How much Maths does one need in Particle Physics?

[neutrino']

GCSEs followed by O-Levels. After those are A-Levels (can be thought of as university entrance level). Although I started school in the UK, I did not finish so I am not 100% sure.

ok. but can somebody list o , a ... levels in accordance with age? eg age X - _ level

lets finish it here since we are outta topic
thx in advance.

 

[MarcAlexander]

ok. but can somebody list o , a ... levels in accordance with age? eg age X - _ level

lets finish it here since we are outta topic
thx in advance.

GCSE=new version of O-level(14-16)
A-level=College/6th Form(16-18)
...And then you do degrees at University.

 

[neutrino']

thx marc

 

[MarcAlexander]

thx marc

Your welcome. ;)

 

[FeDeX_LaTeX]

Your GCSE years (or what would have been called O-levels a long time ago) are done over two years in schools; Year 10 (aged 14-15) and Year 11 (aged 15-16). Your A-levels consist of an AS year and an A2 year; Year 12 (aged 16-17) and Year 13 (aged 17-18).

A student studying AS Mathematics only will do 3 modules; on the Edexcel exam board, these are C1, C2, and anyone from D1, S1 or M1. A student studying A-level Maths over two years does C1, C2, and anyone from D1, S1 or M1 in Year 12, and C3, C4, and another applied module. There are limitations as to which applied module combination you can do. For example, you can do M1 + M2, S1 + S2, S1 + M1, and D1 + D2, but not S1 + D2, or S2 + M2.

A student studying A-level Further Maths will do those 6 modules listed above (C1-4 + 2 applied) in Year 12, and then another 6 in Year 13 (FP1, either one of FP2 or FP3, and 4 applied units / 3 if you did FP1+FP2+FP3).

Here's a list of what's taught in each module for Edexcel in the UK.

http://www.edexcel.com/migrationdocuments/GCE New GCE/UA024850 GCE in Mathematics issue 2 180510.pdf

There is a third qualification available called Further Maths (Additional) which requires that you do all 18 modules (C1-4, FP1-3, D1-2, S1-4, M1-5).

The grading works as follows; to gain an A in Maths you need 480/600 total over the 6 modules. To gain the A*, you need 480/600 and an average of 90 in C3 and C4 combined. For Further Maths, you need 480/600 for the A, but an average of 90 across your 3 best modules for the A*.

At the beginning of Year 13, you apply to universities with your AS grades, and sometimes they ask you for an interview and possibly give you an offer, usually based on 3 A-levels. This might be A*AA; this means you must achieve that at the end of Year 13. Sometimes they do ask for 4, and 5 is extremely rare. Some people who have done A-levels already by the end of Year 12 might just get a single grade offer of "A*" in the remaining A-level they have to do. If you're doing Maths at a top university, they require that you take STEP. These are three 3-hour-long papers (STEP I, II, III) each marked out of 120. They are graded on a scale of S, 1, 2, 3, and U, where S is the highest grade. Typically a top university (e.g. Cambridge) will give you an offer of A*AA and 1,1 in STEP. The worst offer I have seen is somebody have A*A*A* + S,1 in STEP, but that was a rare occurrence. STEP is not to be underestimated; I have seen students get all A* at GCSE and A-level but end up with a 3,3 in STEP. It's easily one of the hardest maths papers you'll ever sit in your life if you've never done any olympiad stuff.

 

[neutrino']

thx fedex. I now have the info I need on british high school system. Thx

 

[jetwaterluffy]

The thing is, different countries have school systems, so sometimes it doesn't work out the same for the same age group. I think in Scotland they leave school with something similar to AS levels, while in america, they leave with the equivalent of GCSEs, I think. (I'm not sure, though. Might be something different.)

 

[hadsed]

marcalexander. if you know the famous particle physicist Richard Feynman, he had alredy mastered calculus by the age of 15 which means that it is time for you to start enlighten yourself of calculus. He discuses in his autobiography that his mastery of calculus at young age helped him at undergrad school (at MIT), which is clear that his success in QED and other researchs arises from his mastery of calculus. He studied calculus using the book "Calculus for the practical man" buy it or google it for ... as FeDeX_ LaTeX said a quick googling ;).

your consideration for your future career is appreaciable.

It's not a good idea to compare yourself to the greats. You will lose your confidence, you'll get frustrated at yourself for not having an easier time understanding, and also these books and stories about the greats don't tell you everything. No one ever talks about how hard Feynman worked on physics (if you can call it work, he very obviously loved to do it) and how much he thought about it. Not only that, but he was just a really, really smart guy. If you aren't as smart, that is okay, but trying to emulate his every move and then expecting that you'll do really really well is silly. Everyone is different, just try to learn as much as you can when you want to, making sure to have fun and enjoy yourself while you're doing it.

Marc, don't worry too much about it all. If you work hard in your math classes and try to learn, you'll be successful. In the meantime, you can try picking up some popular science books. This is what I did with quantum mechanics, and it's what really sparked my interest. Despite what everyone here says, reading these popular science books can help you understand a lot about theoretical physics, so when it comes time to learn the mathematics behind it, you can use the intuition and knowledge you've built to make sense of the math, and vice-versa. Also, you should subscribe/visit a site like Popular Science or Wired and check out the physics sections. These will keep you up to date about what's going on (kind of like reading papers, but much less difficult) as well as giving you a constant stream of stuff to look up and learn about. It'll keep your curiosity and interest going.

Most importantly, have fun.

 

[MarcAlexander]

It's not a good idea to compare yourself to the greats. You will lose your confidence, you'll get frustrated at yourself for not having an easier time understanding, and also these books and stories about the greats don't tell you everything. No one ever talks about how hard Feynman worked on physics (if you can call it work, he very obviously loved to do it) and how much he thought about it. Not only that, but he was just a really, really smart guy. If you aren't as smart, that is okay, but trying to emulate his every move and then expecting that you'll do really really well is silly. Everyone is different, just try to learn as much as you can when you want to, making sure to have fun and enjoy yourself while you're doing it.

Marc, don't worry too much about it all. If you work hard in your math classes and try to learn, you'll be successful. In the meantime, you can try picking up some popular science books. This is what I did with quantum mechanics, and it's what really sparked my interest. Despite what everyone here says, reading these popular science books can help you understand a lot about theoretical physics, so when it comes time to learn the mathematics behind it, you can use the intuition and knowledge you've built to make sense of the math, and vice-versa. Also, you should subscribe/visit a site like Popular Science or Wired and check out the physics sections. These will keep you up to date about what's going on (kind of like reading papers, but much less difficult) as well as giving you a constant stream of stuff to look up and learn about. It'll keep your curiosity and interest going.

Most importantly, have fun.

Well I'm certainly on the smart side of life for most 14 year olds. ;)

Thanks. I think I'll subscribe to the New Scientist magazine.

EDIT: I've actually started learning Calculus and I've got the hang of functions. After all, I'm an x-computer programmer(3 years of exp.).

 

[hadsed]

That's interesting (about programming). You should really continue with that. I started 'round about when you did, and I'd been thinking of doing CS my entire life onward till my last year in high school when I got to know some real physics. Still, programming has been a huge skill for me to get into doing research. I was able to start doing stuff right in the beginning of my first semester because I went to a guy who did computational astrophysics, which requires a ton of programming to run simulations. Now I'm working with two groups and publishing papers (in my second year now).

You should really, really keep with programming. I'd been on and off, but thankfully I'd done enough to keep my skills good enough and I kept learning. If I had stayed with it consistently, I'd probably be a programming grand master by now. So if you can be a theoretical physicist with incredible mathematical expertise as well as a programming guru... well, then you have a very bright future ahead of you. Not only that, but it gives you lots of flexibility with your future. You won't know in 10 years if you still want to do physics, and you certainly won't know your discipline or field that you'll be working in. Hell, you won't know if you even want to try and keep doing physics research after that.

 

[MarcAlexander]

That's interesting (about programming). You should really continue with that. I started 'round about when you did, and I'd been thinking of doing CS my entire life onward till my last year in high school when I got to know some real physics. Still, programming has been a huge skill for me to get into doing research. I was able to start doing stuff right in the beginning of my first semester because I went to a guy who did computational astrophysics, which requires a ton of programming to run simulations. Now I'm working with two groups and publishing papers (in my second year now).

You should really, really keep with programming. I'd been on and off, but thankfully I'd done enough to keep my skills good enough and I kept learning. If I had stayed with it consistently, I'd probably be a programming grand master by now. So if you can be a theoretical physicist with incredible mathematical expertise as well as a programming guru... well, then you have a very bright future ahead of you. Not only that, but it gives you lots of flexibility with your future. You won't know in 10 years if you still want to do physics, and you certainly won't know your discipline or field that you'll be working in. Hell, you won't know if you even want to try and keep doing physics research after that.

So you what you're saying is I should go back to developing my game engine?

 

[hadsed]

Not go back as in, quit physics and mathematics and just do that. I'm saying you should keep your skills sharp and try to learn new things as you go along. It might be just as beneficial to you as learning mathematics and physics. It doesn't matter what it is really, because it will be beneficial to you as long as you're challenging yourself. Of course you couldn't really do anything with programming and physics since most of the computational stuff that goes on in physics involves solving math problems that are too hard or take too long to solve on paper.

So, short answer, yes you should.