13 ms·

Still, an important thing for a physics undergrad student to realise is that they can't learn everything. Properly learning what Hooft listed would be the equiv

by JBits 4y ago

Still, an important thing for a physics undergrad student to realise is that they can't learn everything. Properly learning what Hooft listed would be the equivalent of a good education but I don't like the combination of being biased towards his interests while also demanding that this is the only correct way. My science background didn't follow the exact same route and, after comparing notes with a friend at a different university and looking at modules of other universities, while they both follow the same general pattern, the order is different and the module selection available expresses different focuses of the department. Personally, I think his list doesn't contain enough core mathematics and is too broad. Major areas that professional theoretical physicists specialise in are not mentioned at all (atomic physics, quantum information, condensed matter physics, density functional theory, mathematical physics, fluid dynamics). I guess my complaint is that the list fails to highlight the core topics and fundamentals as well as failing to demonstrate how one can specialise. A vital skill needed to be a good theoretical physicist is the ability to think for yourself and learn without a syllabus.

raydiatian 4y ago
From the website: > Note that this site NOT meant to be very pedagogical. I avoid texts with lots of colorful but distracting pictures from authors who try hard to be funny. Also, the subjects included are somewhat focused towards my own interests. LIST OF SUBJECTS, IN LOGICAL ORDER ARE ON THE SIDE. (Not everything has to be done in this order, but this approximately indicates the logical coherence of the various subjects. Some notes are at a higher level than others). > Still, an important thing for a physics undergrad student to realise is that they can't learn everything. I mean I “get” what you’re saying, but it’s such a vague notion in this context. You can learn precisely as much as you are willing to. I’m not even a physics major (CprE undergrad, SE by trade), yet I have a working understanding of Schrödinger equation mathematics. This was not born out of elective or required study, I taught myself QM post-graduation with a textbook & MIT-OCW. I worked through the textbook up to TISE. I went back and relearned Frobenius method to understand how the 3D hydrogen atom results in these wild ass wave equations. My point is I’m in an adjacent field (that I’m already continually extending my knowledge in) and I can still find time to climb the modern phys ladder if/when I feel like it. And then on top of that, like I said this website is a shopping list for “would-be crewmen”, so I think it’s reasonable to assume the man is listing everything he has studied, so you can “study everything”. Now maybe what you mean to say is you can’t go deep in everything. But you can become conversationally proficient across subjects, so that you can be able to ask the right questions. In general, “you can’t study everything” seems vague or off-topic.
- raydiatian 4y ago
  Also, sorry for sounding like a prick, I know I do, it’s not my intention. It certainly seems like you know more about the field than I do and your opinions are probably grounded in more relevant information than mine.
  - JBits 4y ago
    Don't worry about, you're not coming across as rude at all. I guess my point is that you were able to understand the Schrödinger equation without covering a whole bunch of other stuff first: it's fine to not cover everything. The other conversely is that it's not as simple as checking topics off a checklist: the basics of quantum mechanics can be approached from various perspectives, for example. Personally, I'm keen on gaining a very good intuition of linear algebra — in particular, the idea of writing linear operators as a matrix WRT a given basis and eigenvectors — in order to be confident with the quantum mechanics. I guess you've noticed this though since you've spent time learning something else (the Frobenius method). My overall point is that each topic is very deep and everyone plots their own path through all the different areas. I don't think we're disagreeing. I think really that this is a good list. I suppose that the main thing every beginner wants is a jumping off point which is probably something I've taken for granted. I find university module listing useful myself for computer science despite not having studies it formally.
    - raydiatian 4y ago
      > I guess my point is that you were able to understand the Schrödinger equation without covering a whole bunch of other stuff first I did cover a bunch of other stuff though: 3 semesters of calc, linear algebra, diffeq, classical mechanics & electromagnetism, all before I even studied any of Rayleigh’s experiments. Granted my understanding of Schrödinger wasn’t prereq’d by my understanding of, say, 5/2R solution for the classics ball rolling down a plane and up through a loop no slipping (one of those things you never forget, unfortunately), but like the original derivation Schrödinger did for the wave equation in constant potential field (at least the ones from the textbook I read) goes straight back to Netwon’s F=ma & dp/dt = F for its basis. So you can absolutely bet that my understanding of Newton’s formulation of force was crucial to my understanding of Schrödinger. It was the interplay of linear algebra, complex mathematics, differential equations, and Newtonian intuitions. That is a huge foundation to be building on top of. Furthermore I have done exercises with bras & kets that let you treat the whole thing like a great big matrix, but my experience in building my education has been that if I try to skip a chapter it invariably is a building block that I need to go back and reread. It’s like executing code: eventually, you have to step down inside the function call and execute all its lines before proceeding. And to tie things back around this is precisely why the guy with the website is saying “look, if you want to talk directly to Nobel prize winning physicists, pay your dues, there are no shortcuts.” We’re in a world of climate disaster because we’ve allowed too many shortcutters to drive the boat for too long.

by JBits 4y ago

raydiatian 4y ago

From the website: > Note that this site NOT meant to be very pedagogical. I avoid texts with lots of colorful but distracting pictures from authors who try hard to be funny. Also, the subjects included are somewhat focused towards my own interests. LIST OF SUBJECTS, IN LOGICAL ORDER ARE ON THE SIDE. (Not everything has to be done in this order, but this approximately indicates the logical coherence of the various subjects. Some notes are at a higher level than others). > Still, an important thing for a physics undergrad student to realise is that they can't learn everything. I mean I “get” what you’re saying, but it’s such a vague notion in this context. You can learn precisely as much as you are willing to. I’m not even a physics major (CprE undergrad, SE by trade), yet I have a working understanding of Schrödinger equation mathematics. This was not born out of elective or required study, I taught myself QM post-graduation with a textbook & MIT-OCW. I worked through the textbook up to TISE. I went back and relearned Frobenius method to understand how the 3D hydrogen atom results in these wild ass wave equations. My point is I’m in an adjacent field (that I’m already continually extending my knowledge in) and I can still find time to climb the modern phys ladder if/when I feel like it. And then on top of that, like I said this website is a shopping list for “would-be crewmen”, so I think it’s reasonable to assume the man is listing everything he has studied, so you can “study everything”. Now maybe what you mean to say is you can’t go deep in everything. But you can become conversationally proficient across subjects, so that you can be able to ask the right questions. In general, “you can’t study everything” seems vague or off-topic.

raydiatian 4y ago
Also, sorry for sounding like a prick, I know I do, it’s not my intention. It certainly seems like you know more about the field than I do and your opinions are probably grounded in more relevant information than mine.
- JBits 4y ago
  Don't worry about, you're not coming across as rude at all. I guess my point is that you were able to understand the Schrödinger equation without covering a whole bunch of other stuff first: it's fine to not cover everything. The other conversely is that it's not as simple as checking topics off a checklist: the basics of quantum mechanics can be approached from various perspectives, for example. Personally, I'm keen on gaining a very good intuition of linear algebra — in particular, the idea of writing linear operators as a matrix WRT a given basis and eigenvectors — in order to be confident with the quantum mechanics. I guess you've noticed this though since you've spent time learning something else (the Frobenius method). My overall point is that each topic is very deep and everyone plots their own path through all the different areas. I don't think we're disagreeing. I think really that this is a good list. I suppose that the main thing every beginner wants is a jumping off point which is probably something I've taken for granted. I find university module listing useful myself for computer science despite not having studies it formally.
  - raydiatian 4y ago
    > I guess my point is that you were able to understand the Schrödinger equation without covering a whole bunch of other stuff first I did cover a bunch of other stuff though: 3 semesters of calc, linear algebra, diffeq, classical mechanics & electromagnetism, all before I even studied any of Rayleigh’s experiments. Granted my understanding of Schrödinger wasn’t prereq’d by my understanding of, say, 5/2R solution for the classics ball rolling down a plane and up through a loop no slipping (one of those things you never forget, unfortunately), but like the original derivation Schrödinger did for the wave equation in constant potential field (at least the ones from the textbook I read) goes straight back to Netwon’s F=ma & dp/dt = F for its basis. So you can absolutely bet that my understanding of Newton’s formulation of force was crucial to my understanding of Schrödinger. It was the interplay of linear algebra, complex mathematics, differential equations, and Newtonian intuitions. That is a huge foundation to be building on top of. Furthermore I have done exercises with bras & kets that let you treat the whole thing like a great big matrix, but my experience in building my education has been that if I try to skip a chapter it invariably is a building block that I need to go back and reread. It’s like executing code: eventually, you have to step down inside the function call and execute all its lines before proceeding. And to tie things back around this is precisely why the guy with the website is saying “look, if you want to talk directly to Nobel prize winning physicists, pay your dues, there are no shortcuts.” We’re in a world of climate disaster because we’ve allowed too many shortcutters to drive the boat for too long.