/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12005353]

/PhG/-/Physics General/
First thread edition.

[Anonymous No.12005367]

How many of you took real analysis as an undergrad and did you find it useful for the first year grad level coursework like QM and QED? I have a working grasp of basic analysis and algebra but I wanted to cement things by working through Rudin and Royden, this feels like it might be a waste of my time though given I’m not a math major and don’t enjoy writing proofs.

[Anonymous No.12005390]

>>12005367
>needing other people to teach you
NPC
To answer your question I did learn real analysis but I taught myself well enough to pass exams.

[Anonymous No.12005565]

>>12005390
I said in the post I’m learning from Rudin and Royden. Taking analysis would be a waste of my time as I already feel confident I could self teach. What I’m curious about is if it was actually useful to any of you for grad level work where mathematical maturity is more important ie Landau&Lifshitz, Jackson, Sakurai level textbooks and the accompanying courses. While I am interested in pure math I really hate proofs and find myself drifting mentally when I’m deep into a pure maths text while this never happens when I study science.

[Anonymous No.12005626]

any1 have a resource, or image, with the magnetospheres of each planet in our solar system and the sun, so i can see them relative to one another?
Particularly with orientation and strength and direction of rotation of the planet

[Anonymous No.12005637]

>>12005626
just google it for each planet
only Earth and the gas giants will have one

[Anonymous No.12005754]

>>12005367
>real analysis

i don't think i had a proper real analysis class, i saw real analysis topics in other classes though

[Anonymous No.12005761]

>>12005353
You should upload the chart to imgur and just post the imgur link in future OPs to allow other OP images.

[Anonymous No.12005767]

>>12005353
It should be /phys/.

[Anonymous No.12005804]

>>12005367
Real analysis? For grad physics courses?
Not really. Linear algebra, complex analysis, PDE's, and fourier series were much more helpful to know.
And you'll be mostly computing stuff, not writing proofs.

[Anonymous No.12005819]

>>12005637
Do any of the Galilean moons have magnetospheres?

[Anonymous No.12005835]

>>12005637
i keep getting stuff like this, i cant get anything with their details relative to one another

[Anonymous No.12005843]

>>12005367
Real analysis is a basic tool of modern mathematics that is required if you want to go into more advanced topics. Obviously most of the things developed in those books will almost never come in a physics question, but well, a friend who is working in string theory told me he had to use elliptic curves and algebraic geometry. I don't know how you can begin to makes sense of those subjects without some analysis algebra etc.

[Anonymous No.12005869]

>>12005565
If you are interested in physics, I suggest learning differential geometry instead. Also step up your ODEs and PDEs. Analysis will certainly help cement all that theory, but then again details of the number system may not be too relevant (as far as I can tell). Rudin is for pure mathematicians, it doesn't provide anything for intuition, won't serve you if you don't like the pure mathematics. Perhaps a book on complex analysis will serve you better. Stewart or Needham may be good, perhaps there are better resources I am not aware of.

[Anonymous No.12005874]

>>12005869
>but then again details of the number system may not be too relevant (as far as I can tell)
Scratch that, if you hope to use any mathematics you do need to know what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.12005892]

>>12005835
Don't worry, the planets are very far apart. Even Jupiter's magnetosphere, at it's widest, is about 3% of the shortest axis of the wave troughs in the heliosphere.

[Anonymous No.12005902]

>>12005804
Don’t you need functional and real analysis for Fourier Series and PDE’s?
>>12005843
I was worried that without a basic training in analysis, even just something as simplistic as Baby Rudin, I wouldn’t be any good at higher level mathematically involved topics. The computational coursework like ODE’s, Lin Alg, Vector Calc has been easy for me but I have only had one proof based class in Lin Alg and it immediately felt like I could more easily use and comprehend the computational aspects of the subject afterwards.
>>12005874
That was what I had intuited and also my undergrad advisor had urged me to consider taking an analysis and then proof based PDE’s course to prepare for grad school.

[Anonymous No.12005945]

>>12005902
Why don't you try to learn Fourier series this week?

Its really not a difficult topic or take that long. Youll see taking a detour into extra proof-based analysis courses just for this is just silly. If that's your interest, do it, but its not a skill first year grad students use at all (unless they are going into very specific theory research)
You definitely dont need it (extensive, rigorous analysis knowledge) for first yr QM, anywhere

[Anonymous No.12005969]

>>12005819
only ganymede

[Anonymous No.12005972]

>>12005892
Jupiter's magnetosphere tail overlaps with saturn's rings though. That's the only example of this not being the case

[Anonymous No.12006023]

>>12005945
>why not try it in a week
Well I could do that. Do you have a suggestion for a fast and dirty but still useable intro to fourier series?
>you won’t use the aforementioned math in grad school
So, how do physicists learn the functional analysis they need? Straight out of the grad level texts or does it materialize in their brains from the crystallization of gaseous secretions from the anal glands of their advisors? Srs question desu.

[Fellow of The /mg/ Society No.12006040]

>>12005565
>While I am interested in pure math I really hate proofs and find myself drifting mentally when I’m deep into a pure maths te-
FILTERED.

[Anonymous No.12006042]

>>12006023
>how do physicists learn the functional analysis they need?
It's on a need-to-know basis, heuristic arguments argued from the finite dimensional case with braket notation, usually not rigorous.
You have to understand, for most physicists math is only a tool, it's not the end goal. The physics intuition is what guides them. Mathematical rigor is at best a second thought and at worst an impediment.

[Anonymous No.12006087]

>>12006040
Then its a higher degree of filtration, I can easily do the exercises but I don’t enjoy any of it unless there is an explicitly geometrical or physical content to the ideas. Showing that such and such result holds for symmetric matrices or that this or that mapping behaves in some peculiar way under very specific circumstances, this series does this under these conditions, none of this is interesting to me. Only the assurance that all of that is well defined and rigorous gives me a small sense of satisfaction.
>>12006042
Then how is it that the founders of QM contributed to functional analysis purely by way of their physical investigations? It makes no sense that you could have a command over mathematical tools to such a degree that you are even capable of contributing to mathematics but don’t have any formal training or explicit knowledge of the theory itself.

[Anonymous No.12006105]

>>12006023
>Do you have a suggestion for a fast and dirty but still useable intro to fourier series?
Lyons' Understanding DSP is basic, but Im not sure I have anything better. Honestly, wikipedia or online lecture notes are not bad here, and thats what I learned it from

>So, how do physicists learn the functional analysis they need?

I agree with the other poster. If you look at the problems in Jackson or Landau/Lifshitz, they are much more similar in style to what you get in a freshman physics book than an analysis book. Physical solution has priority, rigor is secondary. The method which you approach and solve these problems is very different than (the sort of semantic) way proofs are constructed

[Anonymous No.12006183]

>>12005565
>While I am interested in pure math I really hate proofs and find myself drifting mentally when I’m deep into a pure maths text while this never happens when I study science.
you're seriously not gonna make it with this mindset. what does it mean to 'study science?' memorize crap and do experiments? if you think this then you're best suited for biology and chemistry with the women and minorities. Proofs are not only the only way to show something is true, they give you insight into the field you're studying so understanding the fundamental proofs in a field and going on to prove some others yourself is the only real way to master something in mathematics.

[Anonymous No.12006193]

>>12005902
>functional and real analysis for fourier series
well not really if you are just studying basic fourier series. However, if you are studying in general harmonic analysis you will definitely need some things from both like Lp spaces, lebesgue integrals, hilbert spaces, etc.

[Anonymous No.12006225]

>>12006183
>what does it mean to study science
Investigate the mechanistic underpinnings of natural phenomena, to generate models and quantitative techniques for predicting the behavior of these models, conducting and carrying out rigorous and careful experiments dealing with these phenomena, interpreting the results of these experiments using physical intuition, quantitative models and preexisting theory, and statistical analysis, formalizing the results of our experiments in light of the models, experiments and theory. All of which require a mixture of physical and mathematical intuition to effectively carry out. See for instance Newtons' geometrical proofs of his mechanics, Gibbs mathematical formalisms for statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, Maxwell and Heaviside's mathematical approaches to electromagnetism and the experimental work of people like Rutherford, Mach, and Curie. You pretentious faggot.
>>12006105
>>12006193
What I'm curious about, with the reservation that I expect to attain to none of the brilliance of such people, is how Feynman, Gibbs, Lagrange, Dirace and their ilk came up with the mathematical formalisms that they applied to solving physical problems without the aid of rigorous training and practice with mathematics. For instance I was watching Dyson's interviews about his education prior to focusing on physics and he constantly seems to be pained over his own lack of physical intuition and his inability to engage with purely mathematical work. Born also expresses similar sentiments regarding his attempts to go into pure math, and I just don't see how one walks the line between the two types of reasoning without rigorous and extensive training in both mathematics and theoretical physics.

[Anonymous No.12006253]

>>12006183
name a single thing you can prove in physics
protip you can't

Its fundamentally different from pure mathematics

[Anonymous No.12006268]

>>12006253
Not him but literally just substitute the word proof for the word derive and it still makes sense

[Anonymous No.12006275]

>>12006225
So it seems like you don't have much exposure to math proofs. No one ever explicitly tells you this but the proofs you see in books are not how people think, those are not the first steps someone took when they were proving something. The proof you see is a tidied up version stripped of all the tiny details, really stripped of the authors thought process. For me when I write a math proof it's to formalize the messy argument I've made up in my mind and to ensure I haven't made any mistakes. I'll also say this: diving into proofs without someone there to guide you is extremely painful and time consuming. Doing proofs is like anything else, the more you do of it the better you get, the better you get the more you enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.12006282]

>>12006087
You really don't look like someone who's had any sort of physics background past high school, otherwise this whole discussion wouldn't be a mystery to you.

[Anonymous No.12006290]

>>12006253
The spin statistics theorem brainlet.

[Anonymous No.12006294]

>>12006268
I was just about to say you do actually sort of deduce results without engaging in purely empirical reasoning.
>>12006275
You keep bringing up the process of formal mathematical reasoning. I understand that research mathematics is nothing at all like working problems in an algebra textbook for undergraduates. My obstacle with this kind of "pure" mathematical reasoning is not so much lacking the basic competence to begin or carry out the process of constructing hypothoses, using definitions, applying various bags of tricks, and aligning my arguments such that we attain a desired result and establish whatever structure the author is trying to convey to the reader. I just find myself bored, I find the process inane, and without motivation, frequently I just don't see why I shouldn't take the word of the author that this is a valid deduction from the given theory. With physics the result is intriguing to me, I really do feel a compulsion to investigate why a limiting case should turn out to be as its suggested in the problem, how we can derive some result from fundamental equations because I can see how this would be useful for physical explanations of the world. Its the end goal that motivates or demotivates me. Aside from geometry, like the problems you find in do Carmo which I've enjoyed so far, I could give a damn how some operator behaves or how some special function gives whatever contrived result. Its not interesting to me specifically, I grant that to others there is nothing more that they enjoy.

I say that you're pretentious because you assume, clearly without experience, that mere memorization should suffice for biology and chemistry, or that there is anything wrong with memorization when it is clearly of important not only for understanding when to use basic facts of your field but when it might allow you to work your way out of an exotic problem using a result that would be a pain to derive on the spot.

[Anonymous No.12006300]

>>12006282
I haven't had any exposure past second year physics. I'm asking how it is that the later stage mathematical physics comes about and why it is that all of the physicists insist they have no need for higher mathematics when it is precisely the most productive physicists with the greatest range and contributions who have a command of higher math that dwarfs that of even many mathematicians. You are not saying anything I wouldn't readily admit.

[Anonymous No.12006305]

>>12006294
I'm not the anon that was saying biology was all memorization >>12006275

[Anonymous No.12006313]

>>12006300
OK, you should have just started with this.
>all of the physicists insist they have no need for higher mathematics
This is an older attitude and it's definitely not the mainstream view nowadays. Many theorists do recognize the importance of higher mathematics to their desired field of study and do go out of their way to properly learn it. That said, this stage only comes around after the research phase, not when taking the first year grad courses. Also, it's only for the math that's applicable to their field: a GR specialist will need to learn geometry and topology but can get away with not learning much functional analysis.
>most productive physicists with the greatest range and contributions who have a command of higher math that dwarfs that of even many mathematicians
That said, those are the rare exceptions, not the rule. Of course the mathematicians will be better at higher mathematics than your average theorist. And of course, your average theorist isn't Dirac, Witten, etc.

[Anonymous No.12006318]

>>12006300
Great, the first attempt at a physics general on sci, and we have a self-admitted physics brainlet hijack the thread.

[Anonymous No.12006324]

>>12006318
At least the thread isn't dead?

[Anonymous No.12006327]

>>12006313
I see. So, if I am interpreting the now obvious and redundant advice you've all in one way or another offered: I should focus exclusively on picking up mathematical techniques as needed, investigate the formalism if it really is necessary to apply the tools of the trade, and worry only later on about getting a solid grounding in the more formalized ideas of things like functional analysis, probability, and diff geo? I just don't want to waste my own time during undergrad and have felt that I am forcing myself to learn content that is not only unmotivated for me but feels alien to what I really want to work on in graduate school and beyond. I appreciate the replies, and apologize if I was being in any way rude.

With that said, do you have a preferred mathematical methods for physicists type book that is appropriate for undergrads? I have a decent amount of facility already with the dumbed down ideas of analysis from my own self study at this point, just not at the level that would appropriate for advanced analysis courses which was why I mentioned Royden, and also with diff eq, vector calc, and freshman probability&stats.

[Anonymous No.12006328]

>>12006324
Yeah, might as well discuss actual physics.
Whatever happened to all the hype with Moire patterns and magic angles? Is that still a thing?

[Anonymous No.12006332]

>>12006318
You make a general, I ask honest questions. You are in every way free to ignore or hide the posts, and to go about with your own discussions. What have I done to damage the quality of the thread especially in light of how rare it is to appear in the catalog? If its an eyesore then I can't do anything more than apologize and be honest with my intentions. Its not as if I will ask the same questions again.

[Anonymous No.12006340]

>>12006327
>So, if I am interpreting the now obvious and redundant advice you've all in one way or another offered: I should focus exclusively on picking up mathematical techniques as needed, investigate the formalism if it really is necessary to apply the tools of the trade, and worry only later on about getting a solid grounding in the more formalized ideas of things like functional analysis, probability, and diff geo?
Yes.
>So, if I am interpreting the now obvious and redundant advice you've all in one way or another offered: I should focus exclusively on picking up mathematical techniques as needed, investigate the formalism if it really is necessary to apply the tools of the trade, and worry only later on about getting a solid grounding in the more formalized ideas of things like functional analysis, probability, and diff geo?
Arfken was my Math Methods textbook, I think it's OK, but there's probably better choices out there.

[Anonymous No.12006344]

Why is physics so shit compared to pure math?

[Anonymous No.12006346]

>>12006328
It got solved I believe

[Anonymous No.12006374]

>>12005353
WHY is physics so hard for me?
What can I do to more easily synthesize physics?

I seriously failed basic physics. Like newtonian, mechanical physics, the most base level shit. It wasn't just that I couldn't keep up with the work -- it was genuinely difficult to conceptualize and solve equations.

Any advice for a brainlet such as myself?
What steps did you take to excel in physics?

[Anonymous No.12006387]

>>12006340
Thank you for the help. I’ll take a look at that text.

[Anonymous No.12006390]

>>12006374
What exactly did you find hard about it? There is an innate level of difficulty the higher up in topics you go but, from personal experiencing tutoring, lots of people are weak in their math and also don't do enough practice problems.

[Anonymous No.12006430]

>>12006327
Not him butI had the exact same worry you have when I was in undergrad. I'm currently working on a PhD in mathematical physics, in topics related to quantum field theory and quantum mechanics in general. The thing is that to have a full mathematical understanding of a physical theory, sometimes the mathematical requirements have diminishing returns. For example, the actual rigorous theory of distributions (dirac delta whatever) can be pretty dense just to realize that at the end you can kinda actually do what physicists were doing already (like with differentials and infinitesimals), so you realize that what they teach you is enough for plenty of applications and fields. Or in other sense, they teach you not based on giving you a general theory applicable to anything you can imagine, but focusing on what is typically used, so you shouldn't feel the need to go beyond what is being asked of you. Now, mathematical physics is not useless drivel like some physicists would like you to tell, and there are plenty of open questions that are mathematical in nature and the best way to attack such questions require physical intuition and rigorous mathematical abstraction. QFT for example, is thought to be a generalization of QM and can explain much phenomena up to certain energy range when in reality the theory is seriously lacking and useless to explain pretty basic phenomena sometimes, and to understand why well it is necessary to understand what the theory actually is mathematically and no one knows till this day. The thing is you are probably not going to prove some new phenomena that hasn't been observed, but the point is to see if your theory actually is capable of describing it. I love doing this and I know it can be kinda fringe, but yea I would be lost if I didn't took analysis topology and algebra in undergrad. So just keep reading into different fields and see what kinda research you want to do.

[Anonymous No.12006449]

>>12006430
>>12006327
And for mathematical methods well depends. As the other anon mentioned arfken will introduce you to the usual physics lingo. However if you want a book that introduces the type of higher level math typically used I think you should check Nakahara. Check Hilberts book too or any modern version based on it.

[Anonymous No.12006490]

>>12006290
prove spin exists
waiting...

[Anonymous No.12006494]

>>12006490
Ok retard, obviously physics depends on observed physical phenomena, but you can deduce pretty strong results from basic assumptions that can be tested.

[Anonymous No.12006501]

>>12006430
>>12006449
I appreciate the thorough reply and recommendation, I've seen Nakahara mentioned in /mg/ before as well and so I guess I'll have to take a look.

What worried me was the idea of going into grad school with less experience with actual physics than my peers if I spent too many credits/hours on pure math, and also obviously the converse, not having the skills necessary to comprehend or do anything with the more advanced theory. I'll try to be more thoughtful about what I devote time to as ideas come up in my studies I guess.

There was one other question I had for you, did you feel that you needed to pick up anything from measure theory for your grad work and later for your actual PhD work dealing with QFT and QM? This might not be something you have a ton of experience with but does it have any use at all in statistical physics? So far I've enjoyed reading into thermo and stat mech more than the other basic topics I've covered and while I can pretty easily follow the math used in the basic bitch texts, given the probabilistic formulation of stat mech, I was wondering if the harder measure theoretic probability played an important role.

[Anonymous No.12006542]

>>12006490
lol get a load of this guy. You don't prove a physical phenomenon, you model it.

[Anonymous No.12006584]

>>12006501
Actually, measure theory is a fundamental aspect of my work. The study of the energy spectrum in QM is fundamentally related to many important theorems in measure theory. I would say that most interesting examples in functional analysis require measure theory of some sorts. Yea I had it to pick it up because I didn't knew how important it was and I still keep learning as much as I can.

From statistical physics, the best example I can think of is ergodic theory. It's formulation needs measure theory and there and it relates to why the second law of thermodynamics arises. For a more practical my advisor has done some works with "gibbs measures" which are probability measures like the one in statmech but in lattices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammersley%E2%80%93Clifford_theorem This theorem is important and it's formulation greatly aids from measure theory. This is the examples I know but I'm sure statistical mechanics greatly benefits from a measure theoretic setting. For me many things I learned in probability only made sense after I took a measure theoretic approach. However I still wouldn't be so eager to say that if you want to go into stat mech you must know physics. From a mathematical foundations part absolutely, but it may not be that used for a lot of work.

[Anonymous No.12006587]

>>12006501
Actually, measure theory is a fundamental aspect of my work. The study of the energy spectrum in QM is fundamentally related to many important theorems in measure theory. I would say that most interesting examples in functional analysis require measure theory of some sorts. Yea I had it to pick it up because I didn't knew how important it was and I still keep learning as much as I can.

From statistical physics, the best example I can think of is ergodic theory. It's formulation needs measure theory and there and it relates to why the second law of thermodynamics arises. For a more practical example my advisor has done some works with "gibbs measures" which are probability measures like the ones in statmech but in lattices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammersley%E2%80%93Clifford_theorem This theorem is important and it's formulation greatly aids from measure theory. This is the examples I know but I'm sure statistical mechanics greatly benefits from a measure theoretic setting. For me many things I learned in probability only made sense after I took a measure theoretic approach. However I still wouldn't be so eager to say that if you want to go into stat mech you must know pmeasure theory From a mathematical foundations part absolutely, but it may not be that used for a lot of work.

[Anonymous No.12006588]

any experimental phds here?
can you guys go into lab?

[Anonymous No.12006615]

>>12006390
>lots of people are weak in their math and also don't do enough practice problems.
This is probably the case.
It makes sense that confusion is only as big as you allow it be -- by avoiding the hard thinking and practice and all that.

I do feel it takes me way longer to do that stuff though. I'm pretty sure I have ADHD. If I supplement with Kahn academy beforehand though, I'm sure I'll be swimming alright.
That's my plan anyways.

[Anonymous No.12006630]

Physicslet here.

Is e=mc2 a precise equation? How is the speed of light involved and why is it squared?

[Anonymous No.12006646]

>>12006630
it is the equation relating the rest mass (m) of an object to its total energy.
the total energy depends on the rest mass multiplied by the speed of light squared
if an object is in motion, it has additional energy, so you can find the extended equation
[math]E^2=(mc^2)^2+(pc)^2[/math], where p is momentum

[Anonymous No.12006657]

>>12006615
>I do feel it takes me way longer to do that stuff though
This is common with topics you haven't fully grasped yet and you shouldn't be discouraged. Remember how long it took to ride a bike for the first time despite people able to do it with ease and even do tricks?
>I'm pretty sure I have ADHD
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, all it means is that you have to take as much time as you need. ADHD won't inhibit your learning insofar as your ability to understand will always grow as you work with the material longer.
> If I supplement with Kahn academy beforehand though, I'm sure I'll be swimming alright
I take this to mean you are still learning elementary math. If this is the case, I suggest trying to learn up to basic differential, integral calculus, and trigonometry before attempting Newtonian physics (Physics "1" in colleges). There are concepts you can understand at the algebra level but it's just way easier to learn once you get the math out of the way first. Don't worry about learning everything in math, just get comfortable enough that reading a physics textbook is possible for you.

[Anonymous No.12006662]

General relativity is too simple to be true. It's really just differential geometry. How arrogant is it to expect something as complex as the universe to behave according to such a simple model? At least in QFT you run into renormalization showing you that your model is far from being perfect.

[Anonymous No.12006666]

>>12006662
>How arrogant is it to expect something as complex as the universe to behave according to such a simple model?
Stephen Wolfram is quaking

[Anonymous No.12006693]

>>12006657
I appreciate your advice anon. Although I meant to imply Kahn's Physics curriculum, you are right that I still have to master Calculus. I'll make sure to put that on the top of my list. Hell, I'll start tomorrow.

Thanks again anon. I'll do my best!

[Anonymous No.12006734]

>>12006587
This looks quite interesting, I'll have to keep this in mind when I get to more rigorous stat phys later on. I was looking at Kadhars Stat Phys books after I finish up with the undergrad material. I suppose I'll just try to absorb what I can of measure theory from lecture notes and scattered sources as needed then. You seem to suggest you pick things up outside of the coursework you've had. Do you go about this by working through grad level math textbooks or are you just skimming through books and online resources?

I've been very puzzled by what people mean when they say they self-teach. For me that has thus far meant having to read the whole of a textbook, work most of the problems, drill myself with mock exams, looking things up online where I get confused. Basically emulating the classroom environment.

Do you find that method efficacious? It feels like I'm cargo culting learning, while I do try to take notes, and ask questions beyond what is presented in the texts it just feels like an old educator's interpretation of how students learn and I don't think that its really how I learn well.

[Anonymous No.12006746]

How do we know that diamond is the hardest metal known to man? Is it just an empirical observation or is it even theoretically impossible to find or synthesize a harder material? Can hardness be inferred only from looking at molecular structure?

[Anonymous No.12006750]

>>12006746
Pocket-protected scientists built a wall made of iron and crashed a diamond car into it at 400 miles per hour, and the car was unharmed. They then built a wall out of diamond and crashed a car made of iron moving at 400 miles an hour into the wall, and the wall came out fine. They then crashed a diamond car made of 400 miles per hour into a wall, and there were no survivors. They crashed 400 miles per hour into a diamond travelling at iron car. Western New York was powerless for hours. They rammed a wall made of metal into 400 miles an hour made of diamond, and the resulting explosion shifted earths orbit 400 million miles away from the sun, saving the earth from a meteor the size of a small Washington suburb that was hurtling towards mid-western Prussia at 400 billion miles an hour. They shot a diamond made of iron at a car moving at 400 walls per hour, and as a result caused over 10000 wayward planes to lose track of their bearings, and make a fatal crash with over 10000 buildings in downtown New York. They spun 400 miles at diamond into iron per wall. The results were inconclusive. Finally, they placed 400 diamonds per hour in front of a car made of wall travelling at miles per iron, and the result proved with out a doubt that diamonds were the hardest metal of all time, if not just the hardest metal known to man.

[Anonymous No.12006753]

Lie groups, ODEs, PDEs, Greens Functions, Linear Algebra (intermediate level), complex analysis, and theres a lot of subgenres that really help but these are the main ones

[Anonymous No.12006813]

How hard was the subject GRE for you guys and did you study at all? I'm trying to go over this and look for places I can improve before I take the text next year and just wanted to know if its even worth worrying about:

https://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/practice_book_physics.pdf

[Anonymous No.12006853]

>>12005367
Coursework? Dude it's irrelevant. Analysis is not a part of your physics curriculum for a reason. It's not like there was a secret curriculum for the Enlightened PhD-to-be's that you were excluded from or something. I swear, undergrads believe in some sort of deep academic conspiracy where the lizard people are holding back the truth... about which electives one needs to take to be successful in life, or some other inane, petty shit.

Learn things you enjoy. I found analysis was very fun. If you don't, then stop. I don't use a single technique from analysis in my research, unless you count copious applications of Cauchy-Schwarz. I write physics papers with rigorous proofs. If you don't like that, then you don't have to. It's nice to know what a Lebesgue measure is and what the actual underpinnings of L2 is, but unless you want to do hardcore mathematical physics, you truly, honestly don't need to know that shit. Grad level physics courses are still physics. They don't suddenly turn into math courses.

I'll say one more thing about grad school and getting a PhD: you'll pick up what you need to further your research along the way (or you won't, in which case you'll probably drop out or be kicked out). You can go ahead and sit down with a textbook and try to learn some broad subject on your own, but it's highly unlikely that anything specific you learn will be useful. At all. That just really isn't how it works once you're at the cutting edge of research. By all means, go ahead if you like the topic, but since you say you "don't enjoy writing proofs", it seems like a pointless waste of your time.

[Anonymous No.12006870]

>>12006813
I definitely did not study enough and I deeply regret it. I blew it off and got an 800. Lucky to get into a PhD program at all.
The physics GRE is kinda like coding for scientific computing: everyone expects that you can do it trivially and it should be no problem for you to translate the equations to lines of code. But when you actually get down to it, it requires a nontrivial amount of effort. Furthermore, no one actually wants to see the effort you put into it, they just want to see the results (GRE score) that validates what they already intuitively decided was true (you are/are not baseline competent at physics).
Anyway, bad analogy aside, take it seriously and aim for the highest score you can get. Focus on those weak spots in your understanding. Game the test taking strategies. Etc.

[Anonymous No.12006988]

What are my career prospects with an undergrad degree in physics? I don’t want to go back to school to pursue a graduate degree but I am willing to learn additional stuff to enrich my curriculum like programming etc. To be more specific what opportunities will an undergraduate degree in physics provide me when it comes to employment? Also I have zero experience in the field besides attending classes and doing exams and have been out of school for a few years working on a completely unrelated office job.

[Anonymous No.12006998]

>>12006988
Teaching and code monkey jobs at best

[Anonymous No.12007060]

>>12006998
>code monkey jobs
How would I go about looking into this? There are so many programming languages with different applications that I don’t even know where to start. And what is it like being a code monkey memes aside?

[Anonymous No.12007111]

Is there a way to get research experience with only a Master's? I'm in the UK.

[Anonymous No.12007120]

>>12007111
summer internship, see what you like and contact the teachers in this field & who have phd students and ask them if you can do an internship for 2 or 3 months. it won't be paid though.

[Anonymous No.12007121]

>>12005367
I'm taking real analysis but it's not necessary and I'm paying with my own money but my Physics classes are paid for.

[Anonymous No.12007124]

>>12006988
>Also I have zero experience in the field besides attending classes and doing exams and have been out of school for a few years working on a completely unrelated office job.
oof madone

[Anonymous No.12007131]

>>12005353
This list has to be a joke, right?

[Anonymous No.12007135]

>>12006344
because pure math sis for low iq who cant think outside FOL

[Anonymous No.12007166]

>>12006318
>first attempt
Not really.
>>/sci/?task=search2&ghost=&search_text=&search_subject=%2Fpg%2F&search_username=&search_tripcode=&search_email=&search_filename=&search_datefrom=&search_dateto=&search_op=all&search_del=dontcare&search_int=dontcare&search_ord=new&search_capcode=all&search_res=post

[Anonymous No.12007169]

>>12007060
You would just try programming some fun stuff or physics problems in your langauge of choice. That's probably how you learn it best. Or you go after some specific job like data scientist or Java front end developer or whatever and learn the toolkit these positions need

>How is code monkeying
soul crushing

[Anonymous No.12007191]

>>12007166
Its always good to be reminded how much the average iq of this site has fallen since the election. also funny how severe the reddit influx has been in the last two years. very different diction, reaction images, conversational style, thread flow

[Anonymous No.12007248]

>>12007191
Wouldn't know, since I came here during the election.

[Anonymous No.12007263]

>>12007169
>soul crushing
Like what? Underpaid, unrealistic deadlines, overwhelming workload or are you just referencing the fact that you have to stare at a bunch of lines of codes for hours on end? Can you be more specific?

[Anonymous No.12007288]

>>12007191
personally, i blame the pedophiles, i mean the anime posters

[Anonymous No.12007316]

>>12006988
Jobs that are open to those with bachelors

Test Engineers
Systems and Control Engineers
Radiology
Nuclear Power Plants

Your gap from schooling will likely make it difficult though.

[Anonymous No.12007679]

>>12007131
I don't know if intentionally. But it was definitely made by someone who had never personally used a single one of those books.

[Anonymous No.12008303]

>>12006693
No problem, do your best man.

[Anonymous No.12008311]

>>12005835
>>12005626
WHWRES MY DATA
I’m not worried about anything I just want to see all the ducking planets and the details of their rotations and magnetospheres wrt one another and the ducking sun
What is so hard about a guy wanting to know the similarities between the axes of rotation and magnetic fields
What is this forbidden knowledge ffs

[Anonymous No.12009155]

>>12006253
while I agree with you in spirit, in physics just as in math, you make some small assumptions (axioms) and then you can prove all sorts of things like conversation theorems.

[Anonymous No.12009204]

>>12007135
Based retard

[Anonymous No.12009288]

>>12006813
it's in your best interest to study pretty hard for a month or two before the test. take it early so you have the opportunity to take it later.
the physics GRE is very hard simply because of the amount of knowledge you need to regurgitate in a short amount of time. it's unlike regular physics exams. and unlike other subject GREs, the physics one is still considered in applications (although to varying degrees at different schools)

[Anonymous No.12009415]

>>12009288
is there a good comprehensive problem book of undergrad physics I could work through? I’m willing to just go back to the texts i’ve self studied and work/rework problems but that seems inefficient and tedious.

[Anonymous No.12009436]

>>12009415
no and that's the problem. undergrad books focus on problems that are like 5+minutes to solve at the minimum. pGRE problems give you under 2 minutes on average if you want to finish the whole exam. it's a crock of shit and definitely not the type of physics that people really do.
as shitty as it is I recommend the "conquering the physics gre" book, since it's the only one geared towards these types of problems. work through the book and then if there's a topic you're still struggling with go review it in a regular textbook.
I find the book helpful in getting you to a low 900 range, but it actually doesn't cover everything so if you want to really shoot for a high 900 score (for top schools) then you're just gonna have to prep out the ass from a lot of different sources and also get a bit lucky on the questions they ask. a good number of questions are like "general modern physics knowledge" that don't get covered because the question can be asking you literally anything phenomenologically related to recent developments in physics. pretty sure my exam asked what the significance of the [math]J/ \psi[/math] particle was, which you either know or you don't.

also don't be discouraged the practice tests in this book are harder than the real test, in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.12009964]

>>12007679
Wald and both the QFT books are excellent

[Anonymous No.12009967]

>>12007131
Taylor, Griffiths, Goldstein, and Jackson are right where they should be. Simon, Griffiths Elementary Particles, and Pathria are OK, though I'd move Pathria to the 2nd section. Can't vouch for the others though

[Anonymous No.12009968]

>>12007679
Taylor, Griffiths E/M, Townsend QM, Jackson EM, Schwartz and Srednicki QFT are all well-known as the best books in their skill range.
I would pick a different advanced QM book (Sakurai or Shankar) and definitely not "intro to elementary particles" because it's trying to introduce a complex topic too early.
Everything else I can't speak to because I never did GR

[Anonymous No.12010045]

>>12007679
I used university physics for entry series, griffiths for EM, and Taylor for classical mechanics out of that list.

Is Hecht not standard in undergrad optics? I can't remember my thermo book, just that it was available in pdf online which is why my thermo teacher used it.

[Anonymous No.12010109]

why are there no good advanced optics books

[Anonymous No.12010205]

>>12010109
There's Hecht, but it's not a self teach book. It's too much convoluted.

[Anonymous No.12010209]

Any advice (books, important classes, etc) for someone wanting to get into plasma physics? I am currently doing undergrad research on galactic magnetic fields.

[Anonymous No.12010918]

>>12006750
Wow man, science

[Anonymous No.12010925]

I like this general.

[Anonymous No.12011988]

Bump

[Anonymous No.12011996]

What’s a good place to lay low and read some books?

[Anonymous No.12011997]

>>12011996
Look at this art!

[Anonymous No.12012001]

Tell me if you guys want more.

[Anonymous No.12012002]

>>12010209
I found Davidson's Introduction to magnetohydrodynamics helpful, but I guess every other book about mhd will do

[Anonymous No.12012015]

Is the chart guide in the OP a meme? I want to study a bit of Physics since I never really took it during HS--where do I start? I know enough math (calculus) but my dumb ass never took physics.

[Anonymous No.12012022]

>>12012015
I would honestly recommend taking a trip to a library or book store.

Cheers!

[Anonymous No.12012053]

What's a good resource to learn vector calculus rigorously? I'm trying to learn by reading Appendix A in Griffiths EM but it doesn't seem detailed enough and the book he reccomends (Calculus on manifolds by Spivak) is kinda tough to read. Also, is there a way to formulate vector calc in terms of linear algebra? It seems like a nice analogy, transforming basis vectors into different coordinate systems and describing divergence/curl in terms of matrix multiplication.

[Anonymous No.12012077]

>>12012053
Go to a school. Just fucking face your fears and do it.

[Anonymous No.12012090]

>>12012015
feynman
>>12012053
>Also, is there a way to formulate vector calc in terms of linear algebra?
Not sure about a rigorous way, but ideas from linear algebra are everywhere. From derivatives as basis vectors to differential equations as eigenvalue problems.

[Anonymous No.12012098]

>>12012077
I go to school my friend, but only learned vector calc from a physics/engineering perspective. I wanna learn it more abstractly so I can better understand shit.

[Anonymous No.12012115]

>>12012015
It's not really a meme. I think some books like Jackson etc. are overrated, but I've read almost all of those books and they're almost all good.
I dislike Shutz's general relativity a lot though.

[Anonymous No.12012737]

Bump

[Anonymous No.12012822]

>>12012002
Thx, I will take a look

>>12012053
I used Vector Calculus by Matthews

[Anonymous No.12012825]

Does anyone want me to crack open this book?

[Anonymous No.12012833]

>>12012825

[Anonymous No.12012845]

:)

[Anonymous No.12012852]

[Anonymous No.12012859]

>>12012852

[Anonymous No.12014061]

>>12012015
yeah its made by some snob and not actually a good guide for an absolute beginner
1. do not start learning EM with griffiths, its often not given to undergrads at their first year because it includes higher-level maths and concepts
2. to understand QM you need to learn about waves and optics first, as many integral quantum mechanics experiments rely on optics systems
3. do not start off with statistics or thermal physics, this is also a 3rd/4th year course

for starting off i would highly recommend walter lewins mit ocw courses, 8.01(classical mechanics), 8.02(electromagnetism) and 8.03(waves). they give you a basic introduction to math-based physics in general. also remember to look at the recitations of these courses online for question solving
they suggest ohanians "Physics for Engineers and Scientists" for the 8.01 course but frankly you might find it a bit too simplistic if you already know math, as it is designed for first year undergrads with very limited calculus knowledge

[Anonymous No.12014951]

>>12014061
>1. do not start learning EM with griffiths, its often not given to undergrads at their first year because it includes higher-level maths and concepts
Isn't this literally encapsulated by the starting point of the chart, the university physics tome? The Griffiths recommendation at this point would be a second look at EM, not first.
>2. to understand QM you need to learn about waves and optics first, as many integral quantum mechanics experiments rely on optics systems
Waves yes. Optics can be skipped or best left in the introductory chapters as experiments with some explanation. Also, basic optics is also covered in the university physics tome.
>3. do not start off with statistics or thermal physics, this is also a 3rd/4th year course
Again, the university physics tome has baby thermodynamics. You are not starting off with stat mech or thermal physics.

>for starting off i would highly recommend walter lewins mit ocw courses, 8.01(classical mechanics), 8.02(electromagnetism) and 8.03(waves)
I like him a lot, not a bad choice.

[Anonymous No.12014980]

>>12014061
>2. to understand QM you need to learn about waves and optics first, as many integral quantum mechanics experiments rely on optics systems
i disagree with optics
never needed it for studying qm except basic concepts like interference and fields. Instead I would offer linear algebra and functional analysis.

[Anonymous No.12014986]

[Anonymous No.12015273]

>>12014980
>except basic concepts like interference and fields
you can get that from electromagnetism. all you need to know for quantum mechanics is linear algebra and calculus. a background in classical mechanics and electromagnetism would help to understand the physical implications but if we're strictly talking about the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics then linear algebra + calculus should suffice.

[Anonymous No.12015366]

Bros which is the best book for these subjects in general, I slept my way trough highschool no homo.
>Cinematic
>Forces, Newton laws and law of the Universal gravitation
>Work and laws of conservation
>Termodinamics
>Waves
>Electromagnetism
>Fluids
>Optics
>Structure of atoms, nuclear, other forms of energy.
I've thougth about Getting this one but I'm not good with calculus RN. I just need highschool level information.

[Anonymous No.12015481]

>>12015366
yeah in high school I used Giancoli but others used Resnick, I think both are good.

[Anonymous No.12015584]

>>12006746
Diamond isn't a metal, first off. You can learn exactly about how to determine the hardness of the diamond structure from fairly basic solid state physics, which essentially just uses its molecular structure. Maybe there is something synthesizable we don't know about yet that is harder, but there's no way its a natural material

[Anonymous No.12015623]

>>12015481
so this one

[Anonymous No.12015654]

>>12014986
gtfd

[Anonymous No.12015657]

>>12015623
yeah, but now I'm reading that it doesn't do a good job of explaining EM.
you could always supplement that chapter with a better book. maybe try libgen to try it out before you buy it.

[Anonymous No.12015659]

>>12014986
dude i saved your pictures, if you ever get famous I'm blackmailing you

[Anonymous No.12015667]

>>12015657
another thing, Would you recomend me learning calculus before Using Redsnick.

[Anonymous No.12015673]

>>12015667
yes it's a calculus-based book.
unless you're doing this just for a hobby it's vital to understand calculus-based physics.

[Anonymous No.12015683]

>>12015673
this was why shit was so confusing then, thnx

[Anonymous No.12016112]

What is everyone's thoughts on Kleppner and Kolenkow? Is it worth getting?

[Anonymous No.12016117]

I'm starting my first introductory physics course this coming fall semester. I haven't had a physics course since highschool and I have since forgotten everything. I'm 25. Is there anything I should know before going in? I really want to dedicate my entire being to this.

[Anonymous No.12016128]

>>12016112
It is a very good textbook, in my opinion. However, it does assume you have already done a first course in physics, something similar to AP physics. It also assumes you know calculus. I think it's worth at least looking over.

[Anonymous No.12016176]

My uni isn't high tier or anything but it has really good biophysics research opportunities. I'm still in undergrad and far from specializing but I was thinking I could probably help people with a degree in that sort of field.

[Anonymous No.12017053]

>>12016128
I've already done AP physics and some calculus courses, so I guess I'll check it out. Thanks!

[Anonymous No.12017282]

>>12016112
liked it, although not a fan of the relativity section
t. brainlet

[Anonymous No.12017299]

>>12016117
Physics is so much fun man.
Khan Academy would probably help you.
Review vectors and units: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/review-vectors/ https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/Book%3A_Introductory_Physics_-_Building_Models_to_Describe_Our_World_(Martin_Neary_Rinaldo_and_Woodman)/02%3A_Comparing_Model_and_Experiment/2.02%3A_Units_and_dimensions
If you need to know calculus, review the simple derivatives and integrals.
Ask your professor what textbook you'll be using.
Hopefully you'll stick with it for a long time. Good luck

[Anonymous No.12017331]

Undergrad physics majors are so cute, they hang onto your every word and are so fascinated by your mundane research subjects. I'm going to miss having them around this semester (due to covid, ofc).

[Anonymous No.12017537]

>>12007131
I don't see any problem with this list. Never used Taylor, Townsend, and I think Schutz kinda sucks, but Goldstein, Jackson, Wald, Schwartz, Peskin & Schroeder are all excellent books.

[Anonymous No.12018168]

>>12016117
I consider myself to be intelligent so if you're not then your results might vary but I took one semester of General Physics in 2009 and returned in 2018 and took the second semester of General Physics as well as Calculus III. I did fine and got a 4.0. You'll be surprised how quick it all comes back.

[Anonymous No.12018183]

>>12014951
>>12014980
Optics helps prepare students for EM. My course schedule was on an accelerated timelime between two degrees so I had an oddity of taking EM before Optics. Having taken Optics first definitely would had solidified some EM basics.

A better example is that Classical Mechanics is mostly a combination of General Physics and Differential Equations. If you had taken both courses than Classical Mechanics should had required less studying than a typical Physics course like Thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.12018192]

>>12016117
Oh and I forgot to tell you that you should be certain you're taking the right course. The general physics sequence usually requires basic calculus so if you're taking Physics 101/Intro Phys you might be wasting both time and money as Intro Phys isn't Gen Phys 1/Eng. Phys 1 or whatever your school calls it. So definitely make sure you're taking the correct sequence. Most professors will let you take Gen Phys 1 and Calc 1 at the same time of you ask.

[Anonymous No.12018223]

>>12018183
>Classical Mechanics is mostly a combination of General Physics and Differential Equations
this is only true at clown school

[Anonymous No.12018246]

>>12007263
Not the same anon but: generally individuals who like math and physics can be said to be smart and curious individuals who enjoy problems that challenge them and a constant influx of novel facts about the world or some system. Let's call the desire for these things "soul."

Generally most programming jobs are not challenging (or at least very quickly become routone) and are rarely are the tasks novel. Most available jobs are without "soul." However, you often trade "soul" for pay, stability, and flexibility (like remote work). Also you can always fight to introduce "soul" in your day to day, but often the pressure to ship or to deliver product will make it very hard to roll your own solutions (you often can't delay just because something is interesting to tackle -- if someone else solved it go grab what they did and move on).

Depending on your particular career desires regarding novelty, curiosity, pay, stability, and flexibility, you may be fine with the most typical programming job. Otherwise you should probably shoot for a "high tech" programming role (avoid SaaS, aim for good teams at large cos or groups that are building infrastructure/tools), or at least a data science role (though these are more and more taking on the "soulless" flavor).

[Anonymous No.12018247]

>>12018168
>10 years hiatus

wut

[Anonymous No.12018253]

>>12015366
newtonian mechanics is a hack anyway, be an intelligent man, skip newton and learn yourself some lagrangian mechanics instead my man

[Anonymous No.12018283]

>>12018253
I need to learn that for the College admission test.

[Anonymous No.12018356]

does the scalar electric potential only really make sense in electrostatics? cause otherwise E has a non-zero curl and the line integral is no longer path-independent right? if so what's the difference between EMF that you get from faraday's law and voltage, cause in manipulations and stuff they seem to be pretty much the same

[Anonymous No.12018371]

is it reasonable to seek employment (something in scientific computing) after getting a BS and expect to enter a PhD program in something like computational (hard) condensed matter after say 2 years or will universities frown upon not going right after undergrad. frankly I think I have a terrible shot despite really good grades because I don't have that much research experience which means my recommenders probably have nothing to say about me. hoping that somehow working will help that lol

[Anonymous No.12018423]

>>12006294
I am a different person responding to your math frustrations. It really is true that a proof is not at all the thought process, but having a good teacher and having occasional exposure to a more geometrical works helps a lot. For example, in my first year of college, our linear algebra class was once randomly interrupted by some random person the facultu wanted to walk us through the proof. I remember almost nothing, but the images he was working through stuck with me, and the thought process was there, kind of like the difference between teaching a person how to drive by showing them versus expecting a person to drive just with verbal instructions delivered over phone. In any case, in the years since then, I have come up with funny things on my own just from playing around (math proofs, proof methods, intuitive expansions for physics phenomena even a dog could understand). I think most people do that, and I think school is not a good environment to train you to chill and do that. Occasionally, I wake up from a dream with a fully-formed idea for some neat electromagnet propulsion system and when I work out on paper how to balance the aircraft so it doesn't flip over and stuff, it all just works (of course, I can see this will be ahead of time). Similarly, in rare cases, I prove something obscure and rather uninteresting to others than myself, but then when explaining to others I grab their attention but a terribly strong vision flashes in my eyes and it is a dream - an old dream, 15 years old perhaps, and not part of my mini-lecture but clearly integral to the thought-process that allowed me to solve my problem. They don't teach you this stuff in school, and it really cannot be taught. Your conscious mind is spaghetti. My first math prof explained it this way: don't do all your homework all at once. Look at it a biy, go out and walk, look at trees, play around, feel the wind, smell the scents in the garden, then revisit, rinse and repeat - pic related.

[Anonymous No.12018553]

>>12018283
>math
https://www.amazon.com/Calculus-Early-Transcendentals-James-Stewart/dp/1285741552/

>physics (any of the below)
https://www.amazon.com/University-Physics-Modern-14th/dp/0321973615/

https://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Physics-Extended-David-Halliday/dp/1118230728/

[Anonymous No.12018567]

>>12017331
Fuck you.
>>12018423
I’m having a hard time understanding what you’re trying to convey. My issue isn’t with geometry, I like doing exercises from books like do Carmo’s Diff Geo of Curves and Surfaces and any geometrically motivated physics or Calc problem was always fun for me, something I would spend a good deal longer on than a normal exercise. What is soul crushing and irritating is showing some topological property or using some god forsaken trick in conjunction with a chain of meaningless inequalities to force an estimate in analysis. This kind of thing, and some of the proofs I did in Lin Alg regarding the fundamental subspaces, orthogonal projections etc made me want to kill myself. The geometric intuition is there, sometimes I have to work hard for it but I can usually visualize the idea if it isn’t purely analytical. What isn’t is passion or motivation and without these I see no point in learning higher math unless it is explicitly motivated towards solving problems in physics and science in general.

[Anonymous No.12018570]

>>12018553
Stewart fucking sucks, stop recommending garbage and shoveling money into the hands of greedy publishers. Read Apostol or Spivak.

[Anonymous No.12018660]

>>12005353
Dumb code monkey here
What do you actually do after you've studied physics? What, 95% of people who get a degree aren't going to get into a research program anyway and if you're self-taugh, the chance of contributing something to the field approaches zero.
I swear I'm not being intentionally condescending, I legitimately don't understand why someone would go through the trouble?

[Anonymous No.12018686]

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/rel_booklist.html

What do you guys think about this list of books? I’m not talking about the popsci stuff of the history and philosophy books he put in there

[Anonymous No.12018694]

>>12018660
>95% of people who get a degree aren't going to get into a research program anyway
Wrong
There are plenty of industry applications for physics education too, especially for things like surface science and electrodynamics

[Anonymous No.12018708]

>>12018686
Baez is kind of a faggot

[Anonymous No.12018720]

>>12018694
Fair enough but why would anyone learn it on their own? You're not gonna get a job with that and even with a degree, you're far better of going for compsci or EE

[Anonymous No.12018761]

Why don't physicists call the adjoint of a linear operator [math]T : E \rightarrow F[/math] just [math]T[/math] again?
It saves half a second, isn't ambiguous and is exactly the kind of absolute nonsense notation that shows up in physics every now and then.

[Anonymous No.12018786]

>>12016117
>I'm 25
Why bother? You're way too late to actually make a contribution. Most people who excel in the hard sciences are prodigies. Your competition is that autistic kid who's dad is a tenured professor and has raised him since he was four to be a human PDE solving machine. Just give up. I know this is mean but in your heart of hearts, you know it to be true. At your age you should settle down and have children.

[Anonymous No.12018803]

>>12018761
what are you talking about? it's a mathematical definition, if [math]T : E \rightarrow F[/math] is a linear operator then it's adjoint is given by [math]T^* : F \rightarrow E[/math]. Basically the adjoint of a linear operator is equivalent to its backwards transformation. an analogy to what you're asking would be to say "why don't people call the inverse function, [math]f^{-1}[/math], of a function,[math]f[/math], just [math]f[/math] ?"

[Anonymous No.12018814]

>>12018786
>Just give up
You think those autists don't need a shitload of collegues to do the groundwork?
Even Landau needed Lifshitz

[Anonymous No.12018823]

>>12018803
Because anon is drunk and meant self-adjoint operators

[Anonymous No.12018830]

>>12018786
not him but
>You're way too late to actually make a contribution.
says who? you?

>Most people who excel in the hard sciences are prodigies.
not everyone goes into science to become the next nobel laureate, this says a lot about you, i can tell with 95% certainty that you have zero experience in research, most of the work being done nowadays are the result of small contributions by large groups of people all over the world.

>Your competition is that autistic kid who's dad is a tenured professor and has raised him since he was four to be a human PDE solving machine
who's competing against who? science is not a sport

>Just give up. I know this is mean but in your heart of hearts, you know it to be true. At your age you should settle down and have children.
absolute nonsense i won't even bother

[Anonymous No.12018833]

>>12018803
>the adjoint of an operator is its inverse
You fucking brainlet

[Anonymous No.12018835]

>>12018786
I am the autistic son of a math professor and I have a wife who is barren. I have nothing else in my life but getting an education.

[Anonymous No.12018841]

>>12018833
i never said that, i made an analogy to a function and its inverse

[Anonymous No.12018853]

>>12018803
>"why don't people call the inverse function, f−1, of a function,f, just f ?"
Why don't you, when the domains are different?
It's not any weirder than Einstein summation.
>>12018823
>makes sure to specify that the domain and codomain are different
>"he meant self-adjoint"

[Anonymous No.12018865]

>>12018814
>>12018830
>cope

[Anonymous No.12018870]

>>12018865
If his iq is higher than the average physics undergrad faggot at a flagship and he doesn’t mind wasting his own time I see no harm in it.

[Anonymous No.12019142]

>>12018223
The book in OP is what I used. Classical Mechanics by John Taylor. All you need is DE to do every problem in the book (besides basic math algebra/calc etc).

[Anonymous No.12019148]

>>12018786
I went back to school after I was married with children (three at that).

[Anonymous No.12019176]

>>12018356
correct, when you're in electrodynamics the general form of the electric field is:
[math]E=-\nabla \phi -\frac{\partial A}{\partial t}[/math]

[Anonymous No.12019185]

>>12019142
You need calculus of variations technically but not really. He’s talking about an actual serious analytical mechanics course where you need diff geo, dynamical systems, topology, pde’s and analysis. Think like Abraham and Marsden or Arnold. Taylor is a much lower level of abstraction.

[Anonymous No.12019230]

>>12019185
Makes sense anon. Sounds like a grad school course though so I don't have any experience there. I went to grad school for CSE and while it required most of the math you listed, my physics days are done. Lots of CSE degrees stay within the realm of Physics though. CSE is just scientific computing so it can be applied to almost every STEM field.

[Anonymous No.12019309]

>>12019142
There's no reason why lagrangians shouldn't be taught at first year for actual future physicists.
Every time I suggest this idea it's wildly unpopular among faculty and most students but I've done it to partial success in actual classes.
I maintain all first year classical mechanics is just shitty filler for engineers and if it doesn't mention the action, it's clown school.
>>12019185
I have no idea why Abraham and Marsden would be necessary for a physicist. Interesting book but any physicist using the term symplectomorphism unironically should feel at least some shame.

[Anonymous No.12019318]

>>12019309
I didn't learn Lagrangian Mechanics at all (my first exposure to Lagrangians was in QFT) and now I'm in a phd lol
I wish my mechanics classes forced it and it was a requirement, not sure how I slipped past this. however you need differential equations for solving equations of motion so first year students often won't get the full picture (at least in the first term)

[Anonymous No.12019326]

>>12019318
He meant first year of physics majors. So around the time you'd be taking optics and some modern physics class.

[Anonymous No.12019338]

I took classical mechanics and thermo online because covid. I wonder how much quality education I missed.

[Anonymous No.12019346]

>>12019318
The fact that universities unironically allow students to go through not only quantum mechanics but even field theory without knowing what the fuck the action means is just disgraceful.
I once had a student ask me what an eigenvalue was and he was in his 4th year. I'm no longer at that university, but I remember becoming instantly depressed at that question.
It's now not even necessary for students to know the connection between canonical variables and observability, or any of the shit about Hamiltonians that makes physics look like magic.
It's just amazing how bad universities are now. It's really depressing that we're catering to any dickhead who says that physics is too hard so we have to slow everything down at the cost of all the gorgeous stuff we could've explored later.

[Anonymous No.12019389]

>>12019346
Langrangians are standard in undergrad QM. It wouldn't make much sense otherwise. Maybe he didn't take undergrad QM. But as for undergrad classical mechanics there's no reason to diverge from newtonian quite yet

[Anonymous No.12019399]

>>12019389
Why not?

[Anonymous No.12019436]

>>12019389
classical/analytical mechanics is lagrangian mechanics or am I missing something?

[Anonymous No.12019460]

>>12019399
The big ole book of lynchings.... what page should we open to

[Anonymous No.12019462]

>>12019399
What could this be?

[Anonymous No.12019466]

>>12019462
>4032x3024

[Anonymous No.12019468]

>>12019462
I pose the question...

[Anonymous No.12019474]

>>12019466
Hmmmmm

[Anonymous No.12019478]

>>12019436
Classical Mechanics - An expanded look at the topics of Gen Phys I with the expectation that students can do ODE’s and understand the very basics of Lagrangian and Hamiltonian Mechanics. Taylor’s book is a good example.

Analytical Mechanics - The application of methods in dynamical systems theory, analysis, and differential geometry to study the mathematical structure of Classical Mechanics. Very difficult and the student is expected to be mathematically sophisticated and likely doing graduate studies. Arnold’s book is a good example.

[Anonymous No.12019481]

why Did he do it?

[Anonymous No.12019503]

based bookshelf

[Anonymous No.12019543]

>>12019503
There's nothing based there and you live like a loser. Just being honest anon

[Anonymous No.12019552]

>>12019543
https://youtu.be/uqwC41RDPyg

[Anonymous No.12019558]

>>12019543
what about me? positron annhiliation too. 1/5

[Anonymous No.12019559]

>>12019558
I’m not particularly impressed, but thanks for your contribution.

[Anonymous No.12019564]

>>12019558

[Anonymous No.12019567]

>>12019503

[Anonymous No.12019569]

>>12019558
I just sell/return my textbooks back to the school.

[Anonymous No.12019570]

>>12019559

[Anonymous No.12019575]

>>12019567

[Anonymous No.12019583]

>>12019575
For some reason I’m attracted to concrete and steel

[Anonymous No.12019689]

>>12019389
>lagrangians are standard in undergrad QM
what? this is maximally wrong. did you mean CM?
I took both undergrad and grad quantum and lagrangians are not present at all. if I had taken "advanced mechanics" we would've done lagrangian mechanics

[Anonymous No.12020074]

>>12012859
I am looking for who asked and I can't find them.
Btfo astronotard.

[Anonymous No.12020922]

Bump

[Anonymous No.12021009]

>>12012825
this is popsci before youtube

[Anonymous No.12021020]

>>12018865
pedophile, i mean anime poster

[Anonymous No.12021597]

This is the same stupid argument that i saw someone of /fit/ make a couple weeks back, where 21 year thought it was too late to start lifting because there were people who started at 15 and that he wo

>>12016117
Brush up on your calc, trig, and algebra, you'll certainly need it. Ignore retards like >>12018786, who only think something is worth doing if you can only be the top 0.1% of those doing it. There is no shame in starting a physics degree at 25, my roomate was 23 my freshman year after he failed calc 3 twice in CC and he did fine when he actually sat down and did the work.

[Anonymous No.12022689]

asked on the /stg/ and got nothing, do here am i:

how/why can EM waves self-propagate? i know/hear its because the E-waves and the M-waves are in sync with each other, but i don't see why this explanation does anything, because doesn't that presume that there is something in vacuum that can sustain E-waves and M-waves by themselves anyways?

someone on the physics SE says:

"The medium disappears only when one thinks of an electromagnetic field as being nothing, only a vacuum. But this liberal view of the vacuum is quite different from the view of the vacuum in QED, the accepted theory of electromagnetic fields. There the vacuum state doesn't possess an electromagnetic field. More precisely, its expectation value - i.e., what is observable about it - is identically zero."

i don't quite understand this (or QED at all), can someone elaborate?

[Anonymous No.12024993]

>>12022689
what do you mean by "self-propogate"
if you throw a baseball in a vacuum it's not going to stop despite there not being a specific medium for baseballs to travel through

[Anonymous No.12025078]

>>12022689
https://www.pdx.edu/nanogroup/sites/www.pdx.edu.nanogroup/files/11-5__Amplitude_probability%2520How%2520does%2520light%2520really%2520decides%2520which%2520path%2520to%2520follow.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj_4YW0s6frAhVNrJ4KHXlnAm0QFjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1A7kvuXGgyTGzka3FeLyBK&cshid=1597844826857

[Anonymous No.12025093]

>>12022689
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.pdx.edu/nanogroup/sites/www.pdx.edu.nanogroup/files/11-5__Amplitude_probability%2520How%2520does%2520light%2520really%2520decides%2520which%2520path%2520to%2520follow.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj1u6GDtqfrAhWKqZ4KHWixA4UQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1A7kvuXGgyTGzka3FeLyBK

[Anonymous No.12025105]

>>12005353
Is there a chart of books that weren't written by burgers?

[Anonymous No.12025170]

>>12022689
Without going into QED, just ask yourself, why can charges interact with each others at a distant? There is no medium that seems to mediate this interaction. I.e, it is just action at a distant. This already brings your issue really as we tend to see forces and interactions as mechanical in nature like pull/push. If you are willing to accept this, then it shouldn't really be that confusing to think you can also have wavelike objects without a medium to propagate. Historically this have been seen as separate issues as it took a while to model light as EM radiation and so usually people bring the notion of waves without a medium as something really weird or counter-intuitive, but in reality if people are willing to accept coulombs law, then this shouldn't feel all that crazy. The thing is that classically, EM fields are entities in their own right which are already the "medium" for interaction if you like. Coulombs Law what really tells you is how a point charged particle generates this field (because it has charge) and how then this fields acts on other charged particles. So there really isn't a vacuum as this fields are already permeating the universe. Now the fields have quite different physical properties from ordinary physical matter which allows it to behave as a wave and this shouldn't come as a surprise as fields are not localized or aggregate matter, they are defined at every point in space. Also understand that for something to be wavelike it just means that it propagates and is kinda periodic. Because most examples of wavelike phenomena are through mechanical waves, this kinda gives the impression that waves need a medium, but not really. Aether at the last stages really had more to do with not breaking Galilean relativity rather than really the need of a physical medium because light was a transverse wave. At the end special relativity changed that.

[Anonymous No.12025499]

>>12005367
I took real analysis in undergrad, then did a Masters in experimental nuclear/particle physics...so mileage may vary if you go theory. But I found complex analysis SIGNIFICANTLY more useful/actually comes up in QED and I suppose as an extension QM. It is pretty difficult to really get into anything if you do not understand things like the Residue Theorem. Real analysis on the other hand has never really come up for me.

[Anonymous No.12025504]

>>12006253
Without any axioms, is there anything you can prove in """pure""" mathematics?

[Anonymous No.12025523]

>>12006988
Sorry my man, I had 0 luck with jobs with only an undergrad. Honestly, same with a Masters. Took until a PhD and suddenly all sorts of places are offering jobs since they assume you can do anything.

[Anonymous No.12025674]

>>12025499
What you call complex analysis probably is analogous to calling calculus real analysis. In reality complex analysis is as real analysis a really big field and very few things are actually useful in a general sense. In my uni we have something called "complex variable" that all math heavy careers take it and it really is calculus adapted to complex valued functions ending with residues and whatever. But for example, if you want to understand what analytic continuation is, riemann surfaces and that stuff that is used in advanced fields, well it is difficult to learn it without complex analysis which and many texts assume you have some familiarity with real analysis of proof based texts. Yea in general there is no need for it except maybe in high level theoretical research, but if for some reason your research requires knowledge of higher level maths, well those subjects usually assume the reader has some knowledge of analysis, topology or algebra. There are plenty of articles in molecular chemistry and particle physics that uses pretty abstract notions from group and representation theory and well to make sense of these definitions it is difficult if you haven't been exposed to some rigorous constructions.

[Anonymous No.12027111]

Hey anons, I'm a first year undergrad and I'm looking for a book about C++ that focuses a bit in the physical sciences side, a bit like Langtangen's Programming for Computations. Do you have a recommendation?

[Anonymous No.12027133]

>>12025105
check the wiki linked in the sticky, please don't post until you've checked the sticky. thanks.
>>12025499
>>12025674
I ended up settling on working through Rudin and Munkres for some solid background in Analysis and I'll leave it at that until I see fit to learn more from whatever comes up in grad school. Appreciate all the replies that everyone offered it was good to have some outside perspective before I committed myself.

[Anonymous No.12027176]

Hmmm

[Anonymous No.12027368]

This might sound like im spewing nonsense but its only because I'm trying to learn about gauge symmetry and QED.

As I understand it gauge invariance is the idea that as a mathematical description of a potential is only defined up to a scalar function. So we can add any scalar function to the potential and still write down the same physical phenomenon which is the E/B field. Classically, the potential is just a mathematical construct which simplifies the math, right? How does this work in the quantum mechanics?

The potential is how we define the Hamiltonian so once again you can add a scalar function to the potential but necessarily this means that psi -> psi' must change in order for the mathematical equations to be the same under this addition of a scalar function. The idea is that this results in psi being multipled only by an overall phase factor - so psi' produces the same observable effects as psi because wavefunctions that differ by an overall phase are indistinguishable.

I hope I described that all correctly, what do you think? Further, how can you recover the fact that the EM field is quantized from gauge symmetry?

[Anonymous No.12027769]

>>12027111
Solving PDEs in c++ by Shapira

[Anonymous No.12029137]

>>12025674
Haha ya that's a good point, what I refer to as complex analysis truly is simply some surface elements here and there with a few useful lemmas. I suppose I mean an undergrad course called complex analysis would be more useful in the long run, compared to one called real analysis.

[Anonymous No.12029278]

>>12025523
what sorts of jobs did you get offered with a PhD?
I'm in my first year but already wondering if this is the right field for me and just want to know there will be alternative options on the other end

[Anonymous No.12030435]

>>12029278
I got offered a few government jobs, primarily in the defence and energy sectors. Also had some offers to join some start-ups to do machine learning and junk, when I have little to no idea how, so that was funny. I am currently working with industry, specifically flexible electronics.

[Anonymous No.12030489]

Any psychophysics here?

[Anonymous No.12030725]

>>12005353
>Peskin final boss
why? my professor told me to start reading peskin and in one and a half semester after meetings with him i learned basic QFT from peskin and bjorken. The former is way herder to read than peskin. Peskin did his best to get you to Feynman rules asap and util there the book serves as a great intro to QFT imo.

[Anonymous No.12030782]

>>12027368
you are pretty much correct, but the potential is not just a mathematical construct, it is the thing you quantize to get QED, it has dynamics. Now mathematically, it allows as to compare the value of the field [math]\psi[/math] at different points, it is a U(1)-connection. This is done by constructing a covariant derivative that allows parallel transport, just as in general relativity:

[eqn]D_{\mu} = \partial_{\mu} + ieA_{\mu}[/eqn]

then [math]D_{\mu}\psi[/math] transforms nicely as a vector and your Lagrangian is gauge invariant. For quantizing the EM field and getting a photon you need some work. You need to eliminate the extra unphysical degrees of freedom from the gauge invariance and keep only the two physical polarisation degrees of freedom that the photon has. This is ultimately done using BRST but thats difficult af. Look the up Gupta-Bleuler prescription, basically you add a gauge fixing term to the Lagrangian that makes the propagator well defined (the EOM operator is invertible) and then you fix the Lorenz gauge: [math]\partial \cdot A =0[/math]. But the cost you pay is that negative norm states arise from the scalar photon states, the so called "ghost states". You then redefine the physical states as equivalence classes of having the same transverse polarisation state. This is pretty much it, feel free to ama

[Anonymous No.12031581]

>>12027368
in gauge theory, there are several ways to quantize

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gauge_theory#Quantization

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_theory#Quantization_of_gauge_theories

[Anonymous No.12031586]

>>12030725
The OP is oriented to undergrads.

[Anonymous No.12031591]

>>12025674
The concept of analytic continuation is used all over physics, not just "high level" research.

[Anonymous No.12031597]

Anybody here knows how hard it is to major both physics and philosophy? Is it possible to add another major after you've been accepted to a university to do a physics degree?

[Anonymous No.12031600]

>>12031597
>how hard is it
not hard. getting 2 majors is not difficult unless you're using college as an excuse to party
>is it possible to add another major
almost definitely. unless the program you're trying to add has limited enrollment

[Anonymous No.12031605]

>>12031600
thanks man

[Anonymous No.12031611]

>>12031605
of course
t. physics and english lit graduate

[Anonymous No.12031621]

>>12031611
Different person, but do you think the same is true for physics+math. Thanks in advance if this question is retarded

[Anonymous No.12031624]

>>12005804
>And you'll be mostly computing stuff, not writing proofs.
depends if you hang out more in math-phys departments rather than physics. Intuitive jumps are important but physics related proofs and laws are handy and useful.

[Anonymous No.12031626]

>>12031621
probably easier since your classes will have overlap, and if you can take the math version of a physics class try to ask your administration if it can count for both degrees.
your workload will be relatively high in certain terms but honestly anyone who complains about too much work in undergrad just managed their time poorly

[Anonymous No.12031652]

>>12031626
philosophy anon here
any tips for undergrad physics? i was surprised to know that ill be programming a bit in the degree, something i dont like much. do you maybe have a clue on how tough the programming courses are?

[Anonymous No.12031667]

>>12031652
>tips for undergrad physics
don't be a mong. undergrad physics really isn't hard if you like the field.
if you're like me and you never had to study in HS then you should probably start practicing study habits, because you'll have to.
the best part of physics is that there are only a finite number of problems they can give you. so just do a shit ton of practice problems if you need to guarantee a good grade. you'll start noticing similar themes in the problems, and when this happens you're golden.
I felt that the best way to get info out of classes was to read the chapters before the lectures. I had way more questions that way.

>how tough the programming courses are
depends. CS classes are largely easier at the intro level because most undergrads suck at it.
the classes are almost guaranteed to be extremely easy though. just do the exercises, get a friend who can help you with some things if you're stuck.
thankfully programming resources are plentiful online.

[Anonymous No.12031681]

>>12031626
I’m not overly concerned about too much work, I’ve been reading a lot of math books over corona and I’ve done math problems for fun for a while now. I was just worried cause there isn’t as much overlap as I thought there would be after i looked at requirements for both majors. I’m just bugging cause I’m gonna be a freshie this fall

[Anonymous No.12031685]

>>12031681
you'll have overlap in terms of stuff like multivariable calc, linear algebra, diff eq.. Just make sure you only take the subject once, find out from the department which one you should take if there are separate physics/math versions
often physics majors will have a "mathematical methods for physics" and basically you don't want to have to take this.

[Anonymous No.12031690]

>>12031685
Thank you, I hope you make it in the /sci/ /fit/ /biz/ and /soc/ sense of the word because you are very helpful

[Anonymous No.12031697]

>>12031690
thanks anon. good luck at uni, sorry the experience is likely being tarnished by this virus

[Anonymous No.12031700]

>>12031667
>best way to get info out of classes was to read the chapters before the lectures. I had way more questions that way
incredible, will try

thanks once again, youve been big help, cheers

[Anonymous No.12031707]

>>12031700
yep, it's always better to have familiarity with the material before the lecture, otherwise you'll have questions when it's too late.
cheers, enjoy your time in undergrad.

for both of you >>12031700 >>12031690
if you think physics is what you want to pursue (grad school) then I will also say try and find a lab that you're interested in ASAP. even if it's just a fringe interest. grad school admittance heavily relies on research experience so having a lot of it is a huge plus that you can't go back in time to fix.

[Anonymous No.12031738]

>>12031707
>find a lab that you're interested in ASAP
i keep hearing this so i probably will
thanks mate

[Anonymous No.12032240]

Would you pay 6000$ for a BS in Math?
I'm a grad student but only need 20 math credits for the BS and I feel like I'm missing out by not taking Abstract Algebra and Real Analysis. The school is only funding the grad courses but tuition for one course is about 1000$ with the discounts I have. It's only one extra course a quarter for two years on top of my grad load.

[Anonymous No.12032719]

Is this a troll? You could throw away 90% of the books in there, replace them with feynman lectures AND get a better education.

[Anonymous No.12032833]

>>12032240
>would you pay
No. Only retards get tricked into paying for education.
Learn those subjects on your own. There is a plethora of material available to help you with that. You're a grad student, fucking act like one.

[Anonymous No.12032903]

>>12032240
You say you're a grad student, in what exactly? To me, a graduate degree supercedes the credentials of a bachelors so it's not worth it to pay to finish a BS when you'll have an MS anyways. The alternative is to see if their is a dual course code for those courses that are offered as graduate courses. This happens a lot for remediation. Talk with the department or professor to see if there is such a course code.

[Anonymous No.12033927]

>>12032903
Computational Physics.

My advisor said I can do maybe one of the sequences as electives since both abstract algebra and real analysis are dual coded as you said but I have to focus on CS style courses because I don't have a CS background.
>>12032833
This is my first year of a PhD. I prefer classes over self learning and those math sequences would just be value to myself but not necessarily my career/academic path. I thought about taking some senior level math courses or an elementary/intermediate language sequence. In both cases I have to pay because the school only pays tuition on my requisites and approved electives.

[Anonymous No.12034217]

>>12032719
You won’t know how to solve physics problems from Feynman’s lectures, especially not problems in mechanics. He gives you intuition for the key concepts and little else.

[Anonymous No.12034767]

My understanding is that lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics are just different mathematical formulations of Newtonian mechanics. So if I know Newtonian mechanics, will I have to relearn each topic in terms of the new formulation or does it pretty much transfer

[Anonymous No.12034769]

>>12034767
they're completely different in their use. Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics can be shown to yield the same results as Newtonian mechanics.
however Lagrangian mechanics only has a few things you need to "learn," it's more about how you apply it to certain problems.

[Anonymous No.12035097]

>>12034767
Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics can't handle friction and other non-conservative forces as easily as Newtonian mechanics. They can handle forces of constraint easier.

If you want to understand quantum mechanics and field theory (classical or quantum) you need to understand Lagrangian/Hamiltonian mechanics.

[Anonymous No.12035172]

>>12034767
You can think of them as equivalent in terms of practical applications, in the sense that you will get the same answer with both, with some caveats.
Firstly with the Hamiltonian formalism, you can construct a Poisson structure which gives you much more insight into the structure of the theory, so to speak. What you're doing with that is setting coordinates in space and momentum, etc. on the same footing. Momentum becomes completely equivalent to just another coordinate in this sense. You can do a lot of profound stuff with this
The drawback is that time is sort of special in the Hamiltonian formalism in a way that it isn't in the Lagrangian formalism. This is particularly noticeable when you move on to relativistic actions, in which case it's very easy to see when a Lagrangian is Lorentz invariant, but can be hard to see that a Hamiltonian is invariant. This even comes up when you're looking at any continuous system (of which a relativistic field is just a special case) where the issue is that you can only really look at equal-time Poisson brackets, and the Hamiltonian formalism thus loses a lot of its power.
So to put it briefly, Hamiltonians are best for classical nonrelativistic mechanics, whereas Lagrangians are better for continuous media and relativity, generally speaking.

[Anonymous No.12035183]

>>12032833
>>No. Only retards get tricked into paying for education.
people pay for a diploma, not an education

[Anonymous No.12035416]

>>12005353
How does Young and Freedman's book fare against Feynman's? Which one is more brainlet friendly?

[Anonymous No.12035565]

>>12035416
Are you kidding? I haven't read it but Young and Freedman is an intro physics textbook. Those are designed to teach brainlets that were forced into taking a physics class against their will. Basically any intro physics textbook would probably be better to learn from than Feynman if you know no physics at all.

[Anonymous No.12036790]

Is there an explanation for why avg velocity, taken from (delta x / delta t) of position, is identical to the midpoint of instantaenous velocity delta v/2 on the same interval?

[Anonymous No.12036799]

>>12035416
Feynman’s lectures are not sufficient to learn physics you would not be able to pass a Gen Phys midterm if you did nothing but read his book. He does not explicitly calculate anything and leaves out tons of formulas and problem solving techniques that you would not easily be able to derive by yourself.

[Anonymous No.12036941]

>>12005353
>pic
I need a biology one like this.

[Anonymous No.12037202]

>>12036790
because you're not really understanding that dx, x can be a function dependent on time

v/2 will always equal dx/dt if you have a linear function of x

[Anonymous No.12038166]

So I got into some honor society for my grades and one of the perks was they offered me a couple months of audible for free. Do you guys know if there are any good physics related audio books I could just sit back and listen for a while? I want to take in the natural beauty of the mechanics in action outside of class. I could probably choose one that that I just treat like a regular asynchronous online course and study from but eh, I already have a full semester coming up. Still, I'd probably take that route if the material is damn fine though.
Also yes I know
>Audiobooks

[Anonymous No.12038190]

>>12038166
how the fuck would an audio physics book work?
"Because, as we know from the Schrodinger Equation, where i hbar d psi d t equals h psi, h being the hamiltonian, which in our case is equal to p squared over 2m psi, where p is equal to negative i hbar del, plus v psi, where v in our problem is equal to negative e squared over four pi epsilon naught r, we are able to solve this for the hydrogen wavefunction. In order to do this, we..."

[Anonymous No.12038270]

>>12038166
If you’re looking for something more pop sci then A brief history of time is pretty cool

[Anonymous No.12038376]

>>12038190
I seriously have no idea because I was thinking along these same lines.

[Anonymous No.12038383]

>>12036941
I’ve considered making one but every time I recommend books to undergrads they ignore my post or forget to say thank you. If the autist comes back to /sqt/ in the Fall I’ll probably cook something up.

[Anonymous No.12038692]

>>12038166
Honestly just get a regular audiobook. Popsci if you must. I recommend Sean Carroll's "The Big Picture" -- it's one of few popsci books that I actually recommend to laypeople because it really emphasizes the notion that science is just building models to fit data within various regimes. This is something that the general public, especially the IFLS crowd, desperately needs to understand.
He also talks about broader ideas of interest, and while the philosophies he presents is a little elementary, I think it's sufficient for the context of a popsci book.

Wow, this post makes me look like a total shill. I swear I'm not, in fact the reason I felt the need to justify myself is because I typically detest most popsci.

[Anonymous No.12038759]

WHY

F is supposed to be a function why the fuck is it integrated like this

[Anonymous No.12038805]

>>12036799
>>12035565
I guess Feynman is just overhyped then

[Anonymous No.12038807]

>>12038759
F is independent of T

what is int of 3x dt? It's just 3x t

[Anonymous No.12038808]

>>12038805
No he is not, it's just that his books are not written for beginners, even though they cover beginner topics. They are written for physicist who want to understand the basics more intuitively.

[Anonymous No.12038812]

>>12038807
Oh yes that's right. Sorry, I haven't maths in over 15 years.

[Anonymous No.12038994]

>>12038812
to be fair I had to give it a 2nd look because usually it is a function of time

[Anonymous No.12039010]

>>12038808
They’re not written for anyone they’re transcriptions of his lectures that they compiled together and smoothed over into an actual “textbook” series. The books were used to accompany Cal Tech classes he taught which he laments in the preface as being shittily organized and largely unsuccessful. He didn’t think they were all that good. People are just lazy and/or pseuds and think they can be easily transmitted le intuition by osmosis. Fucking stupid. I really like volume II though it helped a lot with basic EM and I actually think you can use the information to solve problems you’d see on hw or exams unlike the classical mechanics in volume I

[Anonymous No.12039022]

>>12039010
so you found it useful, and other people find them useful, but they are still garbage. OK

[Anonymous No.12039032]

>>12039022
No they’re really compelling just not actual textbooks. You can’t use Feynman’s lectures to study for exams basically. For that you want either one of the big books of physics you can bludgeon someone to death with or something like Griffiths, Taylor, Townsend, Reif.

[Anonymous No.12039075]

>>12039032
it's literally what he said. they're not written to learn physics, they're written for people who already understand it and want a different angle to strengthen their grasp. jesus

[Anonymous No.12039084]

>>12039075
No they were literally classes that he taught which he and some associates compiled into a condensed format and sold for profit to people that wanted to learn physics in an intuitive way and Feynman says himself he wasn’t too impressed with the lectures he gave or the way the classes turned out as only the strongest students seemed to benefit from them and most of the rest of his classes struggled with the concepts. Its ironic that he says this as not only did he constantly advocate for widely educating any and everyone who wanted to learn but people that champion Feynman’s purported outlook on education are always the last to admit natural ability id often a limiting factor in educational outcomes. If you are wondering what I’m referencing just read the preface/afterword

[Anonymous No.12039087]

>>12038808
His lectures are basically just support material to help reinforce concepts. Personally I feel Griffiths has a shitty way of getting the point across but he's a staple in undergraduate classes.

I hard disagree that his lectures aren't for beginners though, but I consider undergraduate as a whole as "beginner/basics"

[Anonymous No.12039236]

>>12039084
>as only the strongest students seemed to benefit from them and most of the rest of his classes struggled with the concepts.
sounds like every physics curriculum to be honest

[Anonymous No.12039453]

>>12005353

Can I get a rating on my university's intro physics textbook?

[Anonymous No.12039485]

>>12016117

We're in the same cohort, hopefully we do well this year. My physics textbook doesnt use calculus to solve problems, it's aimed at students in health sciences as well as normies who dont want to take some engineering math. I've downloaded the textbook and started going through it. The first chapter is basically a high school review and nothing is too hard as long as you know the physics formulas.

Most people recommend Khan Academy but fuck that, I recommend The Organic Chemistry Tutor, he doesnt fuck around as much as KA does with their lectures. Plus, you get a smooth bawston accent.

[Anonymous No.12039594]

>>12039453
>Knight
Same as every other textbook. If you don't like it, try either Young or Halliday's book.

[Anonymous No.12039613]

>>12039594

This book kind of treats you like a retard after reading further into it. Damn.

[Anonymous No.12039659]

>>12039087
>I feel Griffiths has a shitty way of getting the point across but he's a staple in undergraduate classes.
this
Griffiths kind of sucks as a text imo

[Anonymous No.12039738]

>>12039613
What do you mean? It's intended for people who have never had a physics class and most likely knows only a bit of calculus. What's your background and experience with physics/math?

[Anonymous No.12039920]

what the degree on the acceleration function for an ocean wave breaking on a beach?

[Anonymous No.12039981]

>>12039659
Griffiths is a consistently excellent undergrad textbook author. Don't blame him for your own trouble understanding.

[Anonymous No.12040598]

>>12005353
Name some fun experiments with titanium and solenoids.

[Anonymous No.12040604]

>>12040598
melt it with a massive current through the solenoid