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

So you want to learn physics (2021)

susanrigetti.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 170 posts

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#131

Post by xvedejas »

amluto wrote: post #65

This has the same omission that my undergrad program had: continuum mechanics. Even just the very basics (pressure, velocity, etc in a moving, non-equilibrium system) and translating between the terminology used by different science and engineering fields (static pressure, total pressure, velocity pressure, stagnation pressure, hydrostatic pressure, dynamic pressure, plain old pressure, head, oh my!) is very useful.…

You've described the core of a usual Chemical Engineering curriculum. A school with a good engineering program would definitely offer these classes, maybe under a name like "transport phenomena" (in my experience).

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#132

Post by bigger_cheese »

tekla wrote: post #27
jwuphysics wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A professor remarked that it was a bit sad that physics students nowadays have a better understanding of quantum field theory than fluid mechanics. He mentioned this while lecturing on QFT.

But fluid mechanics is haarrddddd (Aeronautical Engineer). Compressible fluids can go suck it. I rue the day Navier-Stokes became a thing.

Agreed, I studied Materials Engineering - Fluid Dynamics was one of the hardest subjects in my opinion. I liked thermodynamics it made sense to me, solid mechanics was a bit of a slog to get through (endless amounts of beam deflection) but fluid dynamics arrghh.

I chose to take a particle physics course as an elective in my final year - I was planning to specialize in battery and capacitor technologies and wanted to learn more.

The lectures were very different to Engineering much, much more theory focused(almost nothing on applications) it was my introduction to things like Hamiltonians, Wave Functions and Fermi-Dirac statistics. I'm glad I took the course I learnt a heap especially about semi-conductors it gave me a better appreciation and understanding of things we covered in my engineering degree like magnetism and phonons/heat transfer as well. But I will say it did feel like another world compared to Engineering - there was much less in common than I would have thought.

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#134

Post by sizzzzlerz »

antegamisou wrote: post #86
meristem wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have text/other sources suggestions for this? I agree with you, would like to learn more.

Halliday & Resnick Fundamentals of Physics is what we used in AP as well as in freshman year at college. Covers most sections one needs to be familiar with to be physics literate (solid/fluid mechanics, waves, thermo, electromagnetism, optics, relativity).

Is that still in print? That was the physics book we used my freshman year, in 1974. It was a great book. I’m still sorry I sold it.

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#135

Post by 3abiton »

bkcooper wrote: post #123
amluto wrote: post #65

This has the same omission that my undergrad program had: continuum mechanics. Even just the very basics (pressure, velocity, etc in a moving, non-equilibrium system) and translating between the terminology used by different science and engineering fields (static pressure, total pressure, velocity pressure, stagnation pressure, hydrostatic pressure, dynamic pressure, plain old pressure, head, oh my!) is very useful.…

You might be interested in Kip Thorne (of Gravitation fame) and Roger Blandford's book Modern Classical Physics , which is designed to cover the elements of non-quantum physics that are generally ignored in the first year PhD curriculum. Part headers: statistical physics; optics; elasticity; fluid dynamics; plasma physics; general relativity

Fluid dynamics was the most awful course I ever took. I still get nightmares of me failing my graduation because of Navier-Stocks equation

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#136

Post by paulpauper »

tekla wrote: post #27
jwuphysics wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A professor remarked that it was a bit sad that physics students nowadays have a better understanding of quantum field theory than fluid mechanics. He mentioned this while lecturing on QFT.

But fluid mechanics is haarrddddd (Aeronautical Engineer). Compressible fluids can go suck it. I rue the day Navier-Stokes became a thing.

at least fluid mechanics in the context of engineering is only 3 dimensions. QFT needs more.

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#137

Post by paulpauper »

bluish29 wrote: post #37

> Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson (essential). This is the bible of classical electrodynamics, and everyone who works through either loves it or hates it (I loved it). I agree that there is a division between who loves that book (like the author) and the majority of the graduate students who had nightmares (and sometimes still gets). I like this goodreads review of the book [1] > A soul crushing technical manual…

the author's IQ is high enough that I don't think this opinion is applicable to anyone reading it

Classical Electrodynamics by Jackson (essential). This is the bible of classical electrodynamics, and everyone who works through either loves it or hates it (I loved it).

If you're smart enough that advanced college physics comes as easily as learning to talk, I guess this would be true. The author of this guide is such a huge outlier in every respect of life. I have seen and read many smart people and she's easily in Witten or Tao territory of just being otherworldly smart. I don't think she ever encountered anything being hard. Jackson for her is like a walk in park, which is otherwise regarded as a formidably hard text.

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#138

Post by pjacotg »

sizzzzlerz wrote: post #134
antegamisou wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Halliday & Resnick Fundamentals of Physics is what we used in AP as well as in freshman year at college. Covers most sections one needs to be familiar with to be physics literate (solid/fluid mechanics, waves, thermo, electromagnetism, optics, relativity).

Is that still in print? That was the physics book we used my freshman year, in 1974. It was a great book. I’m still sorry I sold it.

That was my first year text book in 1998. Sounds like it's still going strong!

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#139

Post by paulpauper »

amluto wrote: post #65

This has the same omission that my undergrad program had: continuum mechanics. Even just the very basics (pressure, velocity, etc in a moving, non-equilibrium system) and translating between the terminology used by different science and engineering fields (static pressure, total pressure, velocity pressure, stagnation pressure, hydrostatic pressure, dynamic pressure, plain old pressure, head, oh my!) is very useful.…

Hydraulics are everywhere. Ever used a sink? Flushed a toilet? Contemplated an air filter? Felt both sides of a small fan? Wondered how, exactly, a utility pump causes water to go in the inlet and out the outlet, and tried to read the manufacturer’s spec? Contemplated that the ripples when you throw a rock in an actual pond really don’t resemble the average “look I made water in WebGL” animation very much?

if you can understand the PDEs of GR and QFT, you can apply it to this too

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#140

Post by paulpauper »

kingkongjaffa wrote: post #13

It’s a decent list but thermodynamics is introduced way too late in the list (after modern and quantum wtf) and fluid dynamics and fluid mechanics including aerodynamics is entirely missing. If you have a physics education (I have an engineering education) can you tell me if you can really get a physics degree without bumping into Bernoulli or Navier-Stokes? At least just to see the lay of the land.

again, if you can get a good grasp of the differential equations of GR and QFT, then you can make the leap to other topics. it's not like starting from zero. there is a large base of knowledge
Post reply on HN