Is undergraduate modern physics hard?

[planck999]

How hard is it compared to undergraduate thermodynamics? Is it harder or easier?

 

[vanhees71]

It depends. For me thermodynamics was the most difficult subject in the entire undergraduate physics curriculum ;-).

 

[phinds]

How hard is it compared to undergraduate thermodynamics? Is it harder or easier?

It depends. For me thermodynamics was the most difficult subject in the entire undergraduate physics curriculum ;-).

@planck999 that depends more on you and your interests than on the course material. I had exactly the same experience as @vanhees71. But I'm sure some people found thermo easy because it interested them.

When I went to work for NASA in the 1960's one of my team mates in the Sounding Rocket Division was a guy who studied and just LOVED antennae. Now, for me antennae were and remain a total mystery and their analysis always seemed to me to be more magic than science. I was awed that he could do it.

He, on the other hand, was totally mystified by digital logic and was astounded that I could design digital logic for telemetry systems, both ground and rocket-based.

SO ... are antennas harder than digital logic? It depends on who you ask and what their interests are.

 

[planck999]

I got a B- in thermodynamics due to getting 0 in exam for calculation errors or using moles instead of atom numbers and making a unit error. Anyways, I will take Modern Physics next semester and wonder if that's a harder course and if it is then it will be a good punishment for him to watch me get an AA in Modern Physics. By the way people who retook the class raised the curve and I got a perfect score in one of the exams.

 

[malawi_glenn]

Modern physics have easier calculations, but it usually more concepts and more abstract and far from everyday life intution.

 

[hutchphd]

Undergrad thermodynamics was the only course I ever took where I actively dispaired over ever "getting" it. This was not helped by two classmates aged 15 and 16 (progeny of honored faculty) who just seemed to assimilate the stuff like air. Oh yeah and a terrifying professor ( who I will not name).
I still have an aversion and need to call my therapist.
But individual experiences may vary!
I enjoyed modern physics very much.

 

[vanhees71]

For me the "therapy" was the information theoretical approach and the Shannon-Jaynes-von-Neumann entropy.

 

[hutchphd]

For me too but that was later. The psychic damage lingers!

 

[MidgetDwarf]

I found intro EM a bit challenging, and modern physics easy.

Thinking back now. I believe EM was challenging for me, because we also did the intro Thermodynamics and covered up to Maxwell's Equations. A lot of information if you ask me...

 

[vela]

How hard is it compared to undergraduate thermodynamics? Is it harder or easier?

I assume you're referring to lower-division courses. When I took modern physics, some found it easier than earlier material, but others thought it was much harder. As a teacher, I find that most of my students seem to struggle a bit more with the concepts of modern physics more than they do with thermodynamics.

 

[jtbell]

Can you describe the content and prerequisite knowledge for your modern physics course, or give links to them if they're in English?

I taught a modern physics course for many years, that came directly after the two-semester first-year introductory classical physics course. It introduced special relativity, and quantum mechanics via the Schrödinger equation (particle in a box, tunneling, simple harmonic oscillator, hydrogen atom). Some atomic physics focusing on the hydrogen atom (quantum numbers, transition, selection rules). Some nuclear physics (semi-empirical binding energy formula, alpha and beta decay). It assumed advance knowledge of only basic calculus, and introduced whatever other math was needed along the way.

Another type of modern physics course often comes in the third or fourth year, perhaps after a course in QM, and covers atomic, nuclear and solid state physics.

 

[planck999]

Can you describe the content and prerequisite knowledge for your modern physics course, or give links to them if they're in English?

I taught a modern physics course for many years, that came directly after the two-semester first-year introductory classical physics course. It introduced special relativity, and quantum mechanics via the Schrödinger equation (particle in a box, tunneling, simple harmonic oscillator, hydrogen atom). Some atomic physics focusing on the hydrogen atom (quantum numbers, transition, selection rules). Some nuclear physics (semi-empirical binding energy formula, alpha and beta decay). It assumed advance knowledge of only basic calculus, and introduced whatever other math was needed along the way.

Another type of modern physics course often comes in the third or fourth year, perhaps after a course in QM, and covers atomic, nuclear and solid state physics.

1.Special relativity
2.Quantum theory of light
3.Wave properties of particles
4.Fundementals of quantum physics
5.Solutions of Schrödinger equation for 1 dimensional particles
6.Formalism
7.Angular momentum
8.Solutions of Schrödinger equation for hydrogen atom
9.Solutions of Schrödinger equation for hydrogen atom
10.Solutions of Schrödinger equation for many electron atoms
11.Spin
12.Molecular orbitals and bondings

These are the topics covered by weeks. The course follows Concepts of Modern Physics by Arthur Baiser and Introduciton to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths and Introduction to Modern Physics by R.B. Singh are recommended.

I could neither find any midterms nor final exams related to the course and didn't get the Concepts of Modern Physics and I am just hoping that the course will be as math heavy as the Griffiths book is.

 

[ohwilleke]

 

[malawi_glenn]

another classic

 

[jtbell]

The course follows Concepts of Modern Physics by Arthur Baiser and Introduciton to Quantum Mechanics by Griffiths and Introduction to Modern Physics by R.B. Singh are recommended.

Beiser's book was the one I taught my course out of. Griffiths would have been too advanced for our students at that point in their studies.

We had a separate QM course that students took later. Another professor in my department used Griffiths for it. I used Morrison's Understanding Quantum Physics: A User's Manual, which goes through the math more slowly, with more detail. Maybe even a bit too much detail.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0137479085/?tag=pfamazon01-20

In my opinion, quantum physics / quantum mechanics is a subject that most students can't "learn" in one go. It requires repeated passes through the material at increasing levels of sophistication. When I took "introductory modern physics" as a second-year undergraduate about 50 years ago, our professor told us that he thought one couldn't completely "understand" any single part of quantum physics without first understanding some other part of it. But with repeated exposure, the pieces start to fall into place and make more "sense."

I "officially" went through the subject three times: that second year intro modern physics course; a third/fourth-year QM course; and once more in graduate school (working towards my PhD). Then I really had to start learning it when I started to teach it.

Likewise for the other major subjects: classical mechanics, electromagnetism, etc.

 

[hutchphd]

Beiser's book was the one I taught my course out of. Griffiths would have been too advanced for our students at that point in their studies.

As an undergrad (Sophomore) I remember we used "Foundations of Modern Physics" by Paul A Tipler for the course you describe. It was pretty new (pub 1969) at the time and I liked it very much. I have not seen it much used... do you know it ? Tipler of course has quite a few other texts to his credit now.

.

 

[George Jones]

As an undergrad (Sophomore) I remember we used "Foundations of Modern Physics" by Paul A Tipler for the course you describe. It was pretty new (pub 1969) at the time and I liked it very much. I have not seen it much used... do you know it ?

In 2003 and 2006 I taught (at different universities, one in the US and one in Canada) from what this evolved into, "Modern Physics" by Tipler and Llewellyn. In 2015 and 2017 I have taught from "Modern Physics" by Serway, Moses, and Moyer.

 

[Orodruin]

View attachment 312854
another classic

I still like the start of the preface of the book of one of my professors when I was an undergrad:

Let $M$ be a smooth manifold and $G$ a Lie group.