6 ms·
Modern Physics From Scratch
- abdullahkhalids 13y agoYou can probably do better by going through Feynman's lectures. And maybe also his QED.
- jamessb 13y agoOr perhaps by folowing the reading suggested by Gerard 't Hooft: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html
- nilaykumar 13y agoAlthough they give excellent physical intuition, Feynman's lectures don't exactly cover any "theoretical physics," they're more of an intensive introductory course to physics as a whole. His QED in some sense helps you understand how QED works, but obviously one wants to learn the mathematics behind QFT, and QED is quite qualitative in nature.
- vyrotek 13y ago"A number of years ago I became aware of the large number of physics enthusiasts out there who have no venue to learn modern physics and cosmology. Fat advanced textbooks are not suitable to people who have no teacher to ask questions of, and the popular literature does not go deeply enough to satisfy these curious people." It's as if he made the courses just for me! :) Thanks for sharing this.
- codezero 13y agoI'm going to check this out, but the cadence of the lectures (just by looking at Classical Mechanics) seems pretty high for a 1.5 hour lecture, getting to Lagrangians in the third lecture seems pretty advanced for a survey of the subject especially targeted at enthusiasts. A lot of the stuff covered in this series of courses wouldn't even be touched in a lot of undergrad Physics programs, outside of a small survey/project as part of a more broad course.
- zokier 13y agoVideo lectures allow you to pause and rewind at will and I guess that enables the authors to have greater information density than conventional lectures. So they maybe just require different study methods to get the best results.
- siddboots 13y agoFrom another point of view, the lectures are purely focused on giving an intuition behind concepts in modern theoretical physics, which is only a very small part of what is taught in an undergraduate program. Lagrangians are a difficult, and abstract concept, but they doesn't mean that they can't be communicated in 3-4 hours by a skilled educator.
- mmcnickle 13y agoAgreed that these are geared towards intuition. Though for reference: in my undergraduate degree, Lagrangian Dynamics and Hamiltonian Dynamics were each given semester long treatments.
- cdwhite 13y agoThat's interesting. In my undergraduate degree (which I believe to be fairly standard for the US), Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics were both part of a one-semester classical mechanics course, along with much else. I'm quite envious, though---both Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics are beautiful, and I need a better background. If you don't mind my asking, where did you do undergrad?
- codezero 13y agoDitto for me, though we spent quite a bit of time on Lagrangians and Hamiltonians in that semester.
- mmcnickle 13y agoThe University of Edinburgh, Scotland. They were two of my favourite courses, I was amazed at how simple some classes of problems became with the techniques. You should be able to find the course notes somewhere, but I'm not sure if they'd be much value without the lectures.
- hanula 13y agoOh my, this is exactly what I was looking for. I'm going to dive in into this but does anyone maybe know about similar online resources you could learn some more advanced physics topics? Btw, Susskind is such a great man, love his way of work and persistence.
- ivan_ah 13y agoThere is a book that comes with the course: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046502811X http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/046502811X The intro chapter is quite good ... very condensed material, but could be very interesting read.
- siddboots 13y agoI worked through the entire core sequence over about 18 months, along with texts recommended by friends and on forums. In particular, Shankar's Quantum Mechanics, and Taylor's Classical Mechanics were great supplements to the first two courses. I recommend that approach because, while it is great to have the "theoretical minimum" delivered in lecture format, its also nice to have a more thorough text on hand for the topics that really get you interested. With that said, I hadn't even heard of the official text book AFAICR Susskind never mentioned it in any of the lectures.
- johnchristopher 13y agoWhat about the math background ? Is someone who barely touched calculus able to follow through the classical mechanics course ?
- siddboots 13y agoApproximately speaking, first year undergraduate maths level is assumed, but no more. Most topics are elaborated on as required to teach the content. You'll need to understand calculus, i.e. understand the principles behind derivatives and integrals. You certainly won't need to be proficient in manipulating them. A brief book, like Martin Gardner's updated edition of Calculus Made Easy, is the type of background that you need. A bit more specifically, having an intuition for vector calculus and partial differential equations is important. For QM, you will need to understand what linear algebra is for, and how it uses abstraction to simplify certain types of operations. Here's a good introduction: http://betterexplained.com/articles/linear-algebra-guide/ http://betterexplained.com/articles/linear-algebra-guide/ Honestly, I can't think of anything else that you would necessarily need to know before starting, but to get the most out of it you WILL need to follow along with his working in pen-and-paper, and get used to rewatching, or looking up topics that you struggle with.
- altrego99 13y agoI have been following his lectures for quite some time. Hat's off to Leonard Suskind. I did Quantum Mechanics, Classical Mechanics, and now General Relativity. All of them enlightening, provides pure joy that only science can. And he is incredibly easy to follow, despite being a leading and esteemed Physicist of modern times - falls in similar class as Hawking. (The holographic principle anyone?)
- mooze 13y agoSee also: http://motionmountain.com/ http://motionmountain.com/
- imb 13y agoI'm the OP and originally posted the link and a brief review here: http://www.latestlesson.org/the-theoretical-minimum-modern-physics/ http://www.latestlesson.org/the-theoretical-minimum-modern-p.... If anyone has other suggested physics materials for those who are not professional physicists, I would be interested in reviewing them for our site. We're trying to create a comprehensive list of resources for STEM learners.
- ctchocula 13y agoSomeone linked on HN this webpage by a theoretical physicist on how to become one and all the things you need to learn: http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/theorist.html
- kaybe 13y agoI can recommend this soil physics script: http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/forschung/groups/ts/soil_physics/students/lecture_notes05 http://www.iup.uni-heidelberg.de/institut/forschung/groups/t... It needs some basic math (for a physicist) and some other basics (it won't explain the many things physicists take for basic knowledge, such as the existence of electrons etc), but most concepts are explained well, IMHO. Same for this book on isotopic tracers in the hydrological cycle: http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/IHS_resources_publication_hydroCycle_en.html http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/IHS_resources_publication_... (better if you have the basics of radioactivity etc down) Also, here's a good book about physical oceanography: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/home/course_book.htm http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/home/course_book.htm Hm.. that's that off the top of my head.. there might be some more (also other areas); I can look if you're interested.
- tMcGrath 13y agoIf you want to approach physics from a mathematical background I strongly recommend Peter Szekeres' book 'A Course in Modern Mathematical Physics' http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0521829607/ref=redir_mdp_mobile/276-4138094-3440507 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0521829607/ref=redir_mdp_mob...
- siddboots 13y ago
- raverbashing 13y agoThis is very interesting As someone that has studied physics in an undergrad course, and who has learned a lot, but is disappointed that these courses don't go very far, this is very interesting.
- tMcGrath 13y agoI've been reading this and it's fantastic - approaching the subject from the tools needed to understand the way the material works mathematically (Lagrangians etc) rather than as a series of separate physical problems is an excellent idea. The video lectures in combination with the text would, I think, be a great subject for a regular meet up - its dense enough that there's lots to discuss but doesn't have too many prereqs. Anyone in London interested? Shoot me an email if so (Thomas dot m dot McGrath at gmail dot com)
- JonnieCache 13y agoI've watched a few of these just for fun. They are very watchable even if, like me, you don't have the first clue about the actual mathematics he uses. He explains enough of the physics in words that you can just let the forumlae wash over you and not worry about it. The maths is kept into self-contained bits, so a lecture will typically be 40 minutes of words and pictures, then 20 minutes of calculation. I'm sure if you do get the maths then it will be perfect for you, but I encourage you to watch it anyway. Overall, highly recommended, especially the cosmology ones. EDIT: actually my memory is probably biased towards the cosmology course. I imagine the classical/statistical mechanics stuff does have a lot more maths running through each lecture.
- weichi 13y agoFor programmers interested in classical mechanics, "The Structure and Interpretation of Classical Mechanics" is a highly unique - and outstanding - introduction to Lagrangian and Hamiltonian mechanics. Available free online: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/sicm/book.html http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/s... The idea behind the book is to make the "mathematical notations be explicit and precise enough that they can be interpreted automatically, as by a computer." Since Sussman is involved, that means that they (and you, when you do the problems) write scheme programs. In a more traditional vein, _Mechanics_ by Landau and Lifshitz is (in my view) among the 2 or 3 best physics textbooks available. It's a great supplement for two reasons: (1) it takes a somewhat different approach to the material than most other textbooks (emphasizing the consequences of symmetries from the very beginning) (2) it's quite short, which I find to be very helpful when self-learning.
- lolcraft 13y agoCool book. That's from where I learnt the Euler-Lagrange equations first. Sussman also wrote a book, in his characteristic style, on Differential Geometry, that doubles as a possible introduction to special relativity, and bridge to the general theory. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6946/calculus-indexed.pdf http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/gjs/6946/calculus-inde...
- mrcactu5 13y agoThis differential geometry book is convenient. If only someone could port this book into Python.
- DennisP 13y agoAnd one on quantum mechanics, though by a different author: http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Interpretation-Quantum-Mechanics/dp/0674843924 http://www.amazon.com/The-Structure-Interpretation-Quantum-M...
- lolcraft 13y agoI've read some of it, and it's not even in the same sport, much less league. SIQM has no code and uses all the handwavy notation you could read in better books (Landau, probably; or Feynmann, for an intro). It struck me as the Ford Fiesta to Sussman's 911. In fact, after that read, I was pissed at the author from riding the coat-tails of the Structure and Interpretation series.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- quux 13y agoThis is interesting, I've watched Professor Susskind's lectures on Quantum Mechanics and they were very good. Was able to understand how QM actually works for the first time.
- mrcactu5 13y agoIn 2004, Roger Penrose published "The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe" which is 1100 pages long. http://staff.washington.edu/freitz/penrose.pdf http://staff.washington.edu/freitz/penrose.pdf "One of my mother’s closest friends, when she was a young girl, was among those who could not grasp fractions. This lady once told me so herself after she had retired from a successful career as a ballet dancer. I was still young, not yet fully launched in my activities as a mathematician, but was recognized as someone who enjoyed working in that subject. ‘It’s all that cancelling’, she said to me, ‘I could just never get the hang of cancelling.’ She was an elegant and highly intelligent woman, and there is no doubt in my mind that the mental qualities that are required in comprehending the sophisticated choreography that is central to ballet are in no way inferior to those which must be brought to bear on a mathematical problem. So, grossly overestimating my expositional abilities, I attempted, as others had done before, to explain to her the simplicity and logical nature of the procedure of ‘cancelling’."
- gwern 13y agoPenrose, huh. I was reading the intro to Scott Aaronson's new book on quantum computing, and in it he says, > More pointedly, one wonders who the audience for this book is supposed to be. On the one hand, it has way too much depth for a popular book. Like Roger Penrose’s _The Road to Reality_ – whose preface promises an accessible adventure even for readers who struggled with fractions in elementary school, but whose first few chapters then delve into holomorphic functions and fiber bundles – _Quantum Computing since Democritus_ is not for math-phobes.
- igmor 13y agoFor those interested in QM I highly recommend this intro Quantum Mechanics for Engineers http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/ http://www.eng.fsu.edu/~dommelen/quantum/