Is modern physics as a course necessary for all future physicists?

In summary, the conversation discussed the lack of a modern physics course at certain universities, such as Princeton and MIT, and the absence of compulsory courses in subjects like special relativity and quantum mechanics for physics majors. The conversation also questioned the importance of these subjects for future research physicists and wondered why MIT did not include them as compulsory courses. However, it was pointed out that the required courses for graduation at MIT, while not including modern physics, do cover these subjects in some capacity. It was also noted that the lack of these courses may be due to a more streamlined and focused curriculum for double majors and that the actual courses taken by physics majors may vary
  • #1
CiaoMeow
So I'm about to start my second year of college soon, I'm majoring in physics.

I've noticed that some universities (places like Princeton, MIT, etc) don't have a course on modern physics, where a more superficial treatment is given to things like special relativity, quantum mechanics, solid-state, particle and nuclear physics and the like. They jump into quantum mechanics with a book like Griffiths directly.

Is this normal? Like, if there's no modern physics course, and other than the core subjects (classical mechanics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics and thermodynamics), no electives for solid-state, particle and nuclear physics are taken, is it acceptable in this day and age for a physicist to not have any training in these subjects? Of course, not everybody wants to go into HEP or condensed matter physics down the line, but still.

What are your thoughts on this? My colleague from college brought it up and I'm not sure what to think. :oldbiggrin:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
? Have you looked at the MIT undergrad course offerings?

http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m8a.html

There are electives in relativity, solid-state, nuclear and particles, and others ... taken after completion of appropriate core coursework. What physics major would want to take watered-down courses not requiring core coursework? Completion of an undergrad degree typically requires some electives.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
CrysPhys said:
? Have you looked at the MIT undergrad course offerings?

http://student.mit.edu/catalog/m8a.html

There are electives in relativity, solid-state, nuclear and particles, and others ... taken after completion of appropriate core coursework. What physics major would want to take watered-down courses not requiring core coursework? Completion of an undergrad degree typically requires some electives.

Those are the electives offered. However, note that my question is about what is compulsory to graduate as a physics major. The actual requirements are listed here (focused option)

http://web.mit.edu/physics//OldFiles/current/undergrad/major.html

You'll note that they don't include any compulsory course on particle physics, nuclear physics, or solid state/condensed matter physics. Specific majors may or may not decide to take those specific kinds of electives, and instead opt for, for example, 8.07, 8.08 and 8.09, none of which are particle physics, nuclear physics, or solid state/condensed matter physics as you can check, but a continuation of the core courses in classical mechanics, electromagnetism and thermal physics.

So, the thing is, MIT, not having a sophomore-level modern physics course, and in principle not having any compulsory elective in particle physics, nuclear physics, or solid state/condensed matter physics, can in principle allow one to graduate as a physics major in their focused option without having seen any of these branches of physics. My question is, then, is this acceptable for someone who down the line can potentially become a research physicist? Why did MIT decide that these courses are not important enough for every focused option (future physics grad students) physics major at their institute?

Maybe they think they'll be able to pick it up as needed?
 
  • #4
The bare minimum MIT requires for graduation is not a good measure of what majors actually take. (It is, however, a good measure of what double majors take in their secondary major)

When I was a student, the required classes were 8.01/8.02 (intro), 8.03 (waves), 8.04 QM1 (Eisberg and Resnick) and 8.05 QM2 (Liboff), and two of the three of 8.06 (mechanics), 8.07 (E&M) and 8.08 (Stat Mech), plus two semesters of junior lab, plus two physics electives, plus thesis. Institute requirements were one lab class in a different department. Relativity was covered in 8.01, 8.02 and 8.07, and most applications of QM in 8.04, although rather superficially. Adding a "modern physics" class to this curriculum would add very little material.
 
  • Like
Likes CiaoMeow
  • #5
Vanadium 50 said:
The bare minimum MIT requires for graduation is not a good measure of what majors actually take. (It is, however, a good measure of what double majors take in their secondary major)

When I was a student, the required classes were 8.01/8.02 (intro), 8.03 (waves), 8.04 QM1 (Eisberg and Resnick) and 8.05 QM2 (Liboff), and two of the three of 8.06 (mechanics), 8.07 (E&M) and 8.08 (Stat Mech), plus two semesters of junior lab, plus two physics electives, plus thesis. Institute requirements were one lab class in a different department. Relativity was covered in 8.01, 8.02 and 8.07, and most applications of QM in 8.04, although rather superficially. Adding a "modern physics" class to this curriculum would add very little material.
That's interesting. From what you said, it seems roughly the same these days. I wasn't aware 8.04 used Eisberg and Resnick. From the video lectures here, they also seem to cover the formalism a bit (Dirac notation and the like), and with the exception of lecture 22 which seems to be some solid state physics, most of the rest doesn't seem to be applications per se but 'just' quantum mechanics. I guess it depends on who teaches the course, too. :oldgrumpy:

Anyway, I hadn't considered that double majors whose secondary major was physics could also benefit from a more streamlined but focused curriculum, it makes sense in that case.
 
  • #6
CiaoMeow said:
Those are the electives offered. However, note that my question is about what is compulsory to graduate as a physics major. The actual requirements are listed here (focused option)

http://web.mit.edu/physics//OldFiles/current/undergrad/major.html

You'll note that they don't include any compulsory course on particle physics, nuclear physics, or solid state/condensed matter physics. Specific majors may or may not decide to take those specific kinds of electives, and instead opt for, for example, 8.07, 8.08 and 8.09, none of which are particle physics, nuclear physics, or solid state/condensed matter physics as you can check, but a continuation of the core courses in classical mechanics, electromagnetism and thermal physics.

So, the thing is, MIT, not having a sophomore-level modern physics course, and in principle not having any compulsory elective in particle physics, nuclear physics, or solid state/condensed matter physics, can in principle allow one to graduate as a physics major in their focused option without having seen any of these branches of physics. My question is, then, is this acceptable for someone who down the line can potentially become a research physicist? Why did MIT decide that these courses are not important enough for every focused option (future physics grad students) physics major at their institute?

Maybe they think they'll be able to pick it up as needed?
The student will work with his advisor to work out the complete undergrad physics program. For example, if he is interested in pursuing solid-state physics, he will elect to take 8.231 Physics of Solids I. Students there generally have a good idea of what field within physics they're interested in pursuing.
 
  • Like
Likes CiaoMeow
  • #7
CrysPhys said:
The student will work with his advisor to work out the complete undergrad physics program. For example, if he is interested in pursuing solid-state physics, he will elect to take 8.231 Physics of Solids I. Students there generally have a good idea of what field within physics they're interested in pursuing.
Yes, I guess that is true.

I guess part of my surprise is that friends of mine in Europe who study physics seem to receive, in addition to the aforementioned four core courses, the other things that are considered electives here in most American colleges (solid state physics, particle physics, general relativity, atomic physics, etc.) as compulsory subjects before getting a degree. But then again, their master's degree is also structured differently.
 
  • #8
I had a required modern physics course in undergrad. It was useful to prepare for the PGRE and also to have been exposed to the material when taking higher level classes (we covered a lot of material very quickly so we were exposed to a lot). Except for the particle physics trivia (which other than for the PGRE is not very useful) and maybe nuclear physics, I ended up seeing all of the material again in either quantum, statmech, or E&M. Stat mech contains a good amount of solid state since solid state is basically just an extension of stat mech. So you can argue that it wasn't necessary to be required to take the modern physics class.
 
  • Like
Likes CiaoMeow
  • #9
Vanadium 50 said:
The bare minimum MIT requires for graduation is not a good measure of what majors actually take. (It is, however, a good measure of what double majors take in their secondary major)

When I was a student, the required classes were 8.01/8.02 (intro), 8.03 (waves), 8.04 QM1 (Eisberg and Resnick) and 8.05 QM2 (Liboff), and two of the three of 8.06 (mechanics), 8.07 (E&M) and 8.08 (Stat Mech), plus two semesters of junior lab, plus two physics electives, plus thesis. Institute requirements were one lab class in a different department. Relativity was covered in 8.01, 8.02 and 8.07, and most applications of QM in 8.04, although rather superficially. Adding a "modern physics" class to this curriculum would add very little material.

If your uni has a Modern Physics course, I recommend taking it. After I completed my undergrad at LSU, I spend my whole first year of grad school at MIT taking 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, and 8.08, the undergraduate courses listed above. I needed it to bring my education up to speed and have a snowball's chance to succeed in the graduate coursework at MIT and also on the general exams. It was not that my undergrad at LSU was particularly lacking - I'd scored in the 80th percentile on the PGRE. It's that MIT is a pressure cooker for undergrad physics, and LSU was merely very, very hard.

My Modern Physics course at LSU was a breath of fresh air - a gently introduction allowing students to smell the roses and appreciate the beauty of what they were seeing before being challenged with the much more difficult coursework later. Smell the roses. Take Modern Physics. You need the beauty in your life to help you get through all those later semesters with your nose to the grindstone.
 
  • Like
Likes DS2C and CiaoMeow
  • #10
Dr. Courtney said:
If your uni has a Modern Physics course, I recommend taking it. After I completed my undergrad at LSU, I spend my whole first year of grad school at MIT taking 8.05, 8.06, 8.07, and 8.08, the undergraduate courses listed above. I needed it to bring my education up to speed and have a snowball's chance to succeed in the graduate coursework at MIT and also on the general exams. It was not that my undergrad at LSU was particularly lacking - I'd scored in the 80th percentile on the PGRE. It's that MIT is a pressure cooker for undergrad physics, and LSU was merely very, very hard.

My Modern Physics course at LSU was a breath of fresh air - a gently introduction allowing students to smell the roses and appreciate the beauty of what they were seeing before being challenged with the much more difficult coursework later. Smell the roses. Take Modern Physics. You need the beauty in your life to help you get through all those later semesters with your nose to the grindstone.
Thanks for the insight! Wow, I had no clue MIT was that challenging. :bugeye:
 
  • #11
At the schools where I've attended and taught, the sophomore "intro modern" course is basically an extension of the two-semester freshman intro to classical mechanics, E&M etc. It's not intended to be rigorous or in depth. Schools like MIT may not have a course like that, but neither is their freshman intro course like "ordinary" schools' freshman courses.
 
  • Like
Likes CiaoMeow and Dr. Courtney
  • #12
jtbell said:
At the schools where I've attended and taught, the sophomore "intro modern" course is basically an extension of the two-semester freshman intro to classical mechanics, E&M etc. It's not intended to be rigorous or in depth. Schools like MIT may not have a course like that, but neither is their freshman intro course like "ordinary" schools' freshman courses.
That's definitely true. I know they use, for the honors freshman courses, K&K's book for mechanics, and Purcell's for E&M, the same books I used in my honors courses this year at college. However, that's where the differences start. MIT has another intro course, 18.03, vibrations and waves, which we get in different sections of our education, some of it in classical mechanics, some of it in electrodynamics.
 
  • #13
I think sometimes the philosophy with these modern physics courses is that you most likely won't really understand the material the first time you see it so you might as well just be exposed to as much as possible. I didn't appreciate the benefits of this until I began taking advanced courses where I would often recognize things we did in modern physics. Then it became quite helpful.
 
  • Like
Likes CiaoMeow
  • #14
radium said:
I think sometimes the philosophy with these modern physics courses is that you most likely won't really understand the material the first time you see it so you might as well just be exposed to as much as possible. I didn't appreciate the benefits of this until I began taking advanced courses where I would often recognize things we did in modern physics. Then it became quite helpful.
Or, one could argue that you didn't understand the material the first time because you didn't have the proper prerequisites (such as sophomore-level quantum mechanics). I can see a sophomore-level modern physics course being useful for non-physics majors, but not so much for physics majors. I think it's somewhat akin to calc-based vs non-calc-based mechanics. If you're planning on majoring in physics, you might as well learn calc first and learn mechanics right the first time, rather than start off with non-calc-based mechanics to get a first exposure to the physical principles.
 
  • #15
radium said:
Stat mech contains a good amount of solid state since solid state is basically just an extension of stat mech.
<<Emphasis added>>
This is a bit off-topic, but I disagree with this statement. Solid-state physics is the application of many branches of physics (including mechanics, E&M, quantum mechanics, thermo, and stat mech) to solid materials. Also, introductory solid-state physics (such as MIT 8.231) typically focusses on physics of single crystals: the foundation is structural (periodic lattices), with emphasis on wave propagation in periodic lattices and the transition from quantum states in isolated atoms to energy bands in periodic lattices. That level of detail is typically not covered in intro stat mech.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
I had the proper prerequisites, modern physics was a prerequisite for the more advanced classes and I do think I got a lot out of the course. We covered a very large amount of material at a similar level as the material in several of the advanced courses during the lectures. The professor said that the reason he did this is because he thought it was better to expose us to these things in a lot of detail since we probably wouldn't completely understand things the first time anyway. This was for the lectures. The homework and exams were both very reasonable.
I think this was just the professor's style and I think it was useful in understanding a bigger picture.

I wasn't implying that solid state is all stat mech, it obviously involves a lot of other ideas from quantum and E&M. The point I wanted to make was that stat mech is definitely one of the courses you should take before solid state because a lot of solid state builds on it. I think it's very important in terms of understanding the bigger picture of emergent phenomena of systems with a very large number of degrees of freedom which includes things like band structures, etc.
 
  • #17
radium said:
I had the proper prerequisites, modern physics was a prerequisite for the more advanced classes and I do think I got a lot out of the course. We covered a very large amount of material at a similar level as the material in several of the advanced courses during the lectures. The professor said that the reason he did this is because he thought it was better to expose us to these things in a lot of detail since we probably wouldn't completely understand things the first time anyway. This was for the lectures. The homework and exams were both very reasonable.
I think this was just the professor's style and I think it was useful in understanding a bigger picture.
That's exactly the thing, you see. If you notice my first message, the question was more about superficial treatments rather than the more detailed, advanced methodology your professor may have used. Perhaps that's the reason why this course served you. So, that being said, was there any textbook your professor used for this course? Maybe I could find it useful as a detailed supplement to lectures for next year.
 
  • #18
Just a wild, off-the-top-of-my-head idea. In addition to the differences between elite universities like MIT and not-so-elite schools like the ones that I'm familiar with, in the US, there may also be differences between general practices in different countries: the US, the UK, India, or... wherever.
 
  • #19
As an undergrad we had a 2 semester course called modern physics, it was a QM course equivalent to Liboff of Griffiths. I think what we are discussing is essentially a naming convention.
 
  • #20
Dr Transport said:
As an undergrad we had a 2 semester course called modern physics, it was a QM course equivalent to Liboff of Griffiths. I think what we are discussing is essentially a naming convention.
The OP indicated in prior posts that, by "modern physics", he is referring to a sophomore-level survey course taken prior to a QM course on the level of Griffiths.
 

1. What is modern physics?

Modern physics is a branch of physics that deals with the laws and principles that govern the behavior of matter and energy at a microscopic level, including the study of quantum mechanics and relativity.

2. Is modern physics necessary for all future physicists?

Yes, modern physics is essential for all future physicists as it provides a foundation for understanding the fundamental laws of the universe and the behavior of matter and energy at a microscopic level. It also plays a crucial role in technological advancements and scientific research.

3. Can I become a physicist without studying modern physics?

No, studying modern physics is a necessary component of becoming a physicist. It is a fundamental aspect of the field and is required to understand and analyze complex scientific phenomena.

4. What are the benefits of studying modern physics?

Studying modern physics allows physicists to have a deeper understanding of the laws of the universe and the behavior of matter and energy. It also provides the foundation for technological advancements and scientific research in various fields such as medicine, engineering, and astronomy.

5. Is modern physics a difficult course?

Modern physics can be challenging, but it is a highly rewarding course that requires critical thinking, problem-solving, and mathematical skills. It is important for students to have a strong foundation in mathematics and classical physics before diving into modern physics.

Similar threads

Replies
11
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
837
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
26
Views
2K
Back
Top