Undergrad Compatibility of Physics and Abstract Algebra

Click For Summary
Abstract algebra is perceived as particularly challenging by undergraduate students, especially those in physics, due to its abstract nature and departure from more familiar mathematical concepts. Many students find it difficult to engage with the material, which can feel disconnected from their interests in physics and mathematics. Professors in related fields also report similar struggles, suggesting a common trend among physics majors. The discussion highlights the importance of understanding the foundational concepts of abstract algebra, as they are crucial for advanced topics in physics like quantum field theory and cosmology. Engaging with concrete examples may help students better grasp the abstract ideas presented in the course.
TRB8985
Messages
74
Reaction score
15
One of the last classes I'm taking before finishing my degrees as an undergraduate is abstract algebra. My professor uses the textbook 'Contemporary Abstract Algebra' by Joseph Gallian. The book isn't written terribly nor is the teacher a poor one, but I just find this subject so uncharacteristically challenging compared to all other math experiences I've had up until this point.

I've shared my experience with a couple professors from my physics department, whose specialties lie in heavy-ion physics, lasers, and mathematical physics, and they all seemed to share a common trait of also having difficulty in this subject at an undergraduate level.

This had me curious - do most undergraduate physics majors also have difficulty with this course?

It feels like there's just something uniquely difficult about this subject compared to, say, multivariable calculus or a PDE course. The content is so monumentally boring and so far-removed from anything familiar that even mustering up the energy to do the homework is like pulling teeth, which is funny, because I really do enjoy physics and mathematics.

Has anyone else had this experience? Do you have any suggestions? Thank you for your input.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The way of thinking is a different one. Whereas you seem to be accustomed to think in terms of functions, the thinking here is along structures. And as always a change of habit is a difficulty per se. I had a look at the content of the book and to me, these are all simple basics, like Newton's mechanics would be for physicists. It apparently doesn't contain any advanced things as Galois theory, spectral theory or any other more interesting subjects. However, if it happens that you will be interested in QFT or cosmolgy or crystallography someday, those fundamentals are the basic language for Lie theory (QFT), algebraic varieties and topological invariants (cosmology), and symmetry groups (cristallography).
 
Abstract algebra is a very different beast. My only advice is to try to arm yourself with good examples of all the key concepts to try to anchor the abstraction in concrete examples.

Even though I studied pure maths, I was generally much happier with analysis and linear algebra. Group theory never caught my imagination.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
Replies
4
Views
2K