Being bad at Physics

[Blacklotus2006]

TL;DR Summary: A physics student who loves mathematics in physics

Hi guys. I’m studying physics in university. I’m in the second semester right now. I love this field but I don’t have enough intelligence to be good in pure physics and pure math. I love and I’m good in the combination of those.

For example mathematical physics is my favorite subject. I love mathematical proofs for physics problems. I love seeking and learning new mathematical tools using for physics. I like physics but I’m terrible at problem solving. I hate solving Halliday Problems but I do love reading the book mathematical methods in physics by Arfken.

I feel like if I keep being on this track I will lose my credit as a physicist and being someone who is terrible in both pure physics and pure mathematics. What about Quantum Mechanics and Electromagnetics? I’ve heard they have a lot of mathematics so I think they will be good for me. How do you think? Should I trying to be like other physicists problem solver or keep learning mathematics in physics?

For example I can’t solve Halliday’s mechanics problems so I think I will fail in Analytical Mechanics but I love its mathematics.I don’t know know what to do please guide me. In case you care I want to get PHD in Cosmology and Gravity the field that has the most mathematics in it. I hope I have described myself well.

 

[Choppy]

For what it's worth, be wary of the difference between a fixed and a growth mindset.
Fixed: I'm bad at physics. I will always be bad at physics.
Growth: I'm not as good at physics as I would like to be, but I can get better.

While this idea does tend to oversimplify things (there are limits to growth, you can't just flip a switch and re-frame your whole mindset, etc.), if you're really considering a PhD, it can be hugely beneficial to challenge assumptions. You may not enjoy the basic problem solving of first year physics because of any number of factors... a weak foundation, poor instructors, distractions in the lecture hall, the time of day you typically tackle your homework problems, general lethargy, anxiety, etc. But if you can identify the cause or causes of your challenges, then you can come up with strategies to address them.

At the first year level, I think it's more important to focus energy on building the best foundation you can, rather than trying to tailor a career to your existing strengths and weaknesses.

 

[TensorCalculus]

TL;DR Summary: A physics student who loves mathematics in physics

Hi guys. I’m studying physics in university. I’m in the second semester right now. I love this field but I don’t have enough intelligence to be good in pure physics and pure math. I love and I’m good in the combination of those.

For example mathematical physics is my favorite subject. I love mathematical proofs for physics problems. I love seeking and learning new mathematical tools using for physics. I like physics but I’m terrible at problem solving. I hate solving Halliday Problems but I do love reading the book mathematical methods in physics by Arfken.

I feel like if I keep being on this track I will lose my credit as a physicist and being someone who is terrible in both pure physics and pure mathematics. What about Quantum Mechanics and Electromagnetics? I’ve heard they have a lot of mathematics so I think they will be good for me. How do you think? Should I trying to be like other physicists problem solver or keep learning mathematics in physics?

For example I can’t solve Halliday’s mechanics problems so I think I will fail in Analytical Mechanics but I love its mathematics.I don’t know know what to do please guide me. In case you care I want to get PHD in Cosmology and Gravity the field that has the most mathematics in it. I hope I have described myself well.

No one is born "good at physics", or "bad at physics".
If you struggle with Halliday, practice Halliday and you will naturally get better, if slowly.
You will not get better by adopting the mindset "I am bad at this" and then therefore trying to mould your decisions and career choices because you have adopted a mindset that you are inherently bad at something. Anyone can get better at anything, it is just a matter of time.

 

[CrysPhys]

TL;DR Summary: A physics student who loves mathematics in physics

Hi guys. I’m studying physics in university. I’m in the second semester right now. I love this field but I don’t have enough intelligence to be good in pure physics and pure math. I love and I’m good in the combination of those.

For example mathematical physics is my favorite subject. I love mathematical proofs for physics problems. I love seeking and learning new mathematical tools using for physics. I like physics but I’m terrible at problem solving. I hate solving Halliday Problems but I do love reading the book mathematical methods in physics by Arfken.

I feel like if I keep being on this track I will lose my credit as a physicist and being someone who is terrible in both pure physics and pure mathematics. What about Quantum Mechanics and Electromagnetics? I’ve heard they have a lot of mathematics so I think they will be good for me. How do you think? Should I trying to be like other physicists problem solver or keep learning mathematics in physics?

For example I can’t solve Halliday’s mechanics problems so I think I will fail in Analytical Mechanics but I love its mathematics.I don’t know know what to do please guide me. In case you care I want to get PHD in Cosmology and Gravity the field that has the most mathematics in it. I hope I have described myself well.

* Physics is all about solving problems. "Pure" mathematics can exist for its own sake; i.e., it doesn't necessarily have to be useful for solving real-world problems. But physics does, and mathematics for physics does.

* I realize that the problems in Halliday and similar texts turn off many students: blocks sliding down incline planes, weights tugging on ropes wrapped around pulleys, balls launched off a cliff ... are not exciting topics for someone concerned about the origins of the universe. But that's where you start. Similar issues will arise in E&M, quantum mech, thermo & stat mech ... all the foundational building blocks of physics.

* To stay motivated in physics, it's important to identify physical phenomena that do excite you, leading to problems that you want to delve into and solve, motivating you to learn the fundamentals and tools (including math) to reach your end goals. Have you? If you can't, and are mainly interested in mathematical formalism for its own sake, physics might not be your cup of tea.

 

[Dale]

I like physics but I’m terrible at problem solving.

So how did you react to this discovery? Did you assign yourself additional problems to solve and spend big chunks of free time working to improve your skills? Did you do only the assigned problems but start early and do these difficult problems first? Did you do the assigned problems but wait until the last minute and have to rush through them? Did you avoid them and turn in incomplete homework assignments?

You don’t need to respond, those are self assessment questions. The questions are not about either what you are good at or what you love. They are about your effort.

Don’t follow your passion, follow your effort. A career is something that you will work at thousands upon thousands of hours. If you are not naturally doing that level of work then you should look for a career where you will naturally do that level of work.

PS I am not saying that you should change your behavior. I am saying that you should critically examine your actual behavior. You may need to adjust your goals accordingly.

 

[PeroK]

No one is born "good at physics", or "bad at physics".

I'm not so sure. We're not all identical mass-produced machines.

 

[TensorCalculus]

I'm not so sure. We're not all identical mass-produced machines.

Yes, but even if some people are inherently slightly worse at something than everything else, that's nothing that can't be fixed with a little bit of hard work and dedication... in my eyes.
For example, people born with perfect pitch will be inherently better at music. But that doesn't mean that someone that doesn't have perfect pitch is born bad at music: they can end up just as good at music if not better as the person with perfect pitch, provided they keep at it.

I don't see the logic in quitting something you love just because you think you are bad at it. That's a fixable problem.

 

[PeroK]

Yes, but even if some people are inherently slightly worse at something than everything else, that's nothing that can't be fixed with a little bit of hard work and dedication... in my eyes.

How do you know that's good advice. Suppose someone was struggling at something and believed you that all they needed was a little bit of hard work. What do you tell them if they finally fail? They'll never get that time back.

For example, people born with perfect pitch will be inherently better at music. But that doesn't mean that someone that doesn't have perfect pitch is born bad at music: they can end up just as good at music if not better as the person with perfect pitch, provided they keep at it.

Show me the evidence of that. Music schools, in particular, are looking for students with talent. Perhaps more than for academic students. "Provided they keep at it" is just a get-out clause for you. It means that unless they keep going until they have a mental breakdown, you just tell them they gave up too soon.

I don't see the logic in quitting something you love just because you think you are bad at it. That's a fixable problem.

If you love it, you can do it as a hobby. Maybe it's better that way. It's both rational and practical to look for something that comes more naturally to you.

Anyway, knowing when to quit is a key life skill, IMO.

 

[TensorCalculus]

Maybe I shouldn’t have stated my opinions as if they were facts...

How do you know that's good advice.

Fair enough. I'm a kid, and I should probablybe staying away from career advice. But I'll explain why my opinion (which might seem like it is that of a kid... but... it is what it is).

Suppose someone was struggling at something and believed you that all they needed was a little bit of hard work. What do you tell them if they finally fail? They'll never get that time back.

Do you really think that time spent on something that failed is time wasted? Just because they tried something and it didn't work out, doesn't mean that all that time spent is a waste: especially when they were doing something they love. And even if they don’t end up with what they hoped, they will definitely be better at what they were struggling with than they would have been if they never tried.
At the very least, they will have the knowledge that they tried. The probability that they will succeed if they keep trying is so, so much higher than the probability that they succeed if they quit.
Are there situations in which you should just quit and call it a day because the chances of getting better and doing well are so low that it's not worth the time and effort? Of course. But in this case, I don't see why the problem can't be fixed by dedicating time to practicing Halliday-style questions.

Show me the evidence of that. Music schools, in particular, are looking for students with talent. Perhaps more than for academic students. "Provided they keep at it" is just a get-out clause for you. It means that unless they keep going until they have a mental breakdown, you just tell them they gave up too soon.

Perfect pitch can be trained: my violin teacher has perfect pitch even though he was not born with it simply because he has spent decades with music. He has grade 8 and diploma in multiple instruments and played in fairly well recognised orchestras: you cannot say he is not at least somewhat successful in music.
A study from the university of Chicago about this trainability of perfect pitch (probably not the only one): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027715000621

When I am back at home, I'll also try and source some examples of famous musicians who don't have perfect pitch. I can imagine there are quite a few.

If you love it, you can do it as a hobby. Maybe it's better that way. It's both rational and practical to look for something that comes more naturally to you.

That is a viable option, but then wouldn't it be better for you to spend your job doing something you love rather than just have it as a side hobby?

Anyway, knowing when to quit is a key life skill, IMO.

Maybe I am yet to aquire it. Hope you found something interesting in my opinion on the matter nevertheless though :)

 

[PeroK]

There's no point arguing about it. Paul McCartney (and the other Beatles) couldn't read music. Which sort of proves my point. If that's not talent, then what is? You really think "Let it Be" was the product of hard work?

 

[TensorCalculus]

There's no point arguing about it. Paul McCartney (and the other Beatles) couldn't read music. Which sort of proves my point. If that's not talent, then what is? You really think "Let it Be" was the product of hard work?

Fair.
But I still stand by my opinion that you can build skill through hard work: I can imagine that the beatles had other experiences which meant that they could pull off something like that, not just an inherent talent from birth, that contributed to that.
And that doesn't change the fact that the OP can still improve by doing some practice...

But to the OP: It's your choice. PeroK did say quite a lot of really valid things, and when considering what I've said keep in mind the fact that I am a kid whereas PeroK is clearly experienced...

 

[symbolipoint]

Do you really think that time spent on something that failed is time wasted?

Difficult! Debatable. Person struggling needs to know when to quit. Person also needs to know how to accept the idea that repeated study of the topic of worry can and often enough does allow for improvements to ones learning or efforts.

 

[symbolipoint]

That is a viable option, but then wouldn't it be better for you to spend your job doing something you love rather than just have it as a side hobby?

What is important here is that one must be able to make trade. "Passion" is not the key to being able to make trade. Competence at something important is a key.

 

[symbolipoint]

You really think "Let it Be" was the product of hard work?

I do! How hard and what kind of hard, too difficult to say. Designing something like "Let it Be" is not completely reliant on what is rational.

 

[TensorCalculus]

What is important here is that one must be able to make trade. "Passion" is not the key to being able to make trade. Competence at something important is a key.

Of course.
But in this case, being able to make trade is a fairly feasible thing.
Better to have passion and be able to make trade than just doing something because you can make money out of it.

 

[symbolipoint]

Alright: I'll think about it, I promise. But I can't promise my opinion will change. Maybe I will end up learning this lesson the hard way.

I made a mistake and based on this mistake I sharply disagree with what I wrote and so I deleted my post. The post must've still appeared while you responded to it.

 

[TensorCalculus]

I made a mistake and based on this mistake I sharply disagree with what I wrote and so I deleted my post. The post must've still appeared while you responded to it.

Oh. Whoops. Okay :)

 

[Dale]

Of course, talent and hard work are not independent. Frequently someone who is innately talented also works very hard at their talent. So it can be difficult to disambiguate the two.

However, IMO the key thing that distinguishes a career from other pursuits is precisely that it is work. If the OP does not naturally work hard at difficult physics problems then it is unlikely to be a good career path for them, regardless of talent.

 

[symbolipoint]

Checking through post #18 from @Dale, "talent" is a difficult concept to rationally understand.

 

[CrysPhys]

Checking through post #18 from @Dale, "talent" is a difficult concept to rationally understand.

"Talent" = "natural ability". Although it's not politically correct to say so, people are not born equally adept at every endeavor.

 

[CrysPhys]

Better to have passion and be able to make trade than just doing something because you can make money out of it.

Ideally, yes: love what you do and make sufficient money at what you do. But such is not always reality. Many jobs are typically constrained by time and cost. You need a high enough level of competence, performance, and efficiency to achieve high quality results and meet those constraints. If you can achieve high quality results and meet those constraints, you can have a successful career, regardless of whether you love the work or not. If you cannot achieve high quality results and meet those constraints, you cannot have a successful career, even if you have a deep passion for the work.

 

[CrysPhys]

Anyone can get better at anything, it is just a matter of time.

Yes, but even if some people are inherently slightly worse at something than everything else, that's nothing that can't be fixed with a little bit of hard work and dedication... in my eyes.

I don't see the logic in quitting something you love just because you think you are bad at it. That's a fixable problem.

The problem needs to be fixable within a viable remediation period. E.g., if the target time interval for a particular task to be performed (set e.g., by a professor, employer, or coach) is 1 hr, and you initially take 2 hrs, there's hope that with remedial training and more effort, you can reach the target expectation within, say, a week. But what if you initially take 20 or 40 or more hrs? So it's a question of initial level of performance, rate of improvement, and target level of performance. Will you be able to achieve the target within a viable remediation period?

Not everyone can become an elite figure skater, concert pianist, pro football player ... or research physicist (at a high enough level to make a living) merely through hard work. Some innate level of physical and mental characteristics and abilities are also required. E.g., consider a 6'11" woman. Potentially a great future as a basketball player; but practically zero future as a pairs figure skater. But everyone (barring a limiting disability) can participate in sports, music, science ... at a lower level of performance purely for enjoyment (not for a living).

@TensorCalculus. At your age, it's great to have such optimism, enthusiasm, and hope. But as you mature, you will find out that not all shortcomings are realistically fixable. You need a good match between what you would like to do and what you can do (and what people are willing to pay you to do).

 

[Hornbein]

"Talent" = "natural ability". Although it's not politically correct to say so, people are not born equally adept at every endeavor.

You can say that again. I am able to do effortlessly some things that most people can't do at all. I am also unable to do some things that most people do effortlessly.

Also, I don't particularly enjoy doing the things for which I have natural ability.

 

[PeroK]

Also, I don't particularly enjoy doing the things for which I have natural ability.

If you have some natural ability in science and mathematics, does that mean you don't enjoy posting on here? Or, do you enjoy posting on here because you have little or no scientific or mathematical ability?

 

[weirdoguy]

Although it's not politically correct to say so

To the contrary, it is perfectly politically correct to say so. You just need to what those others mean when they talk about "equally born". You know, context is the key.

 

[CrysPhys]

To the contrary, it is perfectly politically correct to say so. You just need to what those others mean when they talk about "equally born". You know, context is the key.

Huh???

 

[CrysPhys]

I am able to do effortlessly some things that most people can't do at all. I am also unable to do some things that most people do effortlessly.

@TensorCalculus . This reflects reality.

 

[pinball1970]

This is the nature v nurture debate isn't it? Can you fight nature and is worth it? How much can you increase your ability?
@TensorCalculus has probably been given the argument, "No substitute for hard work," "Genius is 99% perspiration," etc
There is nothing wrong with trying to improve in weak areas so thumbs up.
However I also agree with @PeroK
Pele, Von Neumann and Paul McCartney were born not made.
Sure those guys worked hard but they had one hell of a genetic leg up.
Find your lane and if you need another area like maths to succeed where you are not strong, then get cracking.

 

[TensorCalculus]

The problem needs to be fixable within a viable remediation period. E.g., if the target time interval for a particular task to be performed (set e.g., by a professor, employer, or coach) is 1 hr, and you initially take 2 hrs, there's hope that with remedial training and more effort, you can reach the target expectation within, say, a week. But what if you initially take 20 or 40 or more hrs? So it's a question of initial level of performance, rate of improvement, and target level of performance. Will you be able to achieve the target within a viable remediation period?

Yes, I agree. But in this case, it's just a matter of not being able to problem solve: surely that's not something so dire that it can't be fixed in a fairly short period of time?

@TensorCalculus. At your age, it's great to have such optimism, enthusiasm, and hope. But as you mature, you will find out that not all shortcomings are realistically fixable. You need a good match between what you would like to do and what you can do (and what people are willing to pay you to do).

sighs
Alright. I believe all of you: if it's more than one of you who have this view then I'm definitely the one who's wrong, probably just... haven't matured enough yet. It's a shame though: I really did think that you could do it just through hard work. One day I guess I will see an example of where hard work fails to work...

@TensorCalculus has probably been given the argument, "No substitute for hard work," "Genius is 99% perspiration," etc

Too many times
So, so, so many times...

 

[CrysPhys]

Yes, I agree. But in this case, it's just a matter of not being able to problem solve: surely that's not something so dire that it can't be fixed in a fairly short period of time?

We don't know at this point. Several of us have given the OP guidance to help determine the root cause of their issue.

 

[CrysPhys]

One day I guess I will see an example of where hard work fails to work...

And when you do, remember the figure skating motto: “We all fall. It’s how we get up that matters.”

 

[gmax137]

For example I can’t solve Halliday’s mechanics problems

Can you share more details with us?

Do you not put in any time because you think the problems are boring ('who cares how high the cannon ball goes??')

Do you read the problem and just draw a blank ('I can't even think of where to start!')

Do you get lost in the algebra, geometry, trig?

Despite some of the posts above about 'talent,' nobody is born knowing how to do these problems. It takes experience (practice) to get good at them. Consider sharing one you 'can't solve' either here or in the homework help section. This forum is all about helping students get better at these kinds of problems.

 

[TensorCalculus]

And when you do, remember the figure skating motto: “We all fall. It’s how we get up that matters.

Will do :)