[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 93 KB, 381x500, DD5A1AB3-47B1-4509-B5A8-7F6B24BFA18D.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12499094 No.12499094 [Reply] [Original]

>finish prereq classes with low effort and meh grades
>EM got hard but still managable
>3 chapters into QM and can hardly get through any HW problems without getting stuck and looking up solutions
>cant decide if i need to buckle down and study hard or give up and work as a plumber

seems like many very smart people say anyone can learn this stuff with effort and they werent naturally taleneted, but is this just them trying to come off as humble? is hard science only for genetic elites?

>> No.12499107

>>12499094
If you're above 130 you can handle it; though you'll need to be at least 150 if you want to have a decent academic career. Don't even think about making any significant contributions

>> No.12499123

>>12499107
if im struggling while putting in low/medium effort does that mean im probably sub 130, or is it normal to find it hard? uni is closed due to covid and i hardly made any friends so far so i have no clue how much my peers are struggling

>> No.12499124

>>12499123
Most people vastly overestimate their own intelligence - 130 is a relatively high IQ.
You and everyone in your class is likely sub-130 except for 1 or 2 outliers.
Everyone in the class is probably struggling about the same as you.

>> No.12499126

>>12499094
If you're having issues with Griffiths QM then go back and review diffy eq and linear algebra

>> No.12499127
File: 851 KB, 900x900, 1607217926004.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12499127

>>12499094
What's the problem? Physicists generally have a hard time with linear algebra for some reason while (theoretical) chemists don't seem to struggle with it, at least here.

>> No.12499134

>>12499107
I don't know why people speak about IQ like it is a limitation to what you can do. Go look up William Shockley, he won the nobel prize in physics. When he was young he participated in a qualification process for a gifted individual programme and did not make the cut. I think his iq was 125 or 120. IQ is seriously very mediocre at determining success in the 100-145 range.

>> No.12499141

>>12499123
Listen here man, don't get fixated on your IQ, just do it

>> No.12499153

>>12499094

Maths is just practice. Your just lazy. That book is just linear algebra.

Stop putting in garbage low effort.

>> No.12499156

>>12499153
This

>> No.12499163
File: 355 KB, 864x770, 1606933795318.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12499163

>Noo QM is so hard
>beginner physicist's QM is 1D cartesian single particle problems, trivial scattering problems
>advanced QM (still Ba, mind you) is 3D cartesian single particle problems, more advanced scattering
>next step: second quantization. and off we go to high energy physics (this actually can be hard)
They completely disregard most of the hard bits of wf-based QM entirely.

>> No.12499165

>>12499126
>>12499127
>>12499134
>>12499153
thanks thats comforting to hear, i will try harder. just hope im not wasting my time

>> No.12499167

>>12499094
How many child geniuses make an actual contribution to science or become even decently respectable researchers or professionals in their field? Almost none, innate ability is a meme told by people with either a superiority or inferiority complex

>> No.12499169

>>12499094
Griffith's QM has bad problems that are unrelated to the text. Worse, you don't get to linear algebra for like 200+ pages. You'd be better off with Shankir or even The Theoretical Minimum volume on QM. Much better problems.

>> No.12499195

>>12499169
That should be ~100 pages, not +200.