- #1
Fikremariam
- 5
- 12
I am a 16 years old boy who have adream to become quantum physicist but IAM also aboy who doesn't know the beginningof the road so I thought maybe some comments will be helpful so tell me where shall I start?
For example, I don't know what this is about:fresh_42 said:But don't get scared, it is actually not understandable for most of us.
If you want to be ambitious, take a look at this and see whether you can understand any of it:Fikremariam said:I am a 16 years old boy who have adream to become quantum physicist but IAM also aboy who doesn't know the beginningof the road so I thought maybe some comments will be helpful so tell me where shall I start?
My question to you: On what basis do you dream of becoming a quantum physicist? A TV show? A movie? An article? An interview with a quantum physicist? Do you know a quantum physicist? Do you have actual experience with what a quantum physicist does?Fikremariam said:I am a 16 years old boy who have adream to become quantum physicist but IAM also aboy who doesn't know the beginningof the road so I thought maybe some comments will be helpful so tell me where shall I start?
i had no plan for the future but in 2019 on my physics class my physics teacher was motivating us because our grades were low and he told us about the story of his quantum physicist friends life which was full of challenges which inspired me after that day my mind was full of doubt until i post this threadCrysPhys said:My question to you: On what basis do you dream of becoming a quantum physicist? A TV show? A movie? An article? An interview with a quantum physicist? Do you know a quantum physicist? Do you have actual experience with what a quantum physicist does?
Wow, that's a pricey book!CGandC said:As I was recommended this, I'd recommend you to start reading at first the book, Principles of Mathematics by Allendoerfer, Carl B. (Carl Barnett), 1911-1974 , It will help shape the way you will see mathematics and understand things from logical perspective.
The OP is 16. That is what parents are for.berkeman said:Wow, that's a pricey book!
bhobba said:I am surprised none have mentioned you do not need much calculus. Spivak is an honours calculus text, rather advanced and not necessary. I taught myself calculus at 13 or 14 (forget which) - it is not hard - you can do it. In fact, where I am in Aus, my HS taught it formally to good students at age 14 and 15, although that option was not available when I attended. The book I like for that is:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0471827223/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Andreas said:I did more or less what you are saying.
robphy said:In my opinion, it is essential to have spacetime diagrams and use them throughout, emphasizing the geometry of spacetime... and encouraging the use of appropriate analogies with Euclidean space.
"A spacetime diagram is worth a thousand words"
(Maybe "spacetime diagram" is too scary...
just say "position-vs-time graph".)
Maybe introductory relativity problems are essentially hyperbolic-trigonometry problems involving a Minkowski-right-triangle, where a length or an "angle" (rapidity) must be found. One has to reformulate the word problem into a spacetime diagram.
Many books have good presentations of formulas and formalism, but not enough connection to the spacetime geometry.
Books that I like that emphasize the spacetime diagrams and "spacetime thinking"... in order of increasing difficulty...
#cut for length#
- Bondi, Relativity and Common Sense (especially the development of "operational definitions via the radar method" and the $k$-calculus [secretly the eigenbasis of the Lorentz boost]. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bondi_k-calculus https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/relativity-using-bondi-k-calculus/ )
- Geroch, General Relativity from A to B (although it may seem verbose, it is unusually deep in terms of spacetime thinking)... I read it as a first-year undergrad (assigned as optional reading)... interesting but I didn't appreciate until I sat in on a more advanced course by Geroch (see reference later). Even in the advanced course, he made similar points at a more advanced level. He is a remarkably deep thinker.
The emphasis on spacetime thinking, operational methods, causal structure, modeling spacetime structure.
Vanadium 50 said:Time to cite Tom Weller again:
View attachment 281132
35 years ago, this was a joke. Now, not as much.
I thought about Bob’s school, too. I think your scan is better than mine.robphy said:Ha!
I never saw that one.
I found this one when I was an undergrad.
jtbell said:I thought about Bob’s school, too. I think your scan is better than mine.
I know it's been said already but the answer isFikremariam said:... where shall I start?