Memorizing Equations for Physics: Is It Necessary?

  • Thread starter Thread starter pierce15
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
Memorizing equations in physics, including quantum mechanics, is not deemed necessary for effective understanding or practice. Instead, a deep comprehension of the concepts and relationships behind the equations is emphasized. While some equations may naturally be memorized through frequent use, focusing solely on memorization is impractical due to the vast number of equations in the field. Understanding the language of mathematics as it relates to physics is crucial, especially at advanced levels where specific equations become essential for grasping complex concepts. Ultimately, a balance of familiarity with key equations and a strong conceptual foundation is recommended for self-study in physics.
pierce15
Messages
313
Reaction score
2
Hello. I'm not quite sure where to post this, so sorry if this is the wrong place. I come to you today as a self-studier of quantum mechanics. If I want to be a good physicist, should I commit all of the equations to memory? (e.g. wavefunctions for all the different common potentials and the associated energy spectra.)

Edit: this goes for all of physics, not just QM; my recent studies have pushed my capabilities, so before I proceed to memorize everything I would like to know whether it is considered most professional to do so.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No. Memorizing equations doesn't help in anything!
You should understand the equations deeply and learn how to use them.
 
should I commit all of the equations to memory?
No.

You will find the equations you use a lot will end up memorized anyway - but it is not something you should be primarily worried about. Professionalism has nothing to do with it - it's just not practical: there's thousands of the things!

If you are good at memorizing, then memorize the physics: the relationships.
The maths should be thought of as a language for describing physics - not as a bunch of equations and formulae to be applied to the appropriate situations.

Of course, professionally speaking, if you are being paid to work in a field, you will be expected to have the basic tools of that field at your fingertips.
 
As Simon Bridge said, physics has a language. And that language is mathematics. Using classical mechanics as a simpler example, a minimal understanding of it requires the knowledge of momentum, energy, Newton's laws. These are all expressible as equations, but they can also be stated verbally without much problem, so one could argue that mathematics is avoidable at that level. A more advanced level of knowledge needs the least-action principle and the Euler-Lagrange equations; these, while can be formally "specified verbally", do not make any sense at all (regardless of the amount of hand-waving involved) unless dealt with as equations. Not knowing the latter equations means simply that one does not possesses the advanced understanding of classical mechanics, plain and simple.

The bottom line: you can know some physics without memorizing any equations; but knowing more advanced physics requires memorizing some equations. With some practice and with a decent textbook, it is usually fairly clear what is worth memorizing.
 
No, I don't think so, especially for the wavefunctions which are only specific solutions. In terms of doing a proper exam, they might help to save you some time...but since you are self-studying, it would only be a waste of time. However, I do suggest that you have some sense of the general form of the wavefunctions so that certain interpretations could be made more easily.

For the actual equations, I think it would be handy to memorize the important ones; this is only for the pragmatic purpose of efficiency so that you don't have to rederive them every time. Usually, by reading sufficient materials you would become familiar with them spontaneously.
 
All right. Thanks a lot for the input, everyone.
 
I do not have a good working knowledge of physics yet. I tried to piece this together but after researching this, I couldn’t figure out the correct laws of physics to combine to develop a formula to answer this question. Ex. 1 - A moving object impacts a static object at a constant velocity. Ex. 2 - A moving object impacts a static object at the same velocity but is accelerating at the moment of impact. Assuming the mass of the objects is the same and the velocity at the moment of impact...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K