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

Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

realphysics.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 72 posts

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#41

Post by batou »

timnic wrote: post #40
batou wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I discovered this last year after arrogantly jumping into the first volume of Feynmans Lectures on Physics. 50 pages in, I decided to take a step back and read a calculus book first, but wait my algebra and trig are crap so back to the basics. So yesterday I hit LCM and GCD applications and factoring which are very basic. So, I'll probably resume the initial book in a couple of years or so...

Math is wide and deep. You won’t need to cover every topic in math to get going with physics. If you really are interested in physics there are many things in math, which are, well, less important (for doing basic physics). For example LCM, GCD and factoring. I guess, these things are somewhat important in Computer Science, but I never encountered them in a physics problem. So to get started with physics, I would sug…

Thanks for the pointers. Much appreciated.

I'm doing a full review of mathematics at the moment. Not in depth, more of a "here's an application of the GCD function" so I know what tools to use to solve specific problems. All this is beneficial for the day job as well who expect to see some value from my time spent even though I'm not being totally honest with the objective to them. Realistically I want to think abstractly in the terms of mathematics and develop some intuition.

Was completely unaware of the Theoretical Minimum series. Thanks for that.

Edit: I'm reading Mathematics: From the birth of numbers by Jan Gullberg as a text. Wonderful book. Covers just about everything and is beautifully written by a non mathematician with no assumptions spared and no education target. In fact the forward is mainly bitching about the education system. Slightly worried I will get distracted by this book but that's never a loss!

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#42

Post by timnic »

21p wrote: post #19
edtechdev wrote: post #10

Related to this, there's a fair amount of research on the connection between embodied cognition and the learning of physics (and mathematics), as well as examples of 'embodying' physical forces and laws. An example from Hans Freudenthal is from a standard physics question. If there are books on top of a table, what are the forces acting on the books? Most all students draw the downward force of gravity, but some forg…

The problem I have always had with the analogy of a person holding up the books with their back is that a table doesn't have to do "work" to hold up the books, but a person does. They table isn't burning any calories.

This is discussed by Feynman as “physiological” work. See: http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_14.html#Ch14-S1

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#43

Post by semi-extrinsic »

timnic wrote: post #40
batou wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I discovered this last year after arrogantly jumping into the first volume of Feynmans Lectures on Physics. 50 pages in, I decided to take a step back and read a calculus book first, but wait my algebra and trig are crap so back to the basics. So yesterday I hit LCM and GCD applications and factoring which are very basic. So, I'll probably resume the initial book in a couple of years or so...

Math is wide and deep. You won’t need to cover every topic in math to get going with physics. If you really are interested in physics there are many things in math, which are, well, less important (for doing basic physics). For example LCM, GCD and factoring. I guess, these things are somewhat important in Computer Science, but I never encountered them in a physics problem. So to get started with physics, I would sug…

If one has any interest in quantum field theory, I would add complex analysis (countour integrals in particular) to that list.

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#44

Post by timnic »

batou wrote: post #41
timnic wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Math is wide and deep. You won’t need to cover every topic in math to get going with physics. If you really are interested in physics there are many things in math, which are, well, less important (for doing basic physics). For example LCM, GCD and factoring. I guess, these things are somewhat important in Computer Science, but I never encountered them in a physics problem. So to get started with physics, I would sug…

Thanks for the pointers. Much appreciated. I'm doing a full review of mathematics at the moment. Not in depth, more of a "here's an application of the GCD function" so I know what tools to use to solve specific problems. All this is beneficial for the day job as well who expect to see some value from my time spent even though I'm not being totally honest with the objective to them. Realistically I want to think abstr…

I do not know "Mathematics: From the birth of numbers" but judging from the Amazon quick view it seems to cover a lot of ground (BTW: one thing I missed in my list are the basics of differential equations).

Over 1000 pages is quite a long read, though. I never managed to read a (science) book as big as that from cover to cover myself. One thing I learned through the years is to never use only one book for learning. Books have different styles and not every style fits to every student. Additionally one book might be good at one specific topic and weak on another. So nowadays I always use a couple of books (or online resources) to learn a new topic.

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#45

Post by batou »

timnic wrote: post #44
batou wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the pointers. Much appreciated. I'm doing a full review of mathematics at the moment. Not in depth, more of a "here's an application of the GCD function" so I know what tools to use to solve specific problems. All this is beneficial for the day job as well who expect to see some value from my time spent even though I'm not being totally honest with the objective to them. Realistically I want to think abstr…

I do not know "Mathematics: From the birth of numbers" but judging from the Amazon quick view it seems to cover a lot of ground (BTW: one thing I missed in my list are the basics of differential equations). Over 1000 pages is quite a long read, though. I never managed to read a (science) book as big as that from cover to cover myself. One thing I learned through the years is to never use only one book for learning. B…

Its huge yes but a lot of it is fluff and history. It does serve to keep it interesting however.

Quick page shot to show the scope and density: http://i.imgur.com/sV1WYFd.jpg

I have a number of other books as well that I use as a reference as well so no problems there (calculus for the practical man has some different insights). Oh and betterexplained.com.

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#46

Post by selimthegrim »

timnic wrote: post #40
batou wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I discovered this last year after arrogantly jumping into the first volume of Feynmans Lectures on Physics. 50 pages in, I decided to take a step back and read a calculus book first, but wait my algebra and trig are crap so back to the basics. So yesterday I hit LCM and GCD applications and factoring which are very basic. So, I'll probably resume the initial book in a couple of years or so...

Math is wide and deep. You won’t need to cover every topic in math to get going with physics. If you really are interested in physics there are many things in math, which are, well, less important (for doing basic physics). For example LCM, GCD and factoring. I guess, these things are somewhat important in Computer Science, but I never encountered them in a physics problem. So to get started with physics, I would sug…

You will certainly need them if you have any interest in quantum information.

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#47

Post by jessriedel »

wyager wrote: post #35
jivardo_nucci wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong on two levels: Our physical intuitions are Galilean, not classical, mechanics (that is, they are non-Newtonian). For example, our intuitions tell us that an object set in motion eventually slows down and stops. That's Galilean (also termed "folk physics" or "naive physics", usually by cognitive scientists). Most of us had to study formal physics to advance to Newtonian classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics (QM…

I'm not sure why you're being downvoted; you're absolutely right that, intuitively, humans seem to understand physics in a Aristotelian manner. It's quite obvious why; Aristotelian physics is an efficiently computable approximation of real physics that works OK for caveman level technology on earth. This is very similar to how scientists for a long time believed in classical Newtonian mechanics, because it's a reason…

His comment has technical errors, but more importantly it just doesn't address the parent's argument. It's a non sequitur.

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#48

Post by ivansavz »

batou wrote: post #39
reagency wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very important. Many students hit a wall when physics passes beyond lay intuition and whatever may they already know well. Advancing in mathematics is essential to feeling comfortable in advanced physics.

I discovered this last year after arrogantly jumping into the first volume of Feynmans Lectures on Physics. 50 pages in, I decided to take a step back and read a calculus book first, but wait my algebra and trig are crap so back to the basics. So yesterday I hit LCM and GCD applications and factoring which are very basic. So, I'll probably resume the initial book in a couple of years or so...

Perhaps my math book can help you learn the basics a little faster: http://noBSgui.de/to/MATHandPHYSICS/

One suggestion: make sure you don't just read about math, but also try solving exercises and problem. These are very important for actually learning the material.

Re: Physical Intuition, Not Mathematics (2011)

#49

Post by batou »

ivansavz wrote: post #48
batou wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I discovered this last year after arrogantly jumping into the first volume of Feynmans Lectures on Physics. 50 pages in, I decided to take a step back and read a calculus book first, but wait my algebra and trig are crap so back to the basics. So yesterday I hit LCM and GCD applications and factoring which are very basic. So, I'll probably resume the initial book in a couple of years or so...

Perhaps my math book can help you learn the basics a little faster: http://noBSgui.de/to/MATHandPHYSICS/ One suggestion: make sure you don't just read about math, but also try solving exercises and problem. These are very important for actually learning the material.

Thanks - that looks excellent. I will definitely take a look at your book this evening.

Agree with solving problems; this was what was missing from my school education. Literally rote and box ticking with zero applications.

Post reply on HN