Is everyone's brain capable of learning physics

Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the belief in individual learning capabilities, particularly in physics and mathematics. A participant expresses doubt about their ability to grasp complex physics concepts and equations, citing a lack of formal education and experience in math, specifically calculus. Responses emphasize the importance of foundational mathematics for understanding physics, suggesting that without a solid grasp of basic math, tackling advanced topics like quantum mechanics or relativity is premature. Participants encourage a step-by-step approach to learning, starting with basic mathematics before progressing to more complex subjects. They highlight that struggling with math is common and that true understanding takes time and practice. The conversation also touches on the idea that everyone learns at different rates and that motivation and persistence are crucial for success. Self-learning is discussed, with a caution that it can lead to misconceptions if not paired with feedback or structured guidance. Overall, the consensus is that with dedication and the right resources, anyone can learn physics and mathematics, regardless of their starting point.
  • #61
I've always done my best learning new stuff from textbooks by going to the end of the chapter and solving all the homework questions on my own. That usually required many re-readings and asking questions in class. It takes soak time to absorb knowledge.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
nitsuj said:
physics - math = the fun part of physics

physics - math = astronomy documentaries on Discovery channel

:devil:
 
  • #63
WannabeNewton said:
Mathematics can be extremely interesting. Differential geometry is one of the most beautiful things ever developed by humans IMO. One of the main reasons why general relativity is so smack me in the face elegant is how simply the physics of general relativity can be explained using the language of differential geometry.

I initially went to school intending to study math and physics, and realized I hated doing physics problems. All that sloppy reality kept getting in the way of my beautiful equations.

-Dave K
 
  • #64
micromass said:
Mathematics is very interesting. But physicists don't need to like mathematics. I'm sure many do actually kind of dislike the math. But even those people know that mathematics is necessary for physics. How would you describe Quantum Physics or General Relativity without mathematics? There is almost nothing then. Is that the fun physics?

"To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature ... If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in." -Feynman

-Dave K
 
  • #65
Jheavner724 said:
Many Physicists obviously will hate the mathematics, which is why some have help from a mathematician or students.

The reason physics often recruit other mathematicians to help with their work is that they require some specialized mathematics that the mathematician is fluent in, or to develop some altogether "new" type of mathematics, or to create a mathematical model of something, which requires more "mathematical intuition" than physical intuition. It's not about "hating" math. I would argue you cannot hate math and be a physicist, since you would be spending most of your time doing something you hate.

-Dave K
 
  • #66
Thanks for all the tips I will carry on my road to learning and who knows, maybe a time will come when everything will just click and I'll suddenly open up a part of the brain that allows me the see the bigger picture.

Thanks again.
 
  • #67
DiracPool said:
I can't believe we're over 50 posts here and no one has mentioned that not all brains are created equal for math and physics learning, and that should not necessarily be looked at as some kind of deficit.
The reason nobody has mentioned this is because it's not politically correct to say such things. I could add some political incorrectnesses of my own, but nah. I won't go there.

Meanwhile, they were lining up for me to help them in many of the other life science classes we were in.
That's because mathematics is of limited use in the life sciences. I.M. Galfand said Eugene Wigner wrote a famous essay on the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural sciences. He meant physics, of course. There is only one thing which is more unreasonable than the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in physics, and this is the unreasonable ineffectiveness of mathematics in biology.

Wigner's "unreasonable effectiveness" is a big part of what this thread is about. Is it, as Tegemark conjectured, because our external physical reality is a mathematical structure? Or is it, as V.I. Arnold conjectured, that it is because mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap.

Given the rest of Arnold's discussion on this subject, I suspect Arnold would have strongly disagreed with Tegemark.
 
  • #68
D H said:
The reason nobody has mentioned this is because it's not politically correct to say such things. I could add some political incorrectnesses of my own, but nah. I won't go there.

How is it politically incorrect to say that some people may learn math more effectively in a different fashion from other people? I didn't say that one way was better than another by any means. They're just two different paths to get to the same destination. I think it helps if one has a little intuition as to what path they may already be on but may not know it.

Here's an analogy (I like analogies). Say I'm trying out for a pitcher on my little league team and, noticing that most of the guys trying out are throwing with their right hand, proceed to do so myself. In doing so, however, my pitches direct wildly, the catcher is leaping all over the place, and one pitch almost hits the coach. I've had it, I'm quitting, I'm going to try out for center field.

Then someone comes up to me and says, "hey sport, why not try throwing with your left hand." What? Well, I guess its worth a shot. Then I smoke a fastball right down the strike zone, get the job, and am known as the southpaw kid. If I would have continued to assume that all pitchers are created equal and it was only in their propensity for right-handed ballistic prowess that distinguished them, I would have ended up in center field, what a waste.
 
  • #69
dkotschessaa said:
The reason physics often recruit other mathematicians to help with their work is that they require some specialized mathematics that the mathematician is fluent in, or to develop some altogether "new" type of mathematics, or to create a mathematical model of something, which requires more "mathematical intuition" than physical intuition. It's not about "hating" math. I would argue you cannot hate math and be a physicist, since you would be spending most of your time doing something you hate.

-Dave K

That's entirely true, often times the mathematics is very complex or entirely new. However, some regularly get help on somewhat simple mathematics just for verification or a bit of help. I was just getting the point across that not all physicists necessarily like the mathematics and physicists do not need to be math geniuses to do physics.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
347
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
98
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K