3 ms·

Thanks. Your advice is what I needed to hear, though I have have to admit it is not exactly what I wanted to hear. Given my background, I wished there was a sho

Thanks. Your advice is what I needed to hear, though I have have to admit it is not exactly what I wanted to hear. Given my background, I wished there was a shortcut, a way to skip the repetitive and boring work of solving lots and lots of undergraduate physics problems and working through the same material from multiple angles. But after doing some research and reading other advice similar to yours I came to the conclusion that no such thing exists. If I truly want to understand modern Physics, I am looking at at least 4-5 years of serious study that includes solving lots of textbook problems and repetition.

exmadscientist 4y ago
Oh, there are plenty of shortcuts. They've just got prices of their own. Problem sets are actually only the second best way to learn the material. The very best way is experiments, which is why any half-decent course comes with a lab section. Unfortunately, picking problems and setting up experiments is not easy to do. You should actually find that if things have been set up well and you are learning quickly, there is not a lot of repetition. You should be either building on what you already know or revealing another facet of it. You should not be doing things over very often, though some things are very unintuitive (rotating coordinate frames, anyone...) and some repetition there usually helps. Self-directed learning allows for good tuning there and even good delaying... if you are well-regulated. That, of course, is always the hard part with self-directed learning. The other problem you will face is that your math skills are probably not what you think they are. CS is a branch of discrete mathematics. Physics is the backbone underlying continuous, analytic mathematics... with a bit of higher algebra (symmetries! symmetries everywhere!) sprinkled on top. These domains are different, and it takes either some effort or very great skill to be fluent in both. But physics drove the growth of this type of mathematics, and so chances are good you will find things natural to pick up as you go. (Except for vector fields. Not coincidentally, they came later and were retrofitted onto the physics. They do work and do make things easier, but they're not always intuitive.) I don't think you're looking at 4–5 years to learn this stuff, unless you are seeking particularly deep understanding and insights, but you're not wrong that it will be some work.

exmadscientist 4y ago

Oh, there are plenty of shortcuts. They've just got prices of their own. Problem sets are actually only the second best way to learn the material. The very best way is experiments, which is why any half-decent course comes with a lab section. Unfortunately, picking problems and setting up experiments is not easy to do. You should actually find that if things have been set up well and you are learning quickly, there is not a lot of repetition. You should be either building on what you already know or revealing another facet of it. You should not be doing things over very often, though some things are very unintuitive (rotating coordinate frames, anyone...) and some repetition there usually helps. Self-directed learning allows for good tuning there and even good delaying... if you are well-regulated. That, of course, is always the hard part with self-directed learning. The other problem you will face is that your math skills are probably not what you think they are. CS is a branch of discrete mathematics. Physics is the backbone underlying continuous, analytic mathematics... with a bit of higher algebra (symmetries! symmetries everywhere!) sprinkled on top. These domains are different, and it takes either some effort or very great skill to be fluent in both. But physics drove the growth of this type of mathematics, and so chances are good you will find things natural to pick up as you go. (Except for vector fields. Not coincidentally, they came later and were retrofitted onto the physics. They do work and do make things easier, but they're not always intuitive.) I don't think you're looking at 4–5 years to learn this stuff, unless you are seeking particularly deep understanding and insights, but you're not wrong that it will be some work.