How to think about physics? / How to approach a difficult problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter azukibean
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approach Physics
AI Thread Summary
To improve problem-solving skills in physics, a systematic approach is essential, such as drawing diagrams and listing variables to identify relationships and relevant formulas. The GRASP method—Given, Required, Assess, Solve, Paraphrase—is effective for high school physics, providing a structured way to tackle problems. While this method works well for simpler problems, more complex scenarios may require deeper understanding and adaptation of strategies. Gaining proficiency in physics comes from practice, making mistakes, and learning from them, which helps in understanding the underlying concepts. Engaging with a variety of problems enhances both analytical skills and conceptual clarity in physics.
azukibean
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
How I currently approach a difficult problem:
-draw a diagram
-list out all the given variables and "solve-for" variable
--use variables to match to a formula ("oh they didn't give the time, I should use the formula V^2-V0^2 = 2*a*(S-S0)," or "I have a, t, and V0, and assuming S0 is 0, I can use S = a/2*t^2 + V0*t +S0)
--if I have two unknown variables, I think whether or not I could relate one of those variables in terms of the other

You obviously have a different mindset for maths than for analyzing literature. How to I become better at thinking about physics?
Sometimes how things relate don't jump out at me. And are there better ways to approach a problem?

++++
ex:

Homework Statement


A student drops her textbook from the top of a roof. It passed a distance of 1.4 m in .02 s (from the top of a window to the bottom). Find the distance from the top of the window to the top of the roof.

Homework Equations


1. v = a*t + v0
2. S - S0 = Vbar*t
3. S = a/2*t^2 + V0*t + S0
4. V^2-V0^2 = 2*a*(S-S0)

The Attempt at a Solution


Thought process:
"I have S, t, and a. I should find the velocity. I use equation 3 and make sure whatever I put in is consistent/makes sense. (-1.4 = (-5)(.02)^2 + 0t + S0 is not consistent, because I plugged in the initial velocity at the time 0 s, right before she dropped the book)
If I have the time, I could find the distance. If V = -69.9 and a = -10 it took... 6.99 s. I have most of the variables for E3. I plug it in, and I find the top of the window is -244.3. The total distance is then 244.3."
++++
As you can see, I employ a method of "find the easily found unknown" hoping it will lead to the wanted unknown. I think that's a trait of my maths mindset.
So how do I get better at thinking about physics? TIA. Hopefully this isn't a weird question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your approach is the same approach I was taught in high-school level physics. It was termed the GRASP method (Given; Required; Assess; Solve; Paraphrase). I think this is a very useful method while one is being introduced to problem solving, a skill which is developed by completing more and more physics problems.

In general, for high school level physics this approach will be "all you need". The vast majority of problems you will face are simple enough that this approach works surprisingly well. As you encounter more and more advanced problems you might find this approach becomes less useful - or maybe it will retain its utility.

To answer your question, however - you get better at (thinking about) physics by doing physics. You have to do physics and you have to make mistakes and learn from the mistakes you make and always ask "why" what you did was wrong. Sometimes you might just make a math error, forgetting a negative sign here or there, but sometimes you'll discover some kind of more subtle physical property of a system by making mistakes or overlooking something simple.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top