EDIT:  I was aware of the supposed duplicate.  But I'm interested in a clear and focused path through the basics to advanced theoretical physics such as string theory - a path that avoids studying engineering physics - for a pure mathematician with no physics background.  I can't see in the supposed duplicate where this path is outlined.  ...  I'm a pure mathematics PhD student in Riemannian geometry / geometric analysis.  My main interests are in Einstein manifolds, Ricci flow, harmonic maps, and Yang-Mills theory.    I have no training whatsoever in physics:  I've never even picked up the typical 1,500 page textbook titled Physics for Scientists and Engineers etc.  I've only ever read pure mathematics and can handle any level of pure mathematics to any level of abstraction.  I'd like to learn the background and basics in theoretical physics motivating the above areas of geometric analysis to develop physical intuition: general relativity, gauge field theories, and the standard model of particle physics, etc.  Ideally I also want to learn advanced theoretical physics such as quantum field theory, string theory, and sypersymmetry.  I'd like a structured path through basic to advanced theoretical physics for a mathematician with no physics training.  I have looked at many standard references in these areas but their assumptions on the physics background of the reader does not align with my background.  These standard references all start talking and explaining things in physics notation, terminology, concepts, and intuition that is assumed on the reader.  Question:  As a pure mathematician, how do I learn basic through to advanced theoretical physics in an clear, focused and structured way?  What books should I read?  Are there books tailored to a target audience like myself: a pure mathematician with no physics background?  If required, I'm happy to start from scratch by working through a 1,500 page physics textbooks.  However, after progressing through mathematics one realises that starting with working through the typical 1,500 page calculus textbook, such as Stewart Calculus, is unnecessary because those books are tailored to engineers.  Instead, one can start with a book on set theory, proof, and logic, and then go straight into standard undergraduate books like Rudin Principals of Mathematical Analysis and Herstein Topics in Algebra, etc.  Indeed, many universities offer a streamlined program of study for pure mathematics majors that avoids wasting time on engineering calculus.  Question:  Is it the same situation in physics?  Are those 1,500 page physics textbooks targeted mostly at engineers and is there a focused and streamlined path through theoretical physics that starts at the start of theoretical physics and gets to advanced theoretical physics such as quantum field theory and string theory without having to learn engineering physics?  I would be VERY grateful for someone to provide some book recommendations and possibly a structured path for achieving the above.
Every once in a while, we get a question asking for a book or other educational reference on a particular topic at a particular level. This is a meta-question that collects all those links together. If you're looking for book recommendations, this is probably the place to start.  All the questions linked below, as well as others which deal with more specialized books, can be found under the tag  (formerly ).  If you have a question to add, please edit it in. However, make sure of a few things first:   The question should be tagged  It should be of the form "What are good books to learn/study [subject] at [level]?" It shouldn't duplicate a topic and level that's already on the list   Related Meta:
Electron Flow Confusion Using conventional notation in the diagram below, I understand that the circuit is not complete because the diode is in reverse bias. But knowing that the electrons actually flow from the negative to the positive terminal(direction of the arrows), wouldn't the electrons take a path from the negative terminal of the battery, go through the lamp and stop at the diode(the red path in the picture). If they would, then why doesn't the lamp light up with the first electrons that are able to flow through it before the voltage in the wire is built up and the current stops. Where should I put software I compile myself? Content is not allowed in Prolog SAXParserException How to pass an array of Uri between Activity using Bundle I'm searching for applications where the distribution of the eigenvalues of a unitary matrix are important. Example properties of the eigenvalues could be that the eigenvalues are clustered, that they live in some half plane, that, in the case that the matrix is orthogonal, that a certain fraction are 1, etc. Do we need a global test before post hoc tests? I often hear that post hoc tests after an ANOVA can only be used if the ANOVA itself was significant.    However, post hoc tests adjust $p$-values to keep the global type I error rate at 5%, don't they?  So why do we need the global test first?  If we don't need a global test is the terminology "post hoc" correct? Or are there multiple kinds of post hoc tests, some assuming a significant global test result and others without that assumption? Smooth option sometimes produces incorrect arrow tips in PGFplots note: This is a question about relativistic effects. I've included some detail about the spacecraft and its orbit for background, but the question is about relativistic effects and their observability.     When the Parker Solar Probe passes within 8.5 solar radii of the Sun, it will be moving really fast.  A perihelion and aphelion of about 6.6 and 109 million kilometers suggests a semi-major axis of 57.8 million kilometers. The standard gravitational parameter for the Sun is:  $$GM_{Sun} \ = 1.327\times 10^{20} m^3/s^2$$  So using the :  $$v^2 \ = \ GM_{Sun}\left(\frac{2}{r}-\frac{1}{a}\right)$$  the orbital velocity at perihelion will be about 195,000 m/s, or about 25 times faster than a satellite in LEO. This is close to one part per thousand of the speed of light! I think this will be a new record for a spacecraft velocity relative to the solar system.  Depth of a gravitational potential well for an object of mass $m$ is approximately given by:  $$u_G \ = \ -GM_{Sun}\frac{1}{r}$$  At 6.6 million kilometers the spacecraft will be 23 times deeper in the Sun's gravitational well than it would be at 1 AU.  Will there be any particularly unique relativistic effects detectable for the Parker Solar Probe during it's close flyby of the Sun?  Just for example, during one close flyby, how much time will its on-board clock gain or lose compared to some convenient standard solar system timescale? I know there are several different choices, "GPS time" might be one but I don't want to arbitrarily choose an inconvenient one.     above: Parker Solar Probe cropped, from .    above: screen shot from NASA's      note: the link seems to be dead now, but there is plenty of related information available at     above: Illustration of the Parker Solar Probe's orbit, from . What is the value of $\sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty\frac{1}{p_{p_i}}$ where $p_{i}$ is the $i$th prime? I'd like to add an invisible watermark to each PDF document that I produce so that in case it leaks, I know where it leaked from. Anyone knows what would a good way for an invisible watermark be in a PDF document and how to add one? Does the sequence $$\displaystyle \frac{n}{\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}\Big(\frac{k}{k+1}\Big)^k}$$   converge?   Attempt. Since $\Big(\frac{k}{k+1}\Big)^k \rightarrow 1/e\neq 0$ and the terms are positive, the series $\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\Big(\frac{k}{k+1}\Big)^k$ diverges to $+\infty$. I find hard to determine if $n$ or the sum goes faster to $+\infty.$   Thanks in advance. The question is from Axler's "Linear Algebra Done Right", which I'm using for self-study.  We are given a linear operator $T$ over a finite dimensional vector space $V$. We have to show that $T$ is a scalar multiple of the identity iff $\forall S \in {\cal L}(V), TS = ST$. Here, ${\cal L}(V)$ denotes the set of all linear operators over $V$.  One direction is easy to prove. If $T$ is a scalar multiple of the identity, then there exists a scalar $a$ such that $Tv = av$, $\forall v \in V$. Hence, given an arbitrary vector $w$, $$TS(w) = T(Sw) = a(Sw) = S(aw) = S(Tw) = ST(w)$$ where the third equality is possible because $S$ is a linear operator. Then, it follows that $TS = ST$, as required.  I am, however, at a loss as to how to tackle the other direction. I thought that a proof by contradiction,  ultimately constructing a linear operator $S$ for which $TS \neq ST$, might be the way to go, but haven't made much progress.   Thanks in advance! How To Get Command Blocks Talking in Chat I need a way for a command block to say things in chat when it is powered, or more preferably whenever someone spawns into the world. Guess the formula for $\sum\frac 1{(4n-3)(4n+1)}$ and prove by induction I use the highlight mode in vim to copy a few characters.  I then want to paste more than once.  My current technique does not work well.  Sample text: Linux Solaris Irix HP-UX  Suppose I want to copy the word Linux, then paste over Solaris and Irix.   Place cursor at L in Linux Command v (for visual hilite), then e (for end-of-word), then y (for yank/copy) Now Linux is on my "vim clipboard" Move cursor to S in Solaris (first instance) Command v (for visual hilite), then e (for end-of-word), then p (for paste) Text is now: Linux Linux Irix HP-UX, but now Solaris is on my "vim clipboard" Move cursor to I in Irix (second instance) Command v (for visual hilite), then e (for end-of-word), then p (for paste) Text is now: Linux Linux Solaris HP-UX which is not what I expected.   I resort to using highlite/paste with the mouse (via X Terminal).  Surely, I can do this better.  How? Create a virtual file that is actually a command Is there any way to create a virtual file, such that reading from the file actually reads from the stdout of a command; writing to the file is acually writing to the stdin of a command?  So far I have kludged this with an inotifywait on a file, which calls a command when the file is modified, taking it's input from the file and writing back to it.  I don't like that the inotifywait has to be constantly restarted though (and I have to ensure that it is always running). I only use this file perhaps twice a week. Possible Duplicate:                I know that the sum of the squares of the first n natural numbers is $\frac{n(n + 1)(2n + 1)}{6}$. I know how to prove it inductively. But how, presuming I have no idea about this formula, should I determine it? The sequence $a(n)=1^2+2^2+...+n^2$ is neither geometric nor arithmetic. The difference between the consecutive terms is 4, 9, 16 and so on, which doesn't help. Could someone please help me and explain how should I get to the well known formula assuming I didn't know it and was on some desert island? What happens if both players have the ability to pump their creature an unlimited number of times? Say that both players each had 2 , 2 , and a . (Or any other way to get unlimited mana, and a Nantuko Shade).  Player 1 attacks with his , and player 2 blocks with his . Before damage is assigned, each has chances to pump up their  as much as they want. They can't just declare them to be "infinite," but each can always one-up the other player. What happens?  It seems there would be a loop of events, but would one player eventually be forced to break the loop as per rule 714.3? Is it considered the same game state after each player pumps their creature a bunch as it was before?  This was discussed at length on the Draw3Cards Magic Q&amp;A site (which is no longer available), but no conclusion was reached. Some felt that the game would simply be a draw, others felt that the active player would be forced to make a different decision to break the loop. Others felt that you would just have to call a judge and see what he decides. Shapefile layer no longer editable (toggle edit option greyed out) in QGIS When are infinities okay? I'm a little confused about how to handle infinities in physics. On the one hand, I always here things like infinities are not physically tenable answers. GR can't answer anything about the origin of the universe because of singularities. Throw away the radial solution that gives an infinite potential when solving the Laplace equation in spherical coordinates. But then there are other times that the infinities are okay. For instance, it is usually okay to set the reference point for your potential at infinity. There are certain times in David Tong's quantum field theory lecture notes where he seems to almost to hand wave away infinities. So, philosophically, physically, and mathematically when are infinities okay, and when are they not okay?