Self-teaching Physics 1, 2, and 3 using MIT Open Courseware

[Physics-aspirant]

Hi, I am trying to teach myself Physics 1, 2, and 3. I tried learning using MIT Open Courseware. The courses which I tried taking are 8.01, 8.02, and 8.03. Are these courses in MIT Open Courseware a complete college course or just a brief overview of online courses in physics, as the video is usually only 3-4 minutes with a few pages of readings?

Here are the links to the courses I mentioned:

Physics 1 : https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-01sc-classical-mechanics-fall-2016/
Physics 2 : https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-02-physics-ii-electricity-and-magnetism-spring-2019/
Physics 3 : https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-03sc-physics-iii-vibrations-and-waves-fall-2016/

 

[Hill]

These are MIT OCW physics courses featuring full video lectures: https://ocw.mit.edu/search/?d=Physics&f=Lecture Videos

 

[gleem]

What is your math preparation?

 

[Physics-aspirant]

What is your math preparation?

I completed Calculus 1 and 2 and will do Calculus 3 in about two months.

 

[Physics-aspirant]

These are MIT OCW physics courses featuring full video lectures: https://ocw.mit.edu/search/?d=Physics&f=Lecture Videos

All the link I provide are from MIT OCW. I want to know are this equivalence to real undergraduate courses as the video are short etc.

 

[Hill]

All the link I provide are from MIT OCW. I want to know are this equivalence to real undergraduate courses as the video are short etc.

They are based on materials from real courses, but don't have all the real courses features.

 

[Physics-aspirant]

They are based on materials from real courses, but don't have all the real courses features.

Any recommendations on how to self-taught Physics I II and III to be equivalent with undergraduate studying them ?

 

[Choppy]

Any recommendations on how to self-taught Physics I II and III to be equivalent with undergraduate studying them ?

The best way to do this is to actually take the courses, I'm afraid.

One of the big challenges of self-teaching is the absence of qualified, external feedback. In a course you get this through marked assignments, labs, quizzes, and examinations. You have instructors whom you can ask specific questions to and work with until you understand things. Hand-in-hand with that, you have an objective means of demonstrating that you have, in fact, effectively covered the material. Students who try to apply to graduate school arguing they have self-taught physics courses don't make a lot of headway with admission committees.

 

[vela]

The lecture videos are short to break up the material into digestible chunks. The idea is likely that you watch the video and then are supposed to immediately work with the material that was just covered while it's still fresh in your mind. This approach tends to improve retention by inexperienced learners, i.e., freshmen.

Students tend to get as much out of a course as they put into it, so it's largely up to you what you get from the OCW courses. You can learn as much from them as you would from a traditional course. You can also learn much less. What you need to do is figure out how to assess your progress.

 

[jtbell]

Hi, I am trying to self-taught Physics 1 2 and 3.

For what purpose?

As a hobby, for mental exercise or to satisfy your curiosity?

Do you plan to take those courses (or their equivalents) at a real university, but don't want to come into them completely "cold"?

Are you hoping to use these self-study courses for credit towards a university physics degree? In this case, @Choppy's and @vela's comments about assessment are on target.

 

[PeterDonis]

Are these courses in MIT Open Courseware a complete college course

Yes. The videos are of MIT professors giving the same lectures they give on campus, and the rest of the course materials online are the same materials that are used on campus.

 

[PeterDonis]

the video is usually only 3-4 minutes with a few pages of readings?

More precisely, there is this for each lesson in the course. There are also exercises. A course is 12 to 13 weeks and each week typically contains 3 to 4 lessons. So you don't have just one 3-4 minute video with a few pages of readings and exercises for course: you have about 40 of them.

 

[Physics-aspirant]

For what purpose?

As a hobby, for mental exercise or to satisfy your curiosity?

Do you plan to take those courses (or their equivalents) at a real university, but don't want to come into them completely "cold"?

Are you hoping to use these self-study courses for credit towards a university physics degree? In this case, @Choppy's and @vela's comments about assessment are on target.

I would said that I use to dislike physics. But having a career in computer science, I want to try quantum computing in future. I didn't take any physics class in grade 11 and 12. So I plan on learning these three courses and then move to quantum mechanics.

 

[jedishrfu]

Another approach for self-learning physics is the Schaum's Outline series book by Prof Michael Browne:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1260453839/?tag=pfamazon01-20

or the IB Diploma Physics book by Prof KA Tsokos:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1009071882/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Vanadium 50]

This does not sound like a plan for success.

8.01 assumes the student has had physics in high school. You;d be starting in the middle.
If you want to get to quantum mechanics, that's 8.01, 8.02, 8.04 and 8.05 (8.03 may or may not be skippable) plus your catch-up higfh school course (2 semesters). This is pretty linear, so it's about three years of work. If you can keep up the same pace as a full-time MIT student.

Do you have years to spend? Or does it make more sense to approach this from the CS side?

 

[Physics-aspirant]

This does not sound like a plan for success.

8.01 assumes the student has had physics in high school. You;d be starting in the middle.
If you want to get to quantum mechanics, that's 8.01, 8.02, 8.04 and 8.05 (8.03 may or may not be skippable) plus your catch-up higfh school course (2 semesters). This is pretty linear, so it's about three years of work. If you can keep up the same pace as a full-time MIT student.

Do you have years to spend? Or does it make more sense to approach this from the CS side?

Any recommend better approach from CS side ?

 

[Vanadium 50]

We have several people here - at least three - who want the benefit of years of study, without putting in the years. It doesn't sound like its working for any of them. King Ptolemy was looking for one over 2000 years ago - but Euclid told him that there is no royal road to mathematics,.

 

[pbuk]

Any recommend better approach from CS side ?

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-435j-quantum-computation-fall-2003/

You don't need a deep understanding of the physics of quantum mechanics to be a QC expert any more than you need a deep understanding of the physics of classical field theory to be a digital computing expert.

 

[Physics-aspirant]

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/18-435j-quantum-computation-fall-2003/

You don't need a deep understanding of the physics of quantum mechanics to be a QC expert any more than you need a deep understanding of the physics of classical field theory to be a digital computing expert.

So I should start with this course ?

 

[pbuk]

So I should start with this course ?

You probably need Calculus 3 first. The 'Bible' for QC is Nielsen and Chuang, which is the book Peter Schor uses for the MIT course, it gets quite heavy on maths quite quickly. Take a look at the first week's assignment and see if you think you are ready.

Alternatively look at something with a more directly practical focus such as https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/quantum/concepts-overview

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's good that the OP seems to have reconsidered approaching this from the CS side. One should look carefully at the syllabus, though.

• They say linear algebra is required. MIT is serious about their prereqs.
• They say an understanding of QM is "helpful but not required". That usually means "you're responsible for picking up what you need on your own" and "the prof won't slow down so the people who didn't take it can catch up.
• The materials is 20 years old. Be aware of that.