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

71–80 of 170 posts

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#71

Post by lanza »

nologic01 wrote: post #63

The title should probably be: "So you want to learn theoretical physics". While generally little known and appreciated among modern theorists and mathematical physicists, physics is actually an empirical science. In other words, every single section of that reading list is based directly or indirectly on a diverse and sophisticated set of devices and measurement configurations (aka experiments). Also, most progress i…

She just lists the standard curriculum through undergraduate and graduate degrees. I clicked the links to all the books and my Amazon has the purchase dates from when I took those courses. It's not specific at all to theoretical physics.

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#72

Post by lanza »

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.

Former theoretical physicist here (quantum gravity). TBH I don't know what Navier-Stokes is.

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#73

Post by javajosh »

brightlancer wrote: post #66
javajosh wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and I'd take it further. What I'd like to see more of in physics texts is presenting a problem before offering the solution. Too often you get what amounts to a laundry list of techniques and ideas, which are the components to the answers to hard problems, but the student isn't motivated to learn them. If you present the hard problem first, the student may flail around and realize: I need something to help with…

> What I'd like to see more of in physics texts is presenting a problem before offering the solution. Yes. > If you present the hard problem first, the student may flail around and realize: I need something to help with this! Now that they know they need it, and why, you can give them the tool that fits the bill. No. If an instructor deliberately gives a student a problem that they know the student _cannot_ solve, th…

I don't think it breaks trust, if you tell them what's going on. "Hey kids, I'm going to give you a problem that went unsolved until Newton. I don't expect you to find his answer, which I'll teach you later, but I want you to try to solve it your own way."

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#74

Post by dang »

sebg wrote: post #17

Previous posts, if you want to take a look at the comments there: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=susanrigetti.com

Thanks! Macroexpanded:

So You Want to Learn Physics (2016) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24088985 - Aug 2020 (124 comments)

So You Want to Learn Physics (2016) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18374994 - Nov 2018 (122 comments)

So You Want to Learn Physics - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12691963 - Oct 2016 (129 comments)

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#75

Post by rollinDyno »

This post comes in at a very good time because I have recently begun to become interested in particle physics and have so far only resorted to watching YouTube videos. This is a sign that it is maybe time for me to jump into a textbook.

However, I seem to be interested in a few particular questions about particle physics as a science rather than facts about particle physics. For instance, I am interested in the instruments and methods that physicists use to verify their theoretical claims empirically. I am also interested in how theorists are able to come up with theories so early on, such that they are confirmed by evidence many years later. What are the assumptions that they were able to make? I am curious about where they derived the creativity to be able to bring in so many assumptions together and the come up with their models. Now that I write this, I realize that before theories were validated there were probably competing models.

Therefore, I am not exactly sure I want to study particle physics per se, or whether a book on the history of particle physics will do. I am ok with having a popular understanding of the subject, I mostly want to gain inspiration from following the work of famous scientists.

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#76

Post by ghaff »

lanza wrote: post #72
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.

Former theoretical physicist here (quantum gravity). TBH I don't know what Navier-Stokes is.

Consider yourself lucky :-) Fluid dynamics and I never got along very well--probably mostly the math (partial differential equations mostly as I recall).

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#77

Post by lanza »

btrettel wrote: post #31
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.

I've noticed before that "physics" as in what is taught for a physics degree has gaps which make little sense to me as a mechanical engineer. Continuum mechanics (including both fluid and solid mechanics) is unfortunately nearly entirely absent aside from some basic things like Hooke's law and Bernoulli's principle. In my view, what's taught for a physics degree is more of a historical accident than a selection of th…

A physics undergraduate degree is different than a lot of degrees in that it's 100% incomplete for the purpose of training towards a real profession. Nobody hires physics bachelors. It's just the four year mark of your studies to be a 8+ year trained physicist.

And for that purpose of being an intermediate degree to becoming a physics PhD, Navier-Stokes isn't relevant. You don't use it in most fields that are generating physics PhDs in the 2000s and beyond.

There's only so much time to teach somebody in four years and there are significantly more important things that are also being left out (e.g. more thorough courses on group theory).

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#78

Post by LYK-love »

After reading this blog, I'm ashamed. I just graduated from college. In my high school, the education of physics was so boring and tiresome that I even hated it at one point. For this reason, I chose computer science rather than physics as my major in college. Later, I gradually became interested in physics, however, due to the lack of good enough study habits, atmosphere and courage (which is a self-deprecating way of saying cowardice and laziness), until now I have not taken a step forward. This is the decision I regret most in my life. I am going to the United States to study for a master's degree in CS. Maybe I can learn some physics during the freetime of the two-year program because the educational resources in the United States are more abundant(perhaps).

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#79

Post by beltsazar »

qsort wrote: post #3

A point that's rightfully emphasized by the author: > Solving problems is the only way to understand physics. There's no way around it. This generalizes well to other fields. I don't want to discourage anybody from trying to educate themselves in a difficult field (be it physics or something else), but that's a very common and immediately visible problem with autodidacts. If you haven't worked through enough hard pro…

>> Solving problems is the only way to understand physics. There's no way around it.

The reason is that you think you understand what you read, but as Richard Feynman said:

> The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

You think you understand 90% of what you read, but in reality it's probably only 20-30%. By doing the exercises, at the very least you'll know that you don't know that much. And if you then reread the materials a few pages before, you'll realize that you have skimmed (or worse, skipped) some parts because you mistakenly thought you already understood it.

Another tips from my personal experience: When you're reading a textbook, keep asking in your mind questions with the types of "what if" and "how about," which are sometimes not yet explained in the section you're reading. Also, keep associating what you've recently learned with what you've already known (days ago, years ago).

Be curious and validate that you really understand what you think you understand.

Re: So you want to learn physics (2021)

#80

Post by ChuckMcM »

ecshafer wrote: post #61
ChuckMcM wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally 100% with this. When younger I thought I could read the material and say "Oh, okay that makes sense I understand this." Only to fail miserably when on a test or somewhere I had to apply what I "knew" and realizing I didn't actually know it. I lean strongly toward autodidacticism and learned that if I could solve problems with the technique then I knew it.

My calculus 1 professor gave the advice that the best way to study is to do every problem in the book, then go and get another book and do every problem in that book, and keep doing that until you look at a problem and know exactly every step to do immediately.

Time consuming but I can see this being really really effective.
Post reply on HN