I really love learning physics but

[CyberShot]

This may sound like I'm a crackpot or something, but I really do love physics and finding out about the world. But, there's just one problem. I really hate the way physics is presented in most textbooks and taught at my university; it is unnecessarily complexified, and all dolled up..too much emphasis is put on math and not enough on what it all really means, etc. I really believe that John Nash's quote, "Classes will dull your mind. Destroy the potential for authentic creativity" holds true here. I know that research is going to be totally different than simply regurgitating information that you do in undergrad, but I feel like I just can't wait till that point. and I'm not even sure this will turn out bright as I expected them too.

I guess my question is, on the assumption that things will continue this way, should I just give up on physics now and save myself the disappointment later?

 

[Pengwuino]

The hardest and most substantive parts of physics are the mathematical parts. If you just try to learn physics based off of ideas, you're going to quickly run into an infinite sea of roadblocks and things that you think "should be right" but in fact, are not. Oddly enough, what you do end up finding out is that the correct physics can be most easily determined based off the mathematical intuition you develop which comes from the complex aspects of physics.

If you don't like the idea that you'll have to look beyond your simple intuition to further learn physics, you will have some problems. However, it's not that you inevitably have to throw away the simple and the more physical basis of reality, you simply create a more advanced understanding of reality. What is "complexified a "dolled up" to you now, in 4 years time or whatever will seem totally basic and obvious.

And remember, the simpler and less "dolled up" explanations inevitably lead you to the wrong answer and that's all that matters.

 

[micromass]

You absolutely need mathematics in physics. It may seem unnecessary at first, but after a while you'll see many counterintuitive things that can only be worked out with mathematics.

For example, consider these questions:
1) A helium balloon flies in a car, the car stops, does the balloon go backwards or forwards?
2) You are with a ship in a lake and you have a heavy rock in your ship. You drop the rock in the water, does the water level go up or down?
3) There an airplane on a threadmill. The threadmill goes as fast as the plane. Can the plane fly?

These three question are impossible (for me) to answer with intuition. You must use mathematical models here and you must calculate things. Physicists don't use math for fun, but because it's necessary!

 

[Ryker]

I would say the responses you'll get here are going to be pretty much the same as in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=469029", so since no one is going to give you a straight answer to your question, I'd try and re-read what was said there.

 

[CyberShot]

You absolutely need mathematics in physics. It may seem unnecessary at first, but after a while you'll see many counterintuitive things that can only be worked out with mathematics.

For example, consider these questions:
1) A helium balloon flies in a car, the car stops, does the balloon go backwards or forwards?
2) You are with a ship in a lake and you have a heavy rock in your ship. You drop the rock in the water, does the water level go up or down?
3) There an airplane on a threadmill. The threadmill goes as fast as the plane. Can the plane fly?

These three question are impossible (for me) to answer with intuition. You must use mathematical models here and you must calculate things. Physicists don't use math for fun, but because it's necessary!

1) Different answer depending on the precise presentation of the question
2) Stays the same since the rock was always part of the closed system of the lake
3) Can you elaborate?

I haven't looked any of these up, just sat here and summoned good ol' intuition.

 

[Fizex]

This is the exact same discussion as last time. Why do you feel the need to repeat yourself every month? Did you not get enough replies!?

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=469029

 

[micromass]

1) Different answer depending on the precise presentation of the question

Let's say the balloon was filled with helium.

2) Stays the same since the rock was always part of the closed system of the lake

Wrong, try again.

3) Can you elaborate?

Here's the exact question, ask any question that is not clarified:

“Imagine a plane is sitting on a massive conveyor belt, as wide and as long as a runway. The conveyer belt is designed to exactly match the speed of the wheels, moving in the opposite direction. Can the plane take off?
​

I haven't looked any of these up, just sat here and summoned good ol' intuition.

math vs intuition: 1-0

 

[Pengwuino]

1) Different answer depending on the precise presentation of the question
2) Stays the same since the rock was always part of the closed system of the lake
3) Can you elaborate?

I haven't looked any of these up, just sat here and summoned good ol' intuition.

See, here is the problem. Your intuition is already failing even with these extremely basic questions. Your first response wasn't even an answer. The second response was wrong and the third doesn't even need to be elaborated on, this is a simple "intuition" question that comes up a lot as tests of someones critical thinking.

This is why we can't rely on intuition to take us all the way.

Can your intuition tell you that the ionizing energy of a hydrogen atom in it's ground state is 13.6eV? Can it tell you about it's hyperfine splitting?

 

[DrummingAtom]

But, there's just one problem. I really hate the way physics is presented in most textbooks and taught at my university; it is unnecessarily complexified, and all dolled up..too much emphasis is put on math and not enough on what it all really means, etc.

What do you mean by that bolded part? Math definitely describes what it means because it makes the physics precise and math can also predict. What does gravity mean to you?

 

[CyberShot]

Why doesn't the water level stay the same then? You have changed nothing by dumping it into the lake, as it was always displacing the water by the same amount to begin with. Now that you have dumped it , the displacements are just split up into the rock and the ship separately, instead of being a lump sum of the rock on the ship. Right?

 

[CyberShot]

What do you mean by that bolded part? Math definitely describes what it means because it makes the physics precise and math can also predict. What does gravity mean to you?

I was speaking, in particular, about the tendency to ignore physical interpretations of wavefunctions, etc.

 

[micromass]

Why doesn't the water level stay the same then? You have changed nothing by dumping it into the lake, as it was always displacing the water by the same amount to begin with. Now that you have dumped it , the displacements are just split up into the rock and the ship separately, instead of being a lump sum of the rock on the ship. Right?

Consider a rock with a very heavy mass but a negligble volume. If you throw it into the water, then there won't be much displacement from the rock. However, as the very heavy mass left the boat, a lot of the boat leaves the water. Thus the water level goes down.

Of course, this is only an interpretation. But the real answer can be found with mathematics...

Don't feel bad about answering wrong though, they asked some physics professors to give an immediate reply, and (if I recall well) more than half answered wrong. I'm just saying we need math and we can't rely on intuition...

 

[Pengwuino]

Why doesn't the water level stay the same then? You have changed nothing by dumping it into the lake, as it was always displacing the water by the same amount to begin with. Now that you have dumped it , the displacements are just split up into the rock and the ship separately, instead of being a lump sum of the rock on the ship. Right?

Try it out. We actually have this as a lab for the non-science majors at my university. Get an aquarium if you can, something that can hold a lot of water and you can measure depths. Then get a floating box or something that can act like a boat and put a rock in it and measure the depth of the water. Then drop the rock into the aquarium or whatever and you will see the water level will fall.

This is basic Bernoulli's principle.

I was speaking, in particular, about the tendency to ignore physical interpretations of wavefunctions, etc.

No one has found one yet. Don't fool yourself into thinking people haven't been thinking about that problem for decades, however.

Let's get real here, it sounds like you're in your first semester of physics. It's going to be downhill from here if you don't just give up on the idea that every problem can just be thought about long enough and out comes an answer.

 

[CyberShot]

^ Yes but both if you hid an important fact from me; namely, that the mass of the rock was not negligible compared to that of the boat.

In fact, I will leave it as an exercise for you to show that the closer the two are in mass, the less increase in water height will be observed.

 

[Fizex]

Why doesn't the water level stay the same then? You have changed nothing by dumping it into the lake, as it was always displacing the water by the same amount to begin with. Now that you have dumped it , the displacements are just split up into the rock and the ship separately, instead of being a lump sum of the rock on the ship. Right?

First of all you used words which actually contain mathematics in disguise. The rock in the boat is essentially floating with the boat and adding weight to the boat. Archmedes principle says that any floating object displaces its own weight in fluid. So the boat is pushing down on the water and the water balances by moving up in equilibrium around the boat. Say the rock is one ton, it will displace one ton of fluid while on the boat. When the rock is thrown overboard it is no longer floating and only displaces its equivalent volume of water weight instead which is less than the original because the rock is denser than water so the equivalent fluid is displaced by less than a ton.

^ Yes but both if you hid an important fact from me; namely, that the mass of the rock was not negligible compared to that of the boat.

In fact, I will leave it as an exercise for you to show that the closer the two are in mass, the less increase in water height will be observed.

A very small decrease in water level is still a decrease.

 

[battousai]

Yes, let's use intuition with something, say, quantum mechanics. Sounds like a very good idea.

 

[Fizex]

Yes, let's use intuition with something, say, quantum mechanics. Sounds like a very good idea.

We've already discussed that with him:

Have you taken quantum mechanics yet? No human intuition is going to let you derive the solutions to it's problems.

Exactly why it's probably a stubbornly wrong model of reality, not that I'm qualified (as in a physics degree) to make such statements about ludicrous theories that include two particles deciding on their own accord to "communicate" with each other without actually communicating. :-)

Says he is not credible enough to argue.

 

[Fizex]

Please follow the flowchat above. If this is not a discussion then I suggest you move away from physics as we cannot change your mind.

 

[DrummingAtom]

^^ Hahaha, I love it. That needs to be posted on billboards.

 

[Klockan3]

^ Yes but both if you hid an important fact from me; namely, that the mass of the rock was not negligible compared to that of the boat.

In fact, I will leave it as an exercise for you to show that the closer the two are in mass, the less increase in water height will be observed.

No, the boats mass doesn't matter at all, all that matters is the density of the rock, right now you are just making up things and calling it intuition. Most rocks are denser than water so that is a good thing to assume. Now that is all the information you need. Honestly, your intuition is so worthless that I would advice you to never use it again unless you start over and revise it from the start.

 

[battousai]

Based on my academic qualified hypothesis, keen sense of deduction, and the presence of a sense of the common type, my conclusion is that the OP is a troll. If you have any questions regarding my diagnosis, feel free to leave a message and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you.

 

[Pengwuino]

^ Yes but both if you hid an important fact from me; namely, that the mass of the rock was not negligible compared to that of the boat.

In fact, I will leave it as an exercise for you to show that the closer the two are in mass, the less increase in water height will be observed.

Wrong. Try again.

You see? Intuition, especially a bad intuition such as yours, can't tell you how the universe works.

And the worst thing for someone to do to try to prove a point is to tell someone ELSE to do the work that shows you are in fact, still wrong. This problem is a SIMPLE problem that even my students, who aren't even science majors, do.

Also, why haven't you intuitively determined the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom yet?

You ask if you should stay in physics. If you can't change your attitude, I advise you to get out because it's better to voluntarily get out then end up failing out of your classes because you can't accept the idea of how the math can show us how the world defies our intuition at times.

 

[Fizex]

This problem is a SIMPLE problem that even my students, who aren't even science majors, do.

Oppenheimer got it wrong. Probably used his intuition at first.

Based on my academic qualified hypothesis, keen sense of deduction, and the presence of a sense of the common type, my conclusion is that the OP is a troll. If you have any questions regarding my diagnosis, feel free to leave a message and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you.

It's very possible that he means what he is saying but posting the same question multiple times on multiple forums while ignoring evidence and logic is as serious as trolling.

 

[Pengwuino]

Oppenheimer got it wrong. Probably used his intuition at first.

I didn't say they do it right...

 

[Ryker]

Wrong. Try again.

You see? Intuition, especially a bad intuition such as yours, can't tell you how the universe works.

And the worst thing for someone to do to try to prove a point is to tell someone ELSE to do the work that shows you are in fact, still wrong. This problem is a SIMPLE problem that even my students, who aren't even science majors, do.

Also, why haven't you intuitively determined the ionization energy of a hydrogen atom yet?

You ask if you should stay in physics. If you can't change your attitude, I advise you to get out because it's better to voluntarily get out then end up failing out of your classes because you can't accept the idea of how the math can show us how the world defies our intuition at times.

Cut him some slack. It's not as if he condescendingly left this as an exercise for you. Oh...

Based on my academic qualified hypothesis, keen sense of deduction, and the presence of a sense of the common type, my conclusion is that the OP is a troll. If you have any questions regarding my diagnosis, feel free to leave a message and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you.

If your conclusion was plotted on a chart, the error bars would be too small to be seen. Good job, sir.

 

[Geezer]

I was speaking, in particular, about the tendency to ignore physical interpretations of wavefunctions, etc.

If you think there's a tendency to ignore "physical interpretations of wavefunctions," you're wrong. There are thousands of very intelligent physicists working to understand quantum mechanics and wavefunctions (and so much more, too!). The difference, however, is that they won't take the easy way out and resort to philosophizing without putting down some math to back up their claims. Unlike words, math is unambiguous. If you, CyberShot, have an interpretation of a wavefunction that you think is right, describe it with some math--something unambiguous and readily lends itself to experimental verification--and publish it. No one's stopping you.

 

[Geezer]

Based on my academic qualified hypothesis, keen sense of deduction, and the presence of a sense of the common type, my conclusion is that the OP is a troll. If you have any questions regarding my diagnosis, feel free to leave a message and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Thank you.

Aye.

 

[MathematicalPhysicist]

I really believe that John Nash's quote, "Classes will dull your mind. Destroy the potential for authentic creativity" holds true here.

You don't know how much it is so.

The only way is to learn what you want to learn, I mean if you need the degree/s for some jobs then choose your courses wisely, as in not taking courses with a bad lecturer.

Either way in the end what you'll learn is what you set yourself to learn, most people after taking the exam or final take home exam or project don't remember a lot from the material anyways.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since this is a continuation of a locked thread, this is locked as well.