Is self-studying advanced physics a silly idea?

In summary: I don't prefer to go back to school due to financial concerns, but I really don't want to self-study for many years, only to find myself stuck in a mud pool and can go nowhere.This seems like a very common concern, and one that I can definitely relate to. A lot of people feel like they would rather just learn on their own and not have to deal with other people, and I can definitely see why. Self-study can be really rewarding, but it can be difficult to stay motivated if you don't feel like you are making any real progress. If you can find a way to make studying fun and/or exciting, it may help you stay on track.
  • #1
redoopi
16
0
Hello everybody. I am considering teaching myself physics in spare time, starting from college physics and multivariable calculus, to a level that I can understand most of the research papers on GR, QFT and cosmology.

There are some obstacles that I can foresee:

1. I will certainly get stuck somewhere, especially on the advanced topics. When this happens, I may not find someone to help me out, and have to skip the part that I don't understand. If it happens frequently, I may not be able to proceed.

2. The exercises in advanced-level textbooks usually don't have answers. This means that my understanding will be based solely on the text (and perhaps also by *trying* to do the proof-type problems).

3. The textbooks available on the market may not be advanced/up-to-date enough, so that a self-learner cannot obtain sufficient knowledge to understand research papers by just studying textbooks. (I am not sure about this).

I don't prefer to go back to school due to financial concerns, but I really don't want to self-study for many years, only to find myself stuck in a mud pool and can go nowhere.

Do you think it is feasible to self-study physics to such an advanced level, for a person with average intelligence and can devote 2 hours per day for the next 20 years? or is there really no choice but to study in school? Could you give me some suggestions on how I can overcome the obstacles mentioned above?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
To the OP, welcome to PF! I am curious, what degree do you already have?

I am also curious about the answer to the OP's question since I could be in a similar situation except my undergrad degree would be in math/engineering. Some of my physicist relatives have suggested that advanced physics, like QM, is very important in some fields of EE, particularly optoelectronics.

BiP
 
  • #3
I doubt you will find any amount of time you put into learning about nature a waste.

How far can you get on your own? I don't know.
 
  • #4
To the OP:
Since you are very enthusiastic about self-studying, here are some resources you might like:

www.edx.org
www.udacity.com
www.coursera.org

Udacity is especially good for computer science, the others are generic.

BiP
 
  • #5
Bipolarity said:
To the OP:
Since you are very enthusiastic about self-studying, here are some resources you might like:

www.edx.org
www.udacity.com
www.coursera.org

Udacity is especially good for computer science, the others are generic.

BiP

Thank you very much BiP. My undergrad degree is computer engineering. I think you are in a much better position than me: Since some of your relatives are physicists, you can call for their help when you have questions on physics.

The web sites you gave me are of introductory level. This is the area that I am less worried about, because there are many textbooks and exercises with solutions at this level, and I can have a higher chance to get help from online forums like this.
 
  • #6
ZombieFeynman said:
I doubt you will find any amount of time you put into learning about nature a waste.
How far can you get on your own? I don't know.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, ZombieFeynman, but my ultimate goal is to understand how the universe originates and evolves as much as possible. I do look forward to learning about specific phenomena such as the nuclear processes in stars, but to me they are much less important. That's why I am so eager to know if what I am planning to do in the next 20 years is really practical.
 
  • #7
I can't really comment on the feasibility of your plan, but I can address some of your concerns.

1. I will certainly get stuck somewhere, especially on the advanced topics. When this happens, I may not find someone to help me out, and have to skip the part that I don't understand. If it happens frequently, I may not be able to proceed.

2. The exercises in advanced-level textbooks usually don't have answers. This means that my understanding will be based solely on the text (and perhaps also by *trying* to do the proof-type problems).

Why should you need answers to get something out of the exercises? To be clear, I'm not saying, "Suck it up, answers are for wimps." But the fact that there are no answers doesn't make the exercises worthless. And you can always ask questions here, or elsewhere (the stackexchange websites come to mind) if you are stuck or unsure on some exercise.

3. The textbooks available on the market may not be advanced/up-to-date enough, so that a self-learner cannot obtain sufficient knowledge to understand research papers by just studying textbooks. (I am not sure about this).

Don't worry about how up-to-date textbooks are in physics and math. As a general rule, unless you are basically at a research level, the stuff you will be studying was figured out a long time ago. (On that note, please do yourself a favor and get older/cheaper editions when they are available.) And when/if you do get to a research level, you will be learning from papers, not textbooks.
 
  • #8
redoopi said:
I wholeheartedly agree with this, ZombieFeynman, but my ultimate goal is to understand how the universe originates and evolves as much as possible. I do look forward to learning about specific phenomena such as the nuclear processes in stars, but to me they are much less important. That's why I am so eager to know if what I am planning to do in the next 20 years is really practical.

There are so many layers to the onion and so many pieces to put together, i just think you will get wrapped up in learning about the mundane as well as the cosmic. Then you might discover that what you thought was mundane is teeming with beauty and wonder.

Dont worry about 20 years. Think about the cool stuff you can learn in twenty days.
 
  • #9
It's certainly possible as I'm learning physics on my own.I've started learning physics two years ago when I had absolutely no physics or math background(except high school math/physics),now I'm working through a textbook on Quantum field theory . Good luck
 
  • #10
nabil0 said:
It's certainly possible as I'm learning physics on my own.I've started learning physics two years ago when I had absolutely no physics or math background(except high school math/physics),now I'm working through a textbook on Quantum field theory . Good luck

Whoa! That's quite the accomplishment. Congratulations! Which textbook are you using? How did you cover all the mathematical machinery and underlying physics required to tackle QFT in mere two years?!

SolsticeFire
 
  • #11
To OP:

Although I'm not that good at physics yet(I'm a mathematician!), one thing that helped me tackle advanced mathematics and gauge my skills at particular area of interest (in your case this might be string theory, QFT etc) was to attempt to read articles from arxiv pertaining to my topic of interest and then when I couldn't comprehend things, go back and read/solve problems in that particular area. This might help you. I have gotten stuck on some things for weeks, but I've always managed to dig myself out of the abyss by backtracking and trudging on! :D

Good Luck on your wonderful endeavor!

SolsticeFire

PS: When you get to advanced topics, your book selection skills should be impeccable. Good books on advanced topics are far too few and too far in between. So choose wisely!
 
  • #12
nabil0 said:
It's certainly possible as I'm learning physics on my own.I've started learning physics two years ago when I had absolutely no physics or math background(except high school math/physics),now I'm working through a textbook on Quantum field theory . Good luck

If this is true, it is an extraordinary accomplishment.
 
  • #13
SolsticeFire said:
Whoa! That's quite the accomplishment. Congratulations! Which textbook are you using? How did you cover all the mathematical machinery and underlying physics required to tackle QFT in mere two years?!

SolsticeFire

There's not too much physics and math you need for QFT. It's just elementary calculus ,differential equations and linear algebra. That's all the mathematics you need before tackling any physics material . You don't need a whole course on classical mechanics before studying electrodynamics .And if you understand mathematics very well, You can even read Jackson and Griffiths concurrently . I was able to read Weinberg QFT (though not fully understand)in the first year I've have started physics .You need matrix algebra ,tensors and group theory (Which will be easy if you know linear algebra and calculus), special relativity(including relativistic classical fields which I learned from Barut and landau ) and elementary Quantum mechanics (At the level of cohen).I didn't need to understand the whole graduate level stuff in Jackson and goldstein before understanding what's QFT is all about.The point is : you don't need to wait until grad school to learn more advanced areas .The most important skill you need to understand all this is imagination.For example ,With just chain rule and taylor expansions you can solve a lot of problems in advanced physics .
 
Last edited:
  • #14
A. Bahat said:
Why should you need answers to get something out of the exercises? To be clear, I'm not saying, "Suck it up, answers are for wimps." But the fact that there are no answers doesn't make the exercises worthless. And you can always ask questions here, or elsewhere (the stackexchange websites come to mind) if you are stuck or unsure on some exercise.

Why do you think so? I really can't see the point of doing exercises without being able to verify my answers. But for the proof-type exercises, I can try to solve them and ask for help online as you have suggested. For the advanced topics, I suspect that it is not very likely to get answers within a reasonable timeframe, but I guess this is the best I can get anyway.
 
  • #15
SolsticeFire said:
To OP:

Although I'm not that good at physics yet(I'm a mathematician!), one thing that helped me tackle advanced mathematics and gauge my skills at particular area of interest (in your case this might be string theory, QFT etc) was to attempt to read articles from arxiv pertaining to my topic of interest and then when I couldn't comprehend things, go back and read/solve problems in that particular area. This might help you. I have gotten stuck on some things for weeks, but I've always managed to dig myself out of the abyss by backtracking and trudging on! :D

Good Luck on your wonderful endeavor!

SolsticeFire

PS: When you get to advanced topics, your book selection skills should be impeccable. Good books on advanced topics are far too few and too far in between. So choose wisely!

Thank you very much, SolsticeFire. Have you ever encountered "knowledge gaps" between textbooks and research papers, because the textbooks available are not advanced or up-to-date enough? Is backtracking among research papers via the references a good way to overcome this hurdle (for a self-learner)?
 
  • #16
nabil0 said:
It's certainly possible as I'm learning physics on my own.I've started learning physics two years ago when I had absolutely no physics or math background(except high school math/physics),now I'm working through a textbook on Quantum field theory . Good luck

You must be very talented to learn so quickly! Do you solve most of the problems in the textbooks, or just a selected few? Have you ever encountered difficulties such as those that I mentioned in the first post? If you have, would you mind sharing how you overcome them?
 
  • #17
nabil0 said:
There's not too much physics and math you need for QFT. It's just elementary calculus ,differential equations and linear algebra. That's all the mathematics you need before tackling any physics material . You don't need a whole course on classical mechanics before studying electrodynamics .And if you understand mathematics very well, You can even read Jackson and Griffiths concurrently . I was able to read Weinberg QFT (though not fully understand)in the first year I've have started physics .You need matrix algebra ,tensors and group theory (Which will be easy if you know linear algebra and calculus), special relativity(including relativistic classical fields which I learned from Barut and landau ) and elementary Quantum mechanics (At the level of cohen).I didn't need to understand the whole graduate level stuff in Jackson and goldstein before understanding what's QFT is all about.The point is : you don't need to wait until grad school to learn more advanced areas .The most important skill you need to understand all this is imagination.For example ,With just chain rule and taylor expansions you can solve a lot of problems in advanced physics .

Did you study classical mechanics right after calculus/ODE/LA, without reading a calculus-based general physics textbook like Freedman or Halliday (as most universities require)? Is thermodynamics and statistical mechanics necessary? Do we need to study particle physics before learning QFT? For E&M, is the level of Griffiths enough before learning GR?
(sorry for asking you so many questions and thanks for your generous sharing!)
 
  • #18
redoopi said:
You must be very talented to learn so quickly! Do you solve most of the problems in the textbooks, or just a selected few? Have you ever encountered difficulties such as those that I mentioned in the first post? If you have, would you mind sharing how you overcome them?

I don't solve all the problems at the end of every chapter,but most of the time I solve problems .I solve some problems at the end of the chapters . I try to derive formulas by myself rather than just follow the author's derivation of results . I try to apply the ideas I learn to other contexts . If you try to apply things you learn to simpler contexts you will gain more understanding of the methods used in physics ...
I will try to address your questions:
1-If you get stuck somewhere , you can find the answers you want and ask questions at physics.stackexchange and math.stackexchange websites .
2-You will benefit from having a computer-algebra system and graphing software . I found MATLAB and mathematica very helpful . Also,There are books that have a complete solution manuals (Griffiths electrodynamics and the quantum mechanics book by the same author for example) You must try to solve the problems without looking at the solutions and also find many ways to solve the same problem.I think that really understanding the problems , finding the correct tools needed to solve it and being able to figure out what the answer should look like is more important than arriving at the correct answers.
3-If you want to read research papers in string theory , you have to learn string theory from a textbook or lecture notes on the subject (Which may be out-of-date . after you finish the book you will be able to read review papers in the field that mostly interests you (e.g. D-branes )
 
Last edited:
  • #19
redoopi said:
Did you study classical mechanics right after calculus/ODE/LA, without reading a calculus-based general physics textbook like Freedman or Halliday (as most universities require)? Is thermodynamics and statistical mechanics necessary? Do we need to study particle physics before learning QFT? For E&M, is the level of Griffiths enough before learning GR?
(sorry for asking you so many questions and thanks for your generous sharing!)

I didn't study any calculus based general physics textbook . I recommend Gregory's classical mechanics or Taylor's Classical mechanics. They are very easy to follow . Thermodynamics and statistical mechanics are extremely important but they are generally not needed in introductory QFT (in more advanced field theory topics ,you will need them).
You don't need to study particle physics before field theory though it would help if you know elementary stuff about particle physics ..
For E&M the level of Griffiths is enough . You have to learn special relativity before GR .It's covered nicely in Griffiths and landau Classical field theory
I'd like to add that Differential geometry is extremely important in theoretical physics and I recommend that you learn it.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
I want to add that you can know a lot by just reading a textbook carefully without working through the book using a pen and papers. I learned a lot in QFT this way . In a couple of weeks ,you can read most of srednicki's QFT (without really understanding a lot of things) but you will know things like how dirac and Maxwell's fields are quantized , how to calculate things and the conceptual basis of renormalization . Actual understanding comes later when you try to derive things by yourself.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
Don't rush things is all I can say. If you are in a hurry to get to the subject of your choice then not only will you not properly comprehend that subject at the apex of your cursory climb but also you will not have fully and elegantly grasped the subjects preceding it. Take your time as learning physics isn't a marathon (unless of course someone is quite literally holding a gun to your head =D).
 
  • #22
An important part of learning e.g. advanced physics (the same applies to math, with which I have personal experience, and I imagine to many other fields as well) is getting confident in your solutions. Naturally, sometimes you will be unsure, especially at the beginning, but eventually you've got to wean yourself off of being given answers. After all, people doing research have no answer book.

Again, I agree that it is generally pedagogically preferable for autodidacts to have some sort of hints or solutions, at least when getting started, but I think most elementary books do provide something of the sort. By the time you get more to more advanced stuff, I don't think this will be a problem.
 
  • #23
Thank all of you for your valuable comments!
 

1. Does self-studying advanced physics require prior knowledge and experience?

No, self-studying advanced physics does not necessarily require prior knowledge and experience. However, it can be helpful to have a strong foundation in basic physics concepts before attempting to study more advanced topics.

2. Can I successfully learn advanced physics on my own without a teacher or mentor?

Yes, it is possible to learn advanced physics on your own without a teacher or mentor. However, it may require a lot of self-motivation, dedication, and discipline to effectively self-study and understand complex concepts.

3. Are there any resources available for self-studying advanced physics?

Yes, there are many resources available for self-studying advanced physics, such as textbooks, online courses, video lectures, and practice problems. It is important to choose reputable and reliable resources to ensure accurate and comprehensive learning.

4. Is it possible to gain a deep understanding of advanced physics through self-study?

Yes, it is possible to gain a deep understanding of advanced physics through self-study. However, it may take longer to fully grasp complex concepts without the guidance of a teacher or mentor.

5. Are there any disadvantages to self-studying advanced physics?

One disadvantage of self-studying advanced physics is that it may be difficult to find someone to ask for help or clarification when faced with challenging concepts. Additionally, self-studying may not provide the same level of hands-on experience and practical application as a traditional classroom setting.

Similar threads

  • STEM Academic Advising
2
Replies
35
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
918
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
9
Views
922
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
361
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
1
Views
502
Back
Top