What Is the Best Way to Structure My Self-Study in Physics?

AI Thread Summary
To strengthen knowledge in physics, it's important to follow a structured sequence of topics, especially after refreshing basic concepts from a prior college course. A solid approach includes utilizing recommended textbooks and online resources to facilitate learning. Given a background in calculus and other advanced mathematics, further strengthening in areas directly applicable to physics, such as linear algebra and differential equations, is advisable. While Gerard 't Hooft's website offers insights, it is noted that his pedagogical style may not be the most accessible for learners. Instead, starting with the Feynman Lectures on Physics is recommended for their clarity and engaging presentation. The emphasis should be on making concepts understandable while tackling problems that are challenging yet manageable to promote effective learning.
Fletch29
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have always had a passing interest in physics, but would like to strengthen my knowledge of physics. I am looking for a good sequence of topics to begin my studies and work through physics content. I had a basic physics course in college, but would probably need to refresh my knowledge. So any advice on the order to attack physics as a hole would be great. Any suggestions of good text to use for each topic that would appreciated as well, and good online resources.

I have a little mathematical background as well. I have taken the calculus sequence, differential equations, abstract algebra, linear algebra (matrix theory), and foundations of geometry, might be another one in there I don't remember. I assume I will need to strengthen my math with the growing level of physics I study. Any suggestions on what math I should learn as well?

I also assume there is already a thread with this information, so even direction to that would be much appreciated.

Thanks everyone
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think this quote indicates the limited usefulness T'Hoofts site, by his own admission:

"Note that this site NOT meant to be very pedagogical. I avoid texts with lots of colorful but distracting pictures from authors who try hard to be funny."

T'Hooft is a good physicist, and it's worth seeing what he has to say, but he doesn't have a very friendly attitude. I wouldn't recommend learning physics the way he says. Only T'Hooft could do that and manage to be successful.

He has this sort of macho attitude. I think there's a place for macho, but he's macho in the wrong way, for the most part. Yeah, you should probably try to learn some stuff from a bad textbook at some point, just so you have the experience of trying to outsmart it. But, for the most part, I think it's a terrible idea. There is just too much to learn for it to make any sense to make it harder than it has to be. You don't need to throw in obstacles in your way. The CONCEPTS should be made easy. The PROBLEMS are what should be hard. But even the problems shouldn't be too hard. Just hard enough to make you struggle, but still succeed.

So, read what he has to say. He may have some good advice. But I would take it with a grain of salt.
 
Just start reading the Feynman lectures on physics. Study all math concepts that you are struggling with. There is no better way to start with physics :smile:
 
TL;DR Summary: I want to do a PhD in applied math but I hate group theory, is this a big problem? Hello, I am a second-year math and physics double major with a minor in data science. I just finished group theory (today actually), and it was my least favorite class in all of university so far. It doesn't interest me, and I am also very bad at it compared to other math courses I have done. The other courses I have done are calculus I-III, ODEs, Linear Algebra, and Prob/Stats. Is it a...
I’ve been looking through the curricula of several European theoretical/mathematical physics MSc programs (ETH, Oxford, Cambridge, LMU, ENS Paris, etc), and I’m struck by how little emphasis they place on advanced fundamental courses. Nearly everything seems to be research-adjacent: string theory, quantum field theory, quantum optics, cosmology, soft matter physics, black hole radiation, etc. What I don’t see are the kinds of “second-pass fundamentals” I was hoping for, things like...

Similar threads

Replies
102
Views
5K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
623
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top