience thus far physics students are insufferable and spending any stretch of time with them can be debilitatingly cringy.

Protip be friends with the arts students, Biology students and forensics students for absolute maximum joy.

>replying to more than one person
Kys