Studying Is it normal to be a dunce in some areas of physics?

AI Thread Summary
Concerns about weaknesses in statistical mechanics and thermodynamics among graduate students specializing in gravity are common. Many students feel that a lack of proficiency in these foundational subjects could hinder their overall abilities as physicists, especially since these areas are considered crucial in various fields of physics. However, it is acknowledged that once students progress past qualifying exams, they can focus on their strengths, even if they remain weak in certain areas. Some professionals in academia have experienced similar challenges, having to repeat courses or teach subjects they find difficult. The general consensus suggests that while a solid understanding of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is beneficial, it is not uncommon for physicists to specialize in areas where they may not be fully versed in all foundational topics.
TomServo
Messages
281
Reaction score
9
Maybe "dunce" is the wrong word, but I'm pretty weak on stat mech/thermo. I've had a few courses in them but not to the point where I can understand anything but the most rudimentary basics (each time I took a course in them I happened to have been distracted with other things). I'm a thirdish year grad student specializing in gravity, and so far I'm learning GR pretty well. So how big of a concern should this be? Does it hinder my abilities as a physicist? Aren't thermo and stat mech such big, important subjects that you need to be well-versed in them to do any area of physics?

Or is it normal for people with PhDs, like professors and postdocs, to be very weak in a big area of physics like this once they've gotten to the point where they start specializing? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not where you are yet, I'm still an undergrad, I myself haven't had issues (yet) but that is a very interesting question I am going to have to ask my professors this...
 
TomServo said:
Maybe "dunce" is the wrong word, but I'm pretty weak on stat mech/thermo. I've had a few courses in them but not to the point where I can understand anything but the most rudimentary basics (each time I took a course in them I happened to have been distracted with other things). I'm a thirdish year grad student specializing in gravity, and so far I'm learning GR pretty well. So how big of a concern should this be? Does it hinder my abilities as a physicist? Aren't thermo and stat mech such big, important subjects that you need to be well-versed in them to do any area of physics?

Or is it normal for people with PhDs, like professors and postdocs, to be very weak in a big area of physics like this once they've gotten to the point where they start specializing? Thanks.

I'm a dunce in a few important areas, including stat mech, thermo, tensor analysis, and GR.

Weaknesses in some areas can be offset by strengths in others.

Once you get past the PGRE and the PhD Qualifying Exams (often called General Exams), you can focus on the things you are good at.

But you need to be strong enough even in your weak areas to get past those.
 
  • Like
Likes TomServo
Thermo was the one course that I had to repeat in grad school. Then I had to teach an undergraduate course in it for many years. I found it hard to motivate all those partial-derivative gymnastics to my students, and even to myself sometimes. o0)
 
  • Like
Likes TomServo and Dr. Courtney
jtbell said:
Thermo was the one course that I had to repeat in grad school. Then I had to teach an undergraduate course in it for many years. I found it hard to motivate all those partial-derivative gymnastics to my students, and even to myself sometimes. o0)
As an aside, John Baez has an interesting pair of articles on his Azimuth blog about the Maxwell relations:
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/01/19/classical-mechanics-versus-thermodynamics-part-1/
https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/classical-mechanics-versus-thermodynamics-part-2/
 
Dr. Courtney said:
I'm a dunce in a few important areas, including stat mech, thermo, tensor analysis, and GR.

Weaknesses in some areas can be offset by strengths in others.

Once you get past the PGRE and the PhD Qualifying Exams (often called General Exams), you can focus on the things you are good at.

But you need to be strong enough even in your weak areas to get past those.

I did pass all my qualifying exams, on the first try. :oldbiggrin: But I wish I had time to relearn stat mech/thermo to feel competent in this foundational area.
 
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top