6 ms·
This is cool as always, but in case anybody is seriously contemplating using it: this list is infamous for its complete uselessness for anybody actually trying
by knzhou 6y ago
This is cool as always, but in case anybody is seriously contemplating using it: this list is infamous for its complete uselessness for anybody actually trying to learn. It's mostly recommended because of 't Hooft's name, but it doesn't reflect how he actually learned physics himself, nor how anybody ever has, really.
It's been "under construction" (i.e. completely abandoned) for two decades. Half the links are broken, and the ones that aren't tend to be whatever the top Google hit was in the 90s, not what's pedagogically best. If you're serious about learning physics, there are many much better roadmaps, like Susan Fowler's list (https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/13/so-you-want-to-learn-physics https://www.susanjfowler.com/blog/2016/8/13/so-you-want-to-l...).
- oh_sigh 6y agoHas Susan Fowler proved herself to be a good theoretical physicst? How does one determine that her roadmap is good but OPs is bad?
- knzhou 6y agoI personally know the vast majority of the material in both roadmaps, so I know that 't Hooft's is far harder to learn from. Anybody can check this for themselves. There's plenty of broken links, extremely rough drafts of lecture notes, and wild fluctuations in sophistication. The ordering puts graduate-level stuff before its sophomore-level prerequisites. My statement would only be controversial if you believed that arbitrary adversity in learning was necessary to be a good physicist -- and for my own sake I hope that isn't the case!
- scottlocklin 6y agoYeah, well, t'Hooft's is harder to learn because it's actually a serious curriculum which is worth knowing rather than training wheels from someone who never did anything serious in physics. Title is how to be a good theoretical physicist; not "what someone might study as an undergraduate."
- mnky9800n 6y agoWtf are you talking about. All the recommendations here are look at what physics departments teach and do that. Instead of listening to some Jack ass who thinks the only real physics is theoretical physics.
- meroes 6y agoI mean sure but t' Hooft also denies every interpretation of QM other than superdeterminism, which is almost anti-science (no indepedence of experimenters). I'd rather learn mainstream before I go solo
- scottlocklin 6y agoSusan Fowler isn't and never was a physicist. t'Hooft won the Nobel Prize in physics. The title is "how to become a good theoretical physicist" -not "what they taught me as an undergraduate." The end.
- fbthrowaway32FB 6y agowhoah there buddy you got your phd from a 2nd rate school and now you're a "blockchain engineer" (whatever that is). i wouldn't be so quick to pull someone's credentials if i were you
- albutr 6y agoEven better is to look up the undergrad/grad curriculum from a university and then look at the course webpages (many universities still publish their course materials available to anyone who has the link, without needing to login through canvas or a university portal). Pretty often you can get access to homeworks/exams and solutions, lecture notes, etc. in addition to seeing whatever textbook they're using. Plus, the added benefit helping limit "analysis paralysis" from having too many possible texts to choose from yourself, just pick whatever was standard for that particular class.
- knzhou 6y agoThis is a great point. Out of all the ones I've looked into, I think MIT has by far the most complete public curriculum (because of MIT OCW), but Cambridge and Oxford are not far behind, with excellent lecture notes and problem sets.
- albutr 6y agoAgreed, at some point I've used something from all three of those and they're all great! I've seen a surprising amount of great stuff from smaller universities too iirc, if you google around.
- fizixer 6y agoI'm sorry I can't take Susan Fowler seriously. She claims she went from zero math knowledge (besides sixth grade) and a philosophy major to studying quantum field theory in a span of something like a year and a half [0]. If this wasn't horsesh*t to begin with, she went on to work in non-physics areas after graduation, and never did any research work in physics (no grad school either). How convenient. (likely explanation: either her undergrad program was super lax, passing pretty much everyone who shows up in class and exams, hence useless for a serious career in physics, or she's misrepresenting her background) [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20170314073043/https://fledglingphysicist.com/2013/12/12/if-susan-can-learn-physics-so-can-you/ https://web.archive.org/web/20170314073043/https://fledgling...
- knzhou 6y agoWell, I've read almost all the books she lists and I've been a quantum field theory practitioner for years, and I can at least attest the list is good. People actually learn from these books. I think your comment also directly illustrates what I was complaining about. You really shouldn't source learning recommendations from the highest ranking people, because these people know the least about what it's like to learn something anew. A Nobel prize doesn't automatically make somebody a good teacher.
- mnky9800n 6y agoCarl Weiman would like to have a word with you. Ahahaa.
- jimhefferon 6y agoNot GP but if you mean that > A Nobel prize doesn't automatically make somebody a good teacher. is mistaken by pointing to Weiman, could you elaborate on that, please?
- mnky9800n 6y agoCarl took his nobel money for BEC and started a career in education and education research.
- nmca 6y agoAnother good source for quantum and linear algebra in particular is "Looking glass universe" https://youtu.be/r0plv_nIzsQ https://youtu.be/r0plv_nIzsQ