Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

staff.science.uu.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 53 posts

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#21

Post by Retric »

pvg wrote: post #16
Retric wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Learn' can be fuzzy. IMO, most undergrads taking an undergrad DifEq course will have little understanding of what they are actually doing and just treat it as symbol manipulation. I have seen people encounter the same problem with calculus, matrices, or even simple algebra. And you can keep pushing, but at some point if you want to progress you need to revisit older topics and hopefully gain new understanding. It's…

I'm not sure I understand any of this. The person asking is trying to understand the difference (and required effort) between Khan Academy and what's linked on the page - basically 'Maths textbooks for curious undergraduates'. That's a good and sensible question and whatever you think the answer to it is, it surely isn't (as suggested by the person responding) 40 years of ferocious training in the Arctic with Doc Sav…

To be more clear, I agree the foundation is within reach of a dedicated 20 year old student.

But, there is a huge gap between being able to pass a test on X after taking a class and being ok when someone writes the same idea in yet another notation. Or worse reading something when they go step 20 -> step 21 and yes you can get from A to B with an hour of concerted effort and step 20 -> step 21 and see what they mean and could get there the long way in a few minutes of calculation.

Now personally, I only got just enough understanding of Math to read a QM book and recognize how much work it would be to get more than a vague I kind of see what your doing thing going. But, sure if you mean the starting point for monumental effort then yea a solid undergrad math background is 'enough'.

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#22

Post by psychedelic »

pvg wrote: post #16
Retric wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Learn' can be fuzzy. IMO, most undergrads taking an undergrad DifEq course will have little understanding of what they are actually doing and just treat it as symbol manipulation. I have seen people encounter the same problem with calculus, matrices, or even simple algebra. And you can keep pushing, but at some point if you want to progress you need to revisit older topics and hopefully gain new understanding. It's…

I'm not sure I understand any of this. The person asking is trying to understand the difference (and required effort) between Khan Academy and what's linked on the page - basically 'Maths textbooks for curious undergraduates'. That's a good and sensible question and whatever you think the answer to it is, it surely isn't (as suggested by the person responding) 40 years of ferocious training in the Arctic with Doc Sav…

I think he was just trying to be more clear on what we define as "learned" in the context of math. Many people "learn" math and do well on tests because they have memorized ways to manipulate equations to resolve the problem without actually understanding abstractly what is going on, and are thus often less creative with their maths. Ironically, I've found that those students who appear to excel in maths are usually the ones who are less curious about the why and how of math. Maths is usually taught in a way that it discourages the people who seem to struggle with it when they are often just trying to understand the depth of it more. I was one of these students in high school, and thought I just wasn't gifted. Fortunately I had the discipline to learn it and eventually had a really good teacher.

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#23

Post by adarsh_p »

This is a good collection of resources, but even more valuable would be the syllabi and homework sets from graduate-level theoretical physics courses, which can guide the interested learner through the vast amount of material, and help them gauge what is a reasonable pace of progress and not get bogged down (this has happened to me whenever I've tried to self-study from textbooks).

Source: Just got my PhD in theoretical high energy physics.

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#25

Post by pvg »

psychedelic wrote: post #22
pvg wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand any of this. The person asking is trying to understand the difference (and required effort) between Khan Academy and what's linked on the page - basically 'Maths textbooks for curious undergraduates'. That's a good and sensible question and whatever you think the answer to it is, it surely isn't (as suggested by the person responding) 40 years of ferocious training in the Arctic with Doc Sav…

I think he was just trying to be more clear on what we define as "learned" in the context of math. Many people "learn" math and do well on tests because they have memorized ways to manipulate equations to resolve the problem without actually understanding abstractly what is going on, and are thus often less creative with their maths. Ironically, I've found that those students who appear to excel in maths are usually…

I got that, I just don't think it has anything to do with the question (or the bad answer I was replying to).

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#26

Post by pvg »

paulpauper wrote: post #19
pvg wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stuff linked on the page is stuff you'll learn as an undergrad or before.

i'm pretty sure QFT is not undergrad

The specific page linked is 'Primary Mathematics'. There is no QFT there. The question is about the delta between that and Khan Academy, where do you think QFT comes into it?

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#27

Post by santaclaus »

paulpauper wrote: post #17
Stasis5001 wrote: post #14

For reference, generally people learn all this over four years of undergrad and probably the first few years of grad school (I have a BS in physics, and a PhD in a different field, so not 100% sure on the grad school work). That's 6 years of more or less full-time work, surrounded by excellent peers and mentors, where every week you read 2-4 chapters and do 10 problems per chapter. If you're motivated and talented, y…

I'm pretty sure the number of high-quality researchers in theoretical physics, or any major field, who are totally self-taught is really quite small. I think it's zero

It is rare (Ramanujan), but happens! [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#28

Post by brendyn »

Stasis5001 wrote: post #14

For reference, generally people learn all this over four years of undergrad and probably the first few years of grad school (I have a BS in physics, and a PhD in a different field, so not 100% sure on the grad school work). That's 6 years of more or less full-time work, surrounded by excellent peers and mentors, where every week you read 2-4 chapters and do 10 problems per chapter. If you're motivated and talented, y…

Scott Young self studied a 4 year MIT course in 1 year, although not to such a high level as you discussed: https://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/myprojects/mit-challenge-2/

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#29

Post by sidlls »

Stasis5001 wrote: post #14

For reference, generally people learn all this over four years of undergrad and probably the first few years of grad school (I have a BS in physics, and a PhD in a different field, so not 100% sure on the grad school work). That's 6 years of more or less full-time work, surrounded by excellent peers and mentors, where every week you read 2-4 chapters and do 10 problems per chapter. If you're motivated and talented, y…

Some of the most amusing things I saw while I was in academia were "proofs" of various things sent in from random people. I admired their desire to contribute even while I marveled at how "not even wrong" they were.

Re: How to Become a Good Theoretical Physicist

#30

Post by quantum_state »

Very nice to see this conversation ... The list is nice and reasonably comprehensive ... it may seem long but it is not as daunting as it looks ... would like to think it is a guidance ... knowing the material does not mean one would become a good theoretical physicist, not knowing all of them does not mean one cannot become a good physicist. Since physics is an experimental science, it makes sense to know in a bit of detail how the observed facts are connected to gain one's own intuition ... this would help to make the list seem short and things become natural ... it also makes sense to know the landscape of the fields and the people in the community ... this will help one to avoid reinventing the wheel or wander into the wild with no return (to reality :-)) ... keeping these in mind, one should be able to enjoy physics or even do something meaningful at some point ...
Post reply on HN