Studying An easy textbook means I feel unprepared

  • Thread starter Thread starter ppfn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Means Textbook
AI Thread Summary
Feeling unprepared for upper division physics courses after transferring to UCLA is common among students. The textbook used in lower division classes may not have covered the necessary mathematical rigor, but this is typical for introductory physics. Recommended resources for preparation include Boas' Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences and Riley, Hobson & Bence's Mathematical Methods for Physics and Engineering. It's important to focus on foundational topics like vector calculus and linear algebra, as the introductory sequence aims to build problem-solving skills rather than advanced math knowledge. Overall, many students have successfully transitioned to upper division courses with similar concerns.
ppfn
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
I'm currently about to finish (next week!) my lower division physics classes and move on to the upper division courses while transferring from a junior college to UCLA. I feel utterly and completely unprepared for what lies ahead.

I feel like the textbook we used (Fundamentals of Physics, 9th Ed) grossly oversimplified the mathematics that should be used for these courses. Is this a normal feeling since I'm transferring in the Fall and I have no idea what to expect, or should I really be worried?

I'm going to work through Boas' Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences book over the Summer with my fellow physics majors, are there any other books you would recommend reading / working through before moving on to the upper division courses?

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can't go far wrong with Boas. It's what I use, covers pretty much everything you'll need in an undergrad theory degree. I also use Riley, Hobson & Bence (Mathematical methods for physics and engineering). It's a bit less dry compared to Boas and is great for introducing yourself to topics although i'd say Boas is perhaps more detailed/rigourous.

If you're wanting to brush up a bit on the funamentals focus on topics like vector calculus, LA and PDEs. If you're going to be doing more advanced courses you might want to look at calculus of variations and a bit of complex analysis (contour integrals etc).
 
If you're unprepared, it is not because of the math as long as the course was calculus based. The point of an introductory physics sequence is not to learn advanced math - it's to learn the physics and problem solving.
 
Fundamentals of Physics (Halliday/Resnick/Walker) is a very common textbook for the calculus-based intro physics sequence, and is typical of the level used in those courses. I used it myself in freshman physics forty years ago (when it was just Halliday/Resnick), and I ended up with a Ph.D.
 
Thanks for the replies, everyone. You've helped to calm my transfer nerves. :-P
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
102
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
965
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top