Studying Optimizing Self Study: Overcoming Learning Difficulties in Physics and Math

[CosmicKitten]

Very true. To learn mathematics and physics, you need to do things mostly in the order that the course does things. If you're going to study ahead, then you're going to be confused. Or you're going to make things more difficult than they really are. There's a reason that they teach classical mechanics and then QM. Even though it's possible to do QM and then derive classical mechanics as a limiting case.

On the contrary, I get confused when I am given simple equations and do not know why or what they are for. The graduate level text I am reading is not confusing at all. Bear in mind I studied a lot of the 'basics' before I got to this level, I studied them on my own. I have a hard time in class because listening to a lecture - particularly from a lecturer that barely knows English, a problem that is stereotypical for big universities but just as much a problem for big city community colleges. But it really doesn't matter because if a lecturer cannot keep pace with the speed of one's thinking then there is NOT going to be any benefit from it. The talking only shuts off my brain which tells me things while I am reading it.

I got so bored in the physics 1 class I cried and was depressed all of the time. And that was at a four year college. I got probably the only A in the class and I didn't study, didn't do homework, doodled in class... I also got an easy A in a chemistry class at another community college. I literally remembered everything from high school.

I actually got tutoring and did the homework in that E/M class, and in the calc 2 class and the waves/optics/ modern physics class at this last comm. college and look where it got me.

I mean, what's wrong with teaching you a few basics and then having you apply them to a few graduate level problems as practice? That way you learn it all at once. Saves time. You see how the basics fit into the whole scheme of things.

BTW with just the barest knowledge of mechanics and differential equations I pondered the n-body problem, I decided that if you were to treat all the other masses as if they were held still and measure the motion of each over a small interval of time, and then for the next time interval use the positions attained from measuring the motion the way of the previous interval, and so on, and if you sum up the time intervals and take the limit as the number of time intervals goes to infinity (and thus the length of each goes to zero) then that approximates the motion of the n-bodies; the problem with evaluating an integral from that is that the equation for position changes with each time step as the bodies move. This is the Euler method am I correct? (To say that I discovered it on my own, while true, would be rather presumptuous given that it's quite obvious, even to me, who found limits of sums to be a struggling point, as in I can't remember the exact equation).

 

[Jorriss]

On the contrary, I get confused when I am given simple equations and do not know why or what they are for. The graduate level text I am reading is not confusing at all.

The problem is that you are confused now, but you do not know it. You aren't understanding your graduate text. Your posts here show an enormous level of misunderstanding.

You need to drop this inflated view of yourself, be a bit more humble, and learn the basics.

 

[CosmicKitten]

This thread has gotten a bit out of hand.

You state you want self study help, but the best advice I think I can give is that you should not be studying ahead - not yet.

You are filling yourself with many incorrect concepts.

Go back to community college. Take classes and try and learn what is in those classes only. And go to your professors office hours often.

Yeah, I tried that. Didn't work out.

Most graduate level textbooks have a review of undergrad level stuff at the beginning and for me that is enough to help me understand it.

Keep in mind, I have been studying on my own for a year. A YEAR. I don't work except to tutor kids in math for spare cash a couple times a week or so, so that's a lot of spare time. Anyway, by now community college is utterly pointless.

I will maybe go back to comm. college to study something else like foreign languages; meanwhile, I will raise hell at UCSD if I have to to let me take some graduate level classes, once I have the money to pay for a few of them; perhaps take the PGRE if I can spare for that too. My mom after all skipped the intro classes when she was going to UCSD. She only got a B minus GPA but at least she learned things. Never got anywhere in life though but that was her fault; she didn't know what she wanted to be, I have wanted to be a physicist since I was 17 and was sadly cut a raw deal by my foster parent but oh did my mind wander when I read the laypeople's introduction to string theory at the high school library...

And if I fail (or get a poor passing grade as is more likely) then at least I will have learned something in the process!

 

[Vanadium 50]

CosmicKitten, what you are doing now clearly isn't working for you. However, your response to suggestions has been to indicate that you want to keep doing what you have been doing. I think you have a choice to make.

 

[CosmicKitten]

The problem is that you are confused now, but you do not know it. You aren't understanding your graduate text. Your posts here show an enormous level of misunderstanding.

You need to drop this inflated view of yourself, be a bit more humble, and learn the basics.

Would you care to explain how I am misunderstanding? Mind you I have a hard time articulating what is going on in my head. I do not think in words as I imagine some people do.

Mind you I am 23, which is well into my 40s in physicists' years. I AM LOSING TIME

 

[Jorriss]

Would you care to explain how I am misunderstanding?

I do not think I can. The majority of the physics you have written is gibberish.

You didn't know uniform fields could exist.

'd/dx + d/dy + d/dz (by d I really mean partial derivatives but I don't know how to make that kind of d) multiplied as a dot product' is absurd.

" Gauss integral can be done where the infinitesimal space that the point containing the charge is enclosed inside is left out" how are you reading a graduate textbook but you don't know gauss's law in integral form?

There is more.

Mind you I am 23, which is well into my 40s in physicists' years. I AM LOSING TIME

Yes. Which is why you need to stop wasting your time.

 

[micromass]

Would you care to explain how I am misunderstanding? Mind you I have a hard time articulating what is going on in my head. I do not think in words as I imagine some people do.

Mind you I am 23, which is well into my 40s in physicists' years. I AM LOSING TIME

I think the problem is exactly that you don't understand what you don't understand. If you learn physics or math, then at every step of the way, you should know what you understand and what you don't understand.
If you're reading grad books before you're ready to read a grad book, then you will think you understand something while you really don't.
A good undergrad text like Griffiths or Purcell will focus more on what an undergrad needs in order to understand the theory. A grad book will assume that you have some experience in studying physics and in gauging your own understanding, something that you seem to miss very much.

Once you know the limits of your understanding and once you are realistic about your abilities, then you can tackle more advanced books.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I mean, what's wrong with teaching you a few basics and then having you apply them to a few graduate level problems as practice? That way you learn it all at once. Saves time. You see how the basics fit into the whole scheme of things.

Even you have to see just how ridiculous this sounds. If you think that right after learning about what the electric field and magnetic field are in a freshman EM class the most instructive thing to do is to then open up a book on classical field theory and start doing problems like varying the lagrangian for the electromagnetic field with respect to the 4 - potential in order to derive Maxwell's equations then you are mistaken. If you think right after learning about the definition of vector spaces in a freshman linear algebra class it is pedagogically advantageous to then jump into a typical functional analysis book and start studying Banach spaces then again you are mistaken. It has been repeated numerous times by many posters that you are trying to jump ahead before knowing the basics. Based on your previous posts in this thread that are related to EM, I find it crazy that you are attempting a graduate electromagnetism book. Take it slow love, it will only help you in the end.

 

[CosmicKitten]

Ok this thread is veering off very fast and doesn't really have anything left to do with the OP anymore but I will try to indulge you and tie things into your studies.

This is but a specific example. In physics giving one example of something non - uniform does not rule out the possibility of uniform fields.

Clearly. I just mentioned that to give you a picture of what kind of uniform field I was talking about.

Using the Gaussian pillbox correct?

No I haven't studied topology much. It mainly requires knowledge of analysis as in proofs and a lot of that terminology correct? I haven't studied that much; I have mostly studied calculus through differential equations. Yeah mostly the math; I don't even see why they teach mechanics at low precalculus level and then teach it again after you know tensor mechanics and partial differential equations; why don't they just teach you all the math and then teach you the physics? Most math classes use enough physics examples to give you a good idea of how it works; or should, anyway. Either way I find that once I know the math the physics is second nature.

But I do pick up things in a matter of seconds. Just not effectively, if by that you mean remembering every single detail. Furthermore, I don't think those classes even fully cover BASIC classical mechanics and EM. There is so much about mechanics that wasn't covered... aren't they supposed to cover the angular momentum tensor? I read about that and I realized that angular momentum and angular velocity vectors aren't necessarily parallel; like if you got a barbell that is spinning around an axis slantwise through its center... fascinating. Holds my attention far more than repetitive problems asking you to find the angular momentum/angular velocity/moment of inertia of different objects given one or the other or this or that scenario (which are not always explained in a way that makes logical sense to me)

I need to go study analysis...

It needs to be very theoretical. I swear, if I am hypomanic enough on Adderall (I am so sensitive I fear a 5 mg dose daily, the smallest prescribed, may be too much for me; no I don't abuse it, my group home is in charge of my medications so I couldn't abuse it if I wanted to) thoughts and ideas on what this and that are about will just jump into my head, you know intuitive leaps? Provided I am focused enough on reading that, there are times when I am confused about everything and my thoughts just sink into a pit instead of going on to solve something... And what is this theoretical linear algebra class like? I have read books on linear algebra and it seems particularly easy to me. I am a natural at matrix operations but for a while I was rather lost on what they mean or what they are used for.

 

[CosmicKitten]

I do not think I can. The majority of the physics you have written is gibberish.

You didn't know uniform fields could exist.

'd/dx + d/dy + d/dz (by d I really mean partial derivatives but I don't know how to make that kind of d) multiplied as a dot product' is absurd.

" Gauss integral can be done where the infinitesimal space that the point containing the charge is enclosed inside is left out" how are you reading a graduate textbook but you don't know gauss's law in integral form?

There is more.


Yes. Which is why you need to stop wasting your time.

I know the integral form. The integral of the electric field with the change in area, measured in units of flux, or of del operator times the electric field with the change in volume. I don't remember the exact details of what I read in that book, I just remember something where the integral was zero because the space with the point charge inside was not included.

Del. There's the proper word for the operator you dot product to find the divergence. The upside down triangle (and I know it makes me look like a total noob to say that). I am aware that I am awkward with my use of terminology, for which I apologize. I study mostly by myself, I don't normally talk with people that know what I'm talking about so of course I am going to be at a communication deficit. It's like kids that can understand what their parents are speaking about when their parents speak a second language but are not as able to fluently communicate it.

And of course I was aware uniform fields could exist, at least in theory. I just got carried away thinking of how absurd it was... I mean approximately uniform over a microscopic scale makes sense but imagine a real scenario where the field could be represented with force vectors that were all exactly parallel to each other and did not strengthen or weaken along any direction...

 

[Jorriss]

I haven't studied that much; I have mostly studied calculus through differential equations. Yeah mostly the math; I don't even see why they teach mechanics at low precalculus level and then teach it again after you know tensor mechanics and partial differential equations; why don't they just teach you all the math and then teach you the physics? Most math classes use enough physics examples to give you a good idea of how it works; or should, anyway. Either way I find that once I know the math the physics is second nature.

Why are you going through graduate textbooks if YOU have only studied calculus and differential equations?

I know the integral form. The integral of the electric field with the change in area, measured in units of flux, or of del operator times the electric field with the change in volume.

No, that is not correct. You clearly do not understand this and need an intro text.

Del. There's the proper word for the operator you dot product to find the divergence. The upside down triangle (and I know it makes me look like a total noob to say that). I am aware that I am awkward with my use of terminology, for which I apologize. I study mostly by myself, I don't normally talk with people that know what I'm talking about so of course I am going to be at a communication deficit. It's like kids that can understand what their parents are speaking about when their parents speak a second language but are not as able to fluently communicate it.

You wrote d/dx + d/dy + d/dz multiplied as a dot product. That is not right.

And of course I was aware uniform fields could exist, at least in theory. I just got carried away thinking of how absurd it was... I mean approximately uniform over a microscopic scale makes sense but imagine a real scenario where the field could be represented with force vectors that were all exactly parallel to each other and did not strengthen or weaken along any direction...

It's far less absurd on a large scale. There are many ways to make a field approximately uniform over a large scale.

 

[CosmicKitten]

Even you have to see just how ridiculous this sounds. If you think that right after learning about what the electric field and magnetic field are in a freshman EM class the most instructive thing to do is to then open up a book on classical field theory and start doing problems like varying the lagrangian for the electromagnetic field with respect to the 4 - potential in order to derive Maxwell's equations then you are mistaken. If you think right after learning about the definition of vector spaces in a freshman linear algebra class it is pedagogically advantageous to then jump into a typical functional analysis book and start studying Banach spaces then again you are mistaken. It has been repeated numerous times by many posters that you are trying to jump ahead before knowing the basics. Based on your previous posts in this thread that are related to EM, I find it crazy that you are attempting a graduate electromagnetism book. Take it slow love, it will only help you in the end.

Granted, I don't think every student has the dedication to do that. I don't see why those who do should be held back however. I feel like I have been dumbing myself down by submitting to such low level classes that don't teach anything that a student doesn't learn in high school if they pay well enough attention.

Ah, I see, you think I'm slow. You think I can't compete with the Caltech whiz kids whose parents more or less bought their 'intelligence'.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Ah, I see, you think I'm slow. You think I can't compete with the Caltech whiz kids whose parents more or less bought their 'intelligence'.

I never said anything about your intelligence; I was simply saying you have to learn the basics before you move on to the harder stuff. This isn't a radical approach, it has been an accepted method of learning for ages. Secondly, I found what you said about Caltech students very offensive. I have many close friends from high school who now attend Caltech and they all worked very hard to get to where they are now not to mention they are very brilliant by nature; these kids were taking courses on topology and algebra in their senior year of high school BECAUSE they had already learned the basics way before (granted only one of them managed to get an A+ on the topology final - shout out to Kevin if he's reading this :p). There is no need to start attacking those kids for no reason at all - it is impulsive and doesn't contribute to your own success in any way.

 

[CosmicKitten]

Why are you going through graduate textbooks if YOU have only studied calculus and differential equations?


No, that is not correct. You clearly do not understand this and need an intro text.


You wrote d/dx + d/dy + d/dz multiplied as a dot product. That is not right.



It's far less absurd on a large scale. There are many ways to make a field approximately uniform over a large scale.

How is that not right? Del takes the x derivative of the x component (that is whatever is multiplied by the i unit vector), the y derivative of the y component, and tne z derivative of the z component, or to be more proper in terminology, the derivative with respect to x/y/z. And then adds them up if you see the dot there, just as the dot product of two vectors multiplies the x part with the x part, the y part with the y part, and the z part with the z part, ousts the vectors altogether and adds them up to create a scalar quantity. That may not be the dictionary definition but it is a more or less correct 'paraphrasing' if you will, am I right?

Would you care to explain divergence to me then? I feel like I understand it conceptually, but apparently I don't if I can't memorize the exact form.

 

[Jorriss]

How is that not right? Del takes the x derivative of the x component (that is whatever is multiplied by the i unit vector), the y derivative of the y component, and tne z derivative of the z component, or to be more proper in terminology, the derivative with respect to x/y/z. And then adds them up if you see the dot there, just as the dot product of two vectors multiplies the x part with the x part, the y part with the y part, and the z part with the z part, ousts the vectors altogether and adds them up to create a scalar quantity. That may not be the dictionary definition but it is a more or less correct 'paraphrasing' if you will, am I right?

That is fine.

Do you not see how 'd/dx + d/dy + d/dz multiplied as a dot product' does not say that at all?

In any event, everyone here who has posted has much more experience than you with physics and math and is telling you you are misguided. If you choose to not listen, that's your choice but you are not setting up yourself up for any level of success right now. Take it from me, I transferred from community college to UCSD.

 

[CosmicKitten]

I never said anything about your intelligence; I was simply saying you have to learn the basics before you move on to the harder stuff. This isn't a radical approach, it has been an accepted method of learning for ages. Secondly, I found what you said about Caltech students very offensive. I have many close friends from high school who now attend Caltech and they all worked very hard to get to where they are now not to mention they are very brilliant by nature.

Well I mean no offense to them. I did not by any means state that ALL of them took that route. I know a few that did but I am not getting into that...

And how many times have I said... I have more or less learned the basics. Well I know more now than the average physics grad student probably remembers anyway. I have a freakishly long memory.

What kind of swanky high school did you go to that has students that are accepted by Caltech anyway? I hear they reject kids based on geography -- for example, a kid that goes to a small school that doesn't offer high level calculus courses in rural Kentucky. I have a friend that lives there and she is fed up with the white trash there and she is BRILLIANT... though her confidence is so worn down she doesn't know it. I read this in a book that decried the Ivy League for accepting students based on family connections and praised Caltech for not taking that route... but I find it disgusting that they would reject a brilliant kid for a shallow reason like that. Have they not considered that maybe the kid studied harder math on their own? Don't they realize they are hindering social mobility that way? Anyway I went to two high schools -- a fairly large one in a fairly wealthy area that was too sports oriented to care much about academics, although they did have some AP classes that I planned to take my senior year... which brings me to the second school I was moved to, right before my senior year, on the other side of the country, a small school that didn't have AP anything and... never mind.

 

[CosmicKitten]

That is fine.

Do you not see how 'd/dx + d/dy + d/dz multiplied as a dot product' does not say that at all?

In any event, everyone here who has posted has much more experience than you with physics and math and is telling you you are misguided. If you choose to not listen, that's your choice but you are not setting up yourself up for any level of success right now. Take it from me, I transferred from community college to UCSD.

Well that is del (if you take the d's to be partial derivative d's not regular d's) and del uses the dot product symbol, or does an operation somewhat analogous to dot product anyway, I fail to see how my fail at articulation equals a fail at comprehension.

You did? I was well prepared to go straight out of high school, you know. I scored 34 on the ACT, won a $1,000 scholarship for my writing, and though I don't know my exact GPA, I got mostly As, nothing lower than a B.

If I could, I would dump all my credits in the toilet and just apply to UCSD as a freshman. Can that be done?

 

[WannabeNewton]

And how many times have I said... I have more or less learned the basics. Well I know more now than the average physics grad student probably remembers anyway.

I'm not sure how to interpret this so I'll just leave it alone in fear of making a wrong judgement. I will say that I love math and physics more than anything but I am years away from saying I even know a small fraction of what a graduate student would know.

What kind of swanky high school did you go to that has students that are accepted by Caltech anyway?

I went to the Bronx High School of Science - it's a public school in NYC.

I hear they reject kids based on geography -- for example, a kid that goes to a small school that doesn't offer high level calculus courses in rural Kentucky.

Caltech is allowed to have high mathematics standards if it wants to. It is clear they are catering to the math and science specialized kids - a year ago when I wrote the supplemental essay for freshman admissions to Caltech their essay prompt was something like "What is it about math and/or science that stimulates you?".

 

[CosmicKitten]

I never said anything about your intelligence; I was simply saying you have to learn the basics before you move on to the harder stuff. This isn't a radical approach, it has been an accepted method of learning for ages. Secondly, I found what you said about Caltech students very offensive. I have many close friends from high school who now attend Caltech and they all worked very hard to get to where they are now not to mention they are very brilliant by nature; these kids were taking courses on topology and algebra in their senior year of high school BECAUSE they had already learned the basics way before (granted only one of them managed to get an A+ on the topology final - shout out to Kevin if he's reading this :p). There is no need to start attacking those kids for no reason at all - it is impulsive and doesn't contribute to your own success in any way.

I was not allowed to study the basics when I was in high school. I was forbidden from going into a public library. I was forbidden to use internet except at school and I only had so much time to use it then. Certainly they learned the basics at light speed as I have.

I must ask... who is paying for their topology classes? How do they demonstrate sufficient knowledge to be allowed to take it? If I could would I be allowed or is 23 years old too old to be a kid genius that gets such special privileges?

 

[MarneMath]

I've told the story a few times how as an 18 yr old kid I was accepted into the University of Chicago. A few times, I've mention that I failed completely to the point that my GPA was under a 1. I don't think I ever mention that I felt like I had a GREAT understanding of everything taught in class. I truly felt as if I could pick up Rubin and understand every word. Despite the fact I had trouble working with Spivak. I thought it was because "clearly this book is not theoritical enough and the problems just bore me." Years later, I learned that this was just my way to justify on how terrible I was doing.

While, I don't expect a kid(despite the fact you are 23 yr, you're a kid to me) to took the word of some random guy on the interweb. Nevertheless, I do encourage you to take physics and math at CC and do well. Part of life isn't just knowing you know stuff, but showing other people you know it. We all pay our dues, and it sucks at first, but it's the worlds way of making sure you have a certain level of ability. If you truly want to study physics, then paying your dues should be something you don't mind doing.

Just my two cents.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I must ask... who is paying for their topology classes? How do they demonstrate sufficient knowledge to be allowed to take it? If I could would I be allowed or is 23 years old too old to be a kid genius that gets such special privileges?

I'm not sure how it works for people outside of high school. What we did was enroll in programs like MIT's summer science program, Columbia's summer school program, Brown's summer school program and self - study (being close friends with micromass also helped a ton because he's like the best math teacher ever - I learned so much from him it's ridiculous ) and then take courses at university during senior year.

 

[CosmicKitten]

I'm not sure how to interpret this so I'll just leave it alone in fear of making a wrong judgement. I will say that I love math and physics more than anything but I am years away from saying I even know a small fraction of what a graduate student would know.


I went to the Bronx High School of Science - it's a public school in NYC.

Caltech is allowed to have high mathematics standards if it wants to. It is clear they are catering to the math and science specialized kids - a year ago when I wrote the supplemental essay for freshman admissions to Caltech their essay prompt was something like "What is it about math and/or science that stimulates you?".

WHY can they not allow such kids to demonstrate their knowledge in another way? Being born and raised in the Appalachians does NOT make somebody stupid. Nor does being foster cared for eight years by white trash who would rather I read porn than a math book as I have.

What is it about math and/or science that stimulates me? To me, math is the medium for one of the purest forms of art. I think about the things one could do with it, and I get sort of... giddy... science too, which math is a subset of; basically the purest of all sciences, although physics often claims to be; yeah I saw that comic. What excites me about physics is the knowledge of what such things could be discovered and brought to the real world.

Yes, see I hear Bronx is a poor area, but it's in a big city, and I consider being in a big city as opposed to a small town to be in itself a form of wealth. There are non-monetary forms of wealth, although many don't understand that. Another such form of wealth is having parents that care about you, or at the very least don't say no if you want to apply to science camp or go on a field trip or heaven forbid check out a math book... I had this crazy idea about harnessing energy from cosmic rays and nobody to tell me why it couldn't work and now I am curious about the properties of palladium... the fact that it absorbs great levels of hydrogen, and also that it can become a superconductor, has my intuition leaping on to something and all I have to do is understand more physics...

Don't get me wrong, I have been taking the 'study the basics first' route for some time now. But I have been studying them for so long that I have been wondering how I know when I really do know the basics. Mind you my attention span and my mood has been terrible in the past year until I got on Adderall. I have gotten to the point where I know enough basics that I can follow some harder stuff and maybe pick up what I missed along the way, and also to the point where I need to step up if I want to continue to keep a focus...

I was never personally appealed by Caltech. What turned me off was what I heard about them discouraging creativity and interest in the arts. MIT has a reputation for doing the opposite but they must be inferior if they give preferential acceptance to minorities and women (which I don't agree with for the stigma it provides, but still they seem more out of the box and multidimensional with their assessment of applicants).

I think I may need to hire a tutor... how should I go about that?

 

[CosmicKitten]

I'm not sure how it works for people outside of high school. What we did was enroll in programs like MIT's summer science program, Columbia's summer school program, Brown's summer school program and self - study (being close friends with micromass also helped a ton because he's like the best math teacher ever - I learned so much from him it's ridiculous ) and then take courses at university during senior year.

Well I wasn't allowed. A) because at seventeen I was too 'young' to be away from home on my own, B) because I'm too 'autistic' to be trusted on my own, and C) As a foster kid I wasn't allowed to go on overnight stays without special permission. Should also mention D) couldn't afford but I hear there were scholarships (not that I would have gotten one) and the woman could probably spare a couple hundred dollars if she wanted to. But wouldn't. Oh and she didn't think I was even smart enough for AP classes. I mean I had a hard time at first with honors algebra in eighth grade because I was just climbing out of special ed where everything is dumbed down but everything was easier after that.

Yes. Actually I passed into honors algebra for eighth grade after having taken what was probably below grade level math in seventh grade. How? No clue, but yeah that's kind of like skipping some of the basics...

 

[pongo38]

Here is a heirarchy of what education is:
Knowledge
Memorising
applying techniques
Understanding
relating understanding to the real world
change in oneself

in that order.

 

[CosmicKitten]

I've told the story a few times how as an 18 yr old kid I was accepted into the University of Chicago. A few times, I've mention that I failed completely to the point that my GPA was under a 1. I don't think I ever mention that I felt like I had a GREAT understanding of everything taught in class. I truly felt as if I could pick up Rubin and understand every word. Despite the fact I had trouble working with Spivak. I thought it was because "clearly this book is not theoritical enough and the problems just bore me." Years later, I learned that this was just my way to justify on how terrible I was doing.

While, I don't expect a kid(despite the fact you are 23 yr, you're a kid to me) to took the word of some random guy on the interweb. Nevertheless, I do encourage you to take physics and math at CC and do well. Part of life isn't just knowing you know stuff, but showing other people you know it. We all pay our dues, and it sucks at first, but it's the worlds way of making sure you have a certain level of ability. If you truly want to study physics, then paying your dues should be something you don't mind doing.

Just my two cents.

Read WannabeNewton's posts. The kids that go to the special science summer camp program for high school get to skip all of their dues and take harder classes before they are even out of high school.

If they get to do that, then WHY can't I? I will fight for it, for the principle of the matter if nothing else.

 

[MarneMath]

I don't believe Wannabe skipped any of his dues nor did any of his peers. I'm sure during those camps he spent long nights solving problems trying to get a better grasp on the fundamental and put a serious effort into understanding the material. He paid his dues.

You can be bitter about the cards life gives you and compare yourself to people who have had it better or make the most of your time. I understand you feel you know the basics. A simple test I would use is open up an intro to physics book and solve 10 problems from each chapter. If you truly have a great understanding of the concept, this will be done quickly. I can open A First Course in Probability to a random problem and solve it or at the very least, know the general method to solve it. My understanding of probability is beyond an intro course and I can display that and have proof of that when need be.

You on the other hand, expect people to take your word and give you an opportunity. For better or worse, it doesn't work like that. You need to go back to community college and pass the basics and show professors and admissions that you are smart and able to study physics. If you are unwilling to do so, then I highly suggest you give up your dreams of studying physics, because clearly it doesn't mean as much to you as you think it does.

 

[CosmicKitten]

I don't believe Wannabe skipped any of his dues nor did any of his peers. I'm sure during those camps he spent long nights solving problems trying to get a better grasp on the fundamental and put a serious effort into understanding the material. He paid his dues.

You can be bitter about the cards life gives you and compare yourself to people who have had it better or make the most of your time. I understand you feel you know the basics. A simple test I would use is open up an intro to physics book and solve 10 problems from each chapter. If you truly have a great understanding of the concept, this will be done quickly. I can open A First Course in Probability to a random problem and solve it or at the very least, know the general method to solve it. My understanding of probability is beyond an intro course and I can display that and have proof of that when need be.

You on the other hand, expect people to take your word and give you an opportunity. For better or worse, it doesn't work like that. You need to go back to community college and pass the basics and show professors and admissions that you are smart and able to study physics. If you are unwilling to do so, then I highly suggest you give up your dreams of studying physics, because clearly it doesn't mean as much to you as you think it does.

I have in fact ACED an intro to physics course WITHOUT doing the homework OR paying attention OR studying. I was able to figure out how to solve problems I had never done by hand before in the time given to take the test

I had similar results in my high school physics class. During the previous year, I read and worked a few problems out of an introductory physics book that I borrowed from my chemistry teacher, so physics the next year was too easy. If there were harder books to read I would have, but there weren't. I had aced that chemistry class too, although it was 'honors' it was no harder than the regular chem course because there were so many students in that class that didn't want to study or even carry their books to class and they slowed the class down. I on the other hand read the chemistry book while my foster parent was trying to force me to watch Disney Channel. It was sooooo simplistic, I couldn't learn half as much as I wanted to, and yet the teacher never even covered the entire book.

There is no way I am going to impress anyone at this point by merely getting A's at a community college. I don't trust that I CAN get A's. I don't know what it is, but I felt so... powerless to even control my grades. Believe me, I tried... all I can figure is that the classes are a rotten deal and the toxic lectures that I was forced to attend wore on me and suppressed me to a state of torpid stupidity. I make mistakes very regularly, even on stuff that I know AS SURE AS HELL that I understand well... I was forced by one school to take calc 1 again, see, and I got a good grade in that class in high school so to say that I don't understand THAT pablum is to discredit the school I went to and the teacher I had (though believe me, any calculus class that takes an entire first quarter to review trig is an insult to its students)

Believe me, I very nearly went back this semester, and would have had somebody not talked me out of it for this semester at least, but at the same time it feels sort of as though I am wronging myself. I KNOW there has got to be a better way... I will take the regular GRE, the physics GRE, the math GRE, and the chemistry GRE without even taking the classes. I will ask the professors if I can take their exams. If nothing else, to challenge myself... I will admit that in school I would refuse to study on purpose for the purpose of making the tests harder. Still got A's. That was not the case for the last semester though; I DID study, but I didn't know what to study apparently...

Is it too much to ask for a book that you can read and memorize from cover to cover that contains EVERYTHING you might need to know for every test in the class?

 

[MarneMath]

Honestly, very little of that made sense. Why make a test harder just for the sake of it being hard? In fact, I don't understand much of what you're saying so I'm going to withdraw from this discourse. I will over one parting advice though, you're doing yourself no favors by going on this path. If proving that you can learn by self-studying to the level of a graduate student, then have fun. If your goal is to eventually study physics, go the path of least resistence and learn to do well in a classroom. Learn to overcome your struggle, and learn to stop pitying yourself.

I think the last sentence is very telling. Physics isn't something you memorize, it's something you learn, use and interact with. I know plently of physical formulas, I can describe most of the mathematics behind them, but I, as a statistician, have a very poor understanding on what any of it truly means.

The world isn't against you, but you seem very much against the world. And with that I wish you well.

 

[micromass]

Is it too much to ask for a book that you can read and memorize from cover to cover that contains EVERYTHING you might need to know for every test in the class?

You want a book that you want to memorize from cover to cover? That is not a smart thing to ask for. While studying physics does ask for some memorization, the memorization involved should be very minimal. You should know the formulas by using them a lot, not by memorizing them. In fact, all you need to be able to do is to see a problem and knowing which formulas to use. As long as you know how to solve the problem, that is enough. There is no need for memorizing formulas other than the minimum.

Don't look down on undergrad physics books. Undergrad books like Kleppner or Purcell really teach you intuition for the physics involved. Grad books don't teach you that, rather they assume you are familiar with the physics and they just use heavier math. In that sense, it is not uncommon that problems in undergrad books can be really difficult physics-wise, while the problems in grad books just have difficult mathematics.

There are many kids who had a much easier life than you and who are much ahead of you in physics. It's not fair, but it's the way it is. Complaining about it doesn't help you advance even one Planck length. Skipping undergrad books and starting with grad books just because the others are already reading grad books, that is a very bad idea. You may think that you understand everything in the grad books, but you really don't.

I don't want to pull you down or insult you, but if you say that you know more than the average grad student, then that is very naive and arrogant. This is called the Dunning-Kruger effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect I can assure you that grad students know way more than you. And I'm really not trying to insult you, I'm just telling you the truth in an admittedly blunt way. The people answering you in this thread are quite skilled in physics (except me, I don't know any physics, I just know a little bit of math). And we are telling you that your knowledge of physics is not that great. And we are telling you that need to work through undergrad books (like everybody does once). If you choose not to believe us, then that is your choice, but you will feel the consequences.

But maybe we're all wrong. That's not impossible. If you want to prove to us that we are wrong (and most importantly: prove it to yourself), then you should take about 5 arbitrary problems from Kleppner and Purcell. If you manage to solve these (and we can check your work if you want), then I guess that you are indeed ready for more advanced books. So just take some problems and try to solve them. There is nothing you have to lose. If you can solve them: great. And if you can't solve them, then you've gained some knowledge about yourself and that is always a good thing.

 

[CosmicKitten]

You want a book that you want to memorize from cover to cover? That is not a smart thing to ask for. While studying physics does ask for some memorization, the memorization involved should be very minimal. You should know the formulas by using them a lot, not by memorizing them. In fact, all you need to be able to do is to see a problem and knowing which formulas to use. As long as you know how to solve the problem, that is enough. There is no need for memorizing formulas other than the minimum.

Don't look down on undergrad physics books. Undergrad books like Kleppner or Purcell really teach you intuition for the physics involved. Grad books don't teach you that, rather they assume you are familiar with the physics and they just use heavier math. In that sense, it is not uncommon that problems in undergrad books can be really difficult physics-wise, while the problems in grad books just have difficult mathematics.

There are many kids who had a much easier life than you and who are much ahead of you in physics. It's not fair, but it's the way it is. Complaining about it doesn't help you advance even one Planck length. Skipping undergrad books and starting with grad books just because the others are already reading grad books, that is a very bad idea. You may think that you understand everything in the grad books, but you really don't.

I don't want to pull you down or insult you, but if you say that you know more than the average grad student, then that is very naive and arrogant. This is called the Dunning-Kruger effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect I can assure you that grad students know way more than you. And I'm really not trying to insult you, I'm just telling you the truth in an admittedly blunt way. The people answering you in this thread are quite skilled in physics (except me, I don't know any physics, I just know a little bit of math). And we are telling you that your knowledge of physics is not that great. And we are telling you that need to work through undergrad books (like everybody does once). If you choose not to believe us, then that is your choice, but you will feel the consequences.

But maybe we're all wrong. That's not impossible. If you want to prove to us that we are wrong (and most importantly: prove it to yourself), then you should take about 5 arbitrary problems from Kleppner and Purcell. If you manage to solve these (and we can check your work if you want), then I guess that you are indeed ready for more advanced books. So just take some problems and try to solve them. There is nothing you have to lose. If you can solve them: great. And if you can't solve them, then you've gained some knowledge about yourself and that is always a good thing.

Whoa, I did not say I know more than the average grad student, I said I might know more about undergrad stuff, since I know most people tend to forget things after a year. You know WHY they forget? They don't learn it in the first place; they rotely memorize it. I've seen kids that took a year or two of calculus in high school and were fresh out of high school to boot and yet they took the math placement test at the university and wound up retaking precalc. And these were engineering students too. Whereas I had not had a math class for two and a half years and yet I still remembered everything and passed into calculus (they won't let you test any higher than calc 1...)

It is total crap that somebody can't learn graduate level after brushing over the basics. Anybody can if the really genuinely WANT to...maybe it's not approved by the educational system but they need an enormous overhaul anyway.