Electrodynamics Causing me to loose interest in physics

[QuantumJG]

I'm in my final year of undergrad and this semester I'm doing electrodynamics. Well I'm finding the subject to be very dry, difficult Maths and trying to study the content is just boring.

Next year I want to go into masters, but I need to decide whether I want to do it in Maths or physics. At the moment I'm honestly more interested in pursuing Maths.

Has anyone gone through this problem?

 

[QuantumJG]

The main reason why I made this thread is that me and physics go back to when I was 16 but I'm just not enjoying electrodynamics.

 

[Klockan3]

Why did you get into physics in the first place? Personally I thought that Electrodynamics was one of the most fun subjects but it all depends on what you like with physics. I liked Electrodynamics because it is very nice and pure matched with tons of intuitive concepts, it really developed my physical intuition.

 

[ZapperZ]

I'm in my final year of undergrad and this semester I'm doing electrodynamics. Well I'm finding the subject to be very dry, difficult Maths and trying to study the content is just boring.

Next year I want to go into masters, but I need to decide whether I want to do it in Maths or physics. At the moment I'm honestly more interested in pursuing Maths.

Has anyone gone through this problem?

Er... back up a bit. You found the mathematics in E&M difficult, so you are considering going into mathematics? Did I read this right?

E&M is difficult because the mathematics is difficult, if you are not sufficiently well-prepared. Yet, in physics, you have to know undergraduate E&M extremely well because

(i) the mathematics you use sets you up to do a lot of other physics. The spherical harmonics solutions that you use in E&M is no different than the series solutions that you encounter in QM. They are all solutions to partial differential equations.

(ii) you can't do physics without a solid foundation in E&M

(iii) knowledge of E&M (and even an expertise in this field) gives you an added dimension in your employability. I'm not saying that by getting an "A" in the class that you become highly sought-after. But those who do go on in areas of study with a very strong skill in this area (such as accelerator physics) often have an easier time getting a job, because their skill overlap a lot of those who do RF engineering, etc.

Zz.

 

[QuantumJG]

The maths isn't difficult it's more that it is boring Maths.

I am currently doing complex analysis and algebra (rings, modules and fields) and I find this Maths interesting. I enjoy my Maths subjects because the lecturers are thorough in explaining how they get something instead of 'guessing' the answer and using weird nonsensical tricks to validate their claim.

 

[ZapperZ]

The maths isn't difficult it's more that it is boring Maths.

I am currently doing complex analysis and algebra (rings, modules and fields) and I find this Maths interesting. I enjoy my Maths subjects because the lecturers are thorough in explaining how they get something instead of 'guessing' the answer and using weird nonsensical tricks to validate their claim.

1. If you know the math, then don't resort to those "guessing" and "weird nonsensical tricks" when you solve your E&M problem. Do it as thoroughly as you wish.

2. A quote out of the To The Student section in Mary Boas's "Mathematical Methods for the Physical Science"

There is no merit in spending hours producing a many-page solution to a problem that can be done by a better method in a few lines. Please ignore anyone who disparages problem-solving techniques as "tricks" or "shortcuts". You will find that the more able you are to choose effective methods of solving problems in your science courses, the easier it will be for you to master the new material.

3. The E&M class is to learn about E&M, not to dwell on the "tools" used. If you care more about the tools, then maybe you should go into mathematics instead.

Zz.

 

[QuantumJG]

Your third statement is probably what I've been asking myself.

When I was 14 and learn't about atoms I was so intrigued that I studied nuclear physics (very basic qualitative nuclear physics) and the started trying to imagine what was actually happening. I developed a love of space when I was 8 and it wasn't until I saw algebra in year 8 that I realized that I loved Maths.

I somewhat feel that physics has lost that mystery it had when I was younger and spent hours trying to understand concepts.

 

[ZapperZ]

Your third statement is probably what I've been asking myself.

When I was 14 and learn't about atoms I was so intrigued that I studied nuclear physics (very basic qualitative nuclear physics) and the started trying to imagine what was actually happening. I developed a love of space when I was 8 and it wasn't until I saw algebra in year 8 that I realized that I loved Maths.

I somewhat feel that physics has lost that mystery it had when I was younger and spent hours trying to understand concepts.

Luckily, some of us never lost sight of the fact that how something is taught often has nothing to do with what it is. Even when I felt bored in a physics class, I never felt bored with the topic itself, and part of growing up is making a number of these realizations.

Zz.

 

[Klockan3]

The maths isn't difficult it's more that it is boring Maths.

I am currently doing complex analysis and algebra (rings, modules and fields) and I find this Maths interesting. I enjoy my Maths subjects because the lecturers are thorough in explaining how they get something instead of 'guessing' the answer and using weird nonsensical tricks to validate their claim.

You can't do maths without this type of "guessing". How do you prove something you haven't proved before? Or how do you find counterexamples? Also you obviously don't understand the maths if you think that the tricks are nonsensical.

This sounds more to me like you dislike that physics isn't as clear and easy to follow as maths is, if you can't muster this then sure go do maths instead.

But let me warn you about maths, courses like introductory abstract algebra ones are very seductive with its simplicity and clarity but that is mostly because you are starting over from scratch. It won't stay that way for long and you will get exactly the same kinds of problems over there as you currently got with physics.

 

[diligence]

I'm in a similar boat, albeit at a much earlier level than you. I'm ~sophomore math/physics major. I used to think physics was the only thing i wanted to do. i took math solely to apply to physics. but since taking modern physics this semester, especially modern lab, I'm finding that all the nitty gritty physics is really not very tasteful to me and that i actually greatly prefer mathematics. Things like the lack of explanation for the wave-particle duality and all the "unphysical" terms that physicists discard are a bit unsettling to me. It's gotten to the point where it drives me absolutely bananas when my physics professor is vague and not rigorous with the math and it's made me realize that the rigor of math really is my style after all.

I've spent a great deal of time thinking about this recently and realized that although physics topics are sometimes more exciting than math topics, i actually enjoy doing math much much much more.

 

[Klockan3]

... but since taking modern physics this semester...

Modern physics is often a horrible course where most derivations and explanations are left out. Don't judge physics based on it, it isn't made to cater to theorists. Physics has a mathematically rigorous structure all the way up till but not including quantum field theory, but even that isn't far from being rigorous. The only thing is that it isn't taught that way since most physicists won't ever need that structure since they will be in a lab manipulating lasers or something like that, even most theorists never see that. It is mostly mathematical physicists who do it.

Anyhow, the maths required to do just the normal quantum mechanics rigorously is way above undergraduate level and also way above what most physicists knows. But at least books like Gaziorowich have the same semi rigor as all the physics courses you are used to, not like the horrible modern physics course.

 

[QuantumJG]

Despite being mauled by peers, I want to somewhat try to explain my thesis.

The Maths prerequisites for my physics classes are way under what you actually need so that you can comprehend the Maths or even these 'tricks' used by physics lecturers. The problem is with Electrodynamics only requiring Real Analysis and Vector Analysis, whereas Partial Differential Equations is not required even though when we look at Greene's functions and separation of variables, we only get a crash course in how to 'use' these tools.

 

[ZapperZ]

Despite being mauled by peers, I want to somewhat try to explain my thesis.

The Maths prerequisites for my physics classes are way under what you actually need so that you can comprehend the Maths or even these 'tricks' used by physics lecturers. The problem is with Electrodynamics only requiring Real Analysis and Vector Analysis, whereas Partial Differential Equations is not required even though when we look at Greene's functions and separation of variables, we only get a crash course in how to 'use' these tools.

But this is not uncommon. It may not be the most optimum way of learning E&M, but it is done in many schools. I went through the same thing, where I had to pick up the math at the same time that I was learning the physics. It was not easy.

But this is also why people such as Mary Boas are producing such mathematical physics books, to help students who don't have such courses to prepare them for these physics subjects. Physics students (and for that matter, engineering students) typically do not have the patience to do that much math classes before they can take these physics courses. So in the end, physics instructors have to show them the shorthanded mathematics for them to get by with the physics classes. But that doesn't mean that you have to disparage such shortcuts. There's nothing to prevent a student from pursuing the math further than what can be cramped into what is essentially a Physics course.

Zz.

 

[stevenb]

I'm in my final year of undergrad and this semester I'm doing electrodynamics. Well I'm finding the subject to be very dry, difficult Maths and trying to study the content is just boring.

Next year I want to go into masters, but I need to decide whether I want to do it in Maths or physics. At the moment I'm honestly more interested in pursuing Maths.

Has anyone gone through this problem?

I think a physicist should find EM theory fascinating on some level. If you say that you find other areas of physics more interesting, that's fine, but if physics is dry to you and mathematics is interesting to you, then the answer to your question is a no-brainer.

 

[maverick280857]

Luckily, some of us never lost sight of the fact that how something is taught often has nothing to do with what it is. Even when I felt bored in a physics class, I never felt bored with the topic itself, and part of growing up is making a number of these realizations.

I wish there were a "thumbs up" or "I like" icon here. This is absolutely the most important piece of input that you should internalize QuantumJG.

Just consider a few things though. You find the mathematical tools used in E&M boring/difficult/unappealing. But you find the physics interesting. Have you looked at Griffiths' book? He uses quite a bit of sophisticated mathematics, but all at roughly the same level that Jackson does (if you leave out the tensor stuff). Griffiths has far less material, and I think it often gets overlooked.

My personal opinion is that most people get to Jackson way faster than they should, before they have mastered Griffiths (a surprisingly underrated "freshman" E&M text!). It is possible to actually do every problem in Griffiths between your freshman E&M course and your first encounter of Jackson (which I'm guessing takes 2 years for most people).

Another thing you can do to get a better 'feel' of E&M is to plot the solutions computationally with MATLAB/Matheamtica and look at the problem from a physical standpoint. Depending on classes too much to derive interest isn't going to help as ZapperZ points out. Independent interest in a subject is unbeatable.

Sometimes, the 'appeal' of a subject is deceptive. When you get down to doing groups, rings and fields full time, say in a first course, or through a book, you'll find many 'trivial/boring problems' which would parallel the boring problems you seem to have encountered in your E&M class. For instance proving that 'G is a group' may not have as much appeal as understanding some advanced theorem from Lie groups or differential geometry.

Almost everything seems cool and interesting on a superficial level. As you scratch the surface and dig deeper, the way you look at the subject changes. If you are still sticking to the outward impressions of a subject, you will often not find it interesting at a deeper level.

 

[maverick280857]

Things like the lack of explanation for the wave-particle duality and all the "unphysical" terms that physicists discard are a bit unsettling to me. It's gotten to the point where it drives me absolutely bananas when my physics professor is vague and not rigorous with the math and it's made me realize that the rigor of math really is my style after all.

That's because Physics is an observational science. Mathematics does not claim or endeavor to explain natural phenomena. It can exist independent of experiments and observations. No matter how theoretical and abstract the math used in physics is, it is meant to ultimately explain observed phenomena. The 'lack of rigor' is because physics is about model building, which involves making simplifying assumptions and approximations.

The things you mention (wave-particle duality, discarding unphysical terms) have some sound basis grounded in observation or experiment. They cannot be prescribed by rigorous theorems because one would have to understand the entire universe to postulate a rigorous theorem about it. All the physical laws we know of today are accepted because we have found no contradictions to them. There is no theorem which states that these laws are correct.

...i actually enjoy doing math much much much more.

Yes, this is perhaps what the OP was hinting at too. But I am inclined to think that your interest in math is independent of your disinterest in physics, but not because of the lack of rigor in physics.

 

[diligence]

That's because Physics is an observational science


Yes, that's a really good point.

Here's a good example of one of my issues with physicists just tossing unobserved factors (please excuse my sophomore level education if that arises): take the tunnel effect for instance. Classically, this is impossible. But when quantum theory was developed, they discovered mathematically viable solutions where the classically impossible became a physical possibility, and physicists used these solutions to make predictions of "unphysical" phenomena which later proved true.

So was the tunnel effect tossed out until it was observed experimentally? And what's to stop many of the other unphysical terms from someday finding basis in reality, when we understand more about the way reality actually works. Obviously some of these things seem absurd, and likely are, yet many would say the same about quantum theory itself..so it seems to me that just tossing things out whenever it's unobserved or unphysical could effectively put blinders on some parts of science.

 

[flyingpig]

Personally, I am also having difficulties with E&M...

It's just extremely difficult to accept Gauss's Law for me...

 

[diligence]

(sorry if i kinda hijacked the thread)

 

[zahero_2007]

I'm in my final year of undergrad and this semester I'm doing electrodynamics. Well I'm finding the subject to be very dry, difficult Maths and trying to study the content is just boring.

Next year I want to go into masters, but I need to decide whether I want to do it in Maths or physics. At the moment I'm honestly more interested in pursuing Maths.

Has anyone gone through this problem?

You find the math of electrodynamics difficult and very dry but you want to do math in graduate school , how is that?