Why do people think physics is so hard?

[grant9076]

What exactly would you say is harder than physics and/or mathematics? I have read through lots of different undergraduate texts (to construct a perspective of how difficult all of the majors are at my university) and the only texts that I open up and immediately go wtf, are high level chemistry, math and physics.

I can understand neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, biology, etc. without any problems at all. All I have to do is read through the chapters, make sure I understand the operational definitions and that's about it.

I have to spend hours and hours learning the mathematics and then learning how it relates to physics. I know that I am not a genius.

I am just curious what you think?

Actually, that depends on the person. Some people are good at memorizing 100 facts while some others find it to be much easier to understand and apply 5 or 6 principles that govern these facts. Some subjects have more disconnected facts than principles and therefore are easier for the first group. Other subjects are based more on understanding and applying principles and are therefore easier for the latter group.

As for me, although I did well in math and tested out of physics when I was in college many years ago, I absolutely dreaded (and struggled with) subjects like history, literature and political science.

 

[Moonbear]

I can understand neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, biology, etc. without any problems at all. All I have to do is read through the chapters, make sure I understand the operational definitions and that's about it.

Then you don't know enough about any of those subjects yet to realize how challenging they are when you get beyond the simple, introductory material. Memorizing definitions is not adequate to understand any of those subjects. At the introductory level, physics is really easy too.

But, as others have already mentioned, everyone has their own individual talents. I find it incredibly hard to write anything that even comes close to what could be called poetry, but others can write beautiful poetry quite easily.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I always think of great Mathematicians as *geniuses* and physicians as standing on the shoulders of Geniuses :)

What were Newton and Schrodinger then? The best physisists are often the best mathemeticians as well. Considering the nature of advanced physics I doubt you'll get far without being at least competent at maths.

For most people maths is hard, therefore they percieve physics which is mostly maths is hard. Some people are good at pure maths others excell at applying it, to be a good physisist requires both. The best and brightest go into physics anyway, if you look at testing: physics tops the academic performance ladder beating Engineering and maths into second and third place. So the brightest really do go into physics.

The most groundbreaking and well known theories of the 20th century have mostly been in the field of physics, with biology catching up later. Microprocessors and ICBM's are a direct consequence of physics.

 

[Sojourner01]

Most people don't 'think properly'. Being wantonly ignorant in school when the groundwork was being laid means that if most people were to sit in a physics lecture now they'd sit there and not take in a word that was said.

However, if you put these same people in an undergraduate lab, they'd probably do as well as some of the physics students.

 

[pivoxa15]

if you look at testing: physics tops the academic performance ladder beating Engineering and maths into second and third place. So the brightest really do go into physics.

What do you mean by testing? What is the academic performance ladder? Is that a ranking between the students of the discipline or the professors? Can you provide evidence for it?

 

[Alkatran]

High school physics was one of my easiest classes. Not only did I 'get' it, the teacher spent the majority of class time talking about his financial ideas instead of physics.

Now chemistry, THAT was a decent class in high school. Excellent teacher.

 

[leright]

I am a physics major and find physics to be extremely challenging.

 

[twisting_edge]

High school physics was one of my easiest classes. Not only did I 'get' it, the teacher spent the majority of class time talking about his financial ideas instead of physics.

Just wait until you get to the harmonics of an electron orbit. It's a little more challenging then.

Conceptual things I never had a problem with. That's where most people run into early troubles. But the math can get more than a little involved even if you have no problem with the concepts.

They probably focus more on numeric (computer-based) solutions for things like that now. When I went through it, it was a rather bizarre stew of differentials, abstract algebra, geometry, and linear equations. There'd be a few paragraphs every couple of chapters saying, essentially, "You can use a computer to do this sort of thing using the following techniques, but that's just for the lightweights who will fail any course based on this book in any case."

Admittedly, mine was a very theoretical program. I looked at the cirricula for some other schools and was sort of surprised at the number of continuous media, thermo and solid state courses most of them offered under physics. Most of that stuff was relegated to the school of engineering at my alma mater.

 

[twisting_edge]

What do you mean by testing? What is the academic performance ladder? Is that a ranking between the students of the discipline or the professors? Can you provide evidence for it?

I can't provide a link, but I remember a math grad student saying the same thing when I was a physics undergrad. "The theoretical physics guys have the highest IQ on average, but we [theoretical mathematicians] are right behind them on the list, and they wouldn't get anywhere without us to hand them the pencil." He was explicitly talking about IQ, which is probably the "testing" referred to here, as well.

It's not really surprising, given what IQ tests measure: the ability to quickly resolve abstractions. Of all the disciplines, physics and math certainly have the highest ratio of on-the-spot synthesis to memorization in my experience.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

What do you mean by testing? What is the academic performance ladder? Is that a ranking between the students of the discipline or the professors? Can you provide evidence for it?

It's testing from US universities, I've seen the table but perhaps an american might find it, funnilly enough I seem to remember history students came about 6th or 7th.

 

[pivoxa15]

I still think the best pure maths grad students are intellectually superior to the corresponding brilliant theoretical physics students. Maybe the tests are better adapated to people who have done a lot of physics than someone who has done only a lot of extremely abstract stuff.

Maybe you could try a hyperthetical experiment pay the best pure maths and theoretical physics academics 2 times as much salary for a year and get them to do the opposite work. Maths academics do physics and vice versa. At the end of the year you might find that the maths academics have accomplished more than their physics collegues doing maths. That is what I think anyway. One reason is that it's simply easier to learn physics than abstract maths. Although don't get me wrong, I think the 'real world' is extremely complicated but in physics they build models which is not as hard to understand as rigorous maths although a bit of creativity is needed to create these models.

 

[cristo]

How are you defining "theoretical physics"? As far as I'm aware, a lot of theoretical physics is rather abstract!

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

How are you defining "theoretical physics"? As far as I'm aware, a lot of theoretical physics is rather abstract!

And loaded with pure mathematics, especially analysis.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I still think the best pure maths grad students are intellectually superior to the corresponding brilliant theoretical physics students. Maybe the tests are better adapated to people who have done a lot of physics than someone who has done only a lot of extremely abstract stuff.

Maybe you could try a hyperthetical experiment pay the best pure maths and theoretical physics academics 2 times as much salary for a year and get them to do the opposite work. Maths academics do physics and vice versa. At the end of the year you might find that the maths academics have accomplished more than their physics collegues doing maths. That is what I think anyway. One reason is that it's simply easier to learn physics than abstract maths. Although don't get me wrong, I think the 'real world' is extremely complicated but in physics they build models which is not as hard to understand as rigorous maths although a bit of creativity is needed to create these models.

Are you a maths student by any chance?

All the great physisists of the 20th century also happened to be very competent if not brilliant mathemeticians too, simply put though the best and brightest go into physics, maths and engineering in that order? Perhaps it's the prestige of the subject?

Anyone who thinks philosophy is easy either it comes it at around 6th. Food for thought . And no I can't find the tables, I have seen them and I have tried though.

This is in the US other countries I have no idea?

Simply put though if you asked the mathemiticians and the physisists to vote for who they thought were the brightest, you'd get very predictable results.

IMO to be a good physicist you need not only at least competent maths skill but also imigination and visualisation skills. Plus you have to learn a stack load of technicle information, with maths it's the same but most people in maths are already skilled at maths or they wouldn't be there. The distinction is in the relation of real complicated maths to the real world and spotting were and how to apply maths. Mathemeticians maybe brilliant mathemeticians but they spend all their time doing only one thing: maths.

 

[complexPHILOSOPHY]

I still think the best pure maths grad students are intellectually superior to the corresponding brilliant theoretical physics students. Maybe the tests are better adapated to people who have done a lot of physics than someone who has done only a lot of extremely abstract stuff.

Maybe you could try a hyperthetical experiment pay the best pure maths and theoretical physics academics 2 times as much salary for a year and get them to do the opposite work. Maths academics do physics and vice versa. At the end of the year you might find that the maths academics have accomplished more than their physics collegues doing maths. That is what I think anyway. One reason is that it's simply easier to learn physics than abstract maths. Although don't get me wrong, I think the 'real world' is extremely complicated but in physics they build models which is not as hard to understand as rigorous maths although a bit of creativity is needed to create these models.

The pure mathematician could potentially be considered better at pure, abstract mathematics than a mathematical physicist, however, a pure mathematician probably doesn't know roughly even half as much physics as the physicist does (unless the mathematician engages in physics research), while the physicist might know as much if not more maths than the mathematician!

You claim that it is easy to learn physics as opposed to abstract mathematics but at a certain level (especially in theoretical physics), you have to first learn the abstract mathematics and then learn how that relates to the physics!

How do you think they 'construct' these models of reality? They use abstract formal logic systems such as mathematics. Mathematics does not represent an external reality, however, it can be used as a visuall language, to model physical phenomena. Theoretical physics today is highly mathematical, focused around rigorous proofs and hardcore analysis.

Perhaps my perception of the situation is slightly distorted.

-cP

 

[pivoxa15]

Perhaps I said too much in my last post. I am studying both physics and maths and think they are both very challenging with maths even more. The main point I wanted to get across in my last post was "Maybe the tests are better suited to people who have done a lot of physics than someone who has done only a lot of extremely abstract stuff with no realtion to the external world."

Schrodinger's Dog, if you can't find the results could you find the test itself?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Perhaps I said too much in my last post. I am studying both physics and maths and think they are both very challenging with maths even more. The main point I wanted to get across in my last post was "Maybe the tests are better suited to people who have done a lot of physics than someone who has done only a lot of extremely abstract stuff with no realtion to the external world."

Schrodinger's Dog, if you can't find the results could you find the test itself?

The tests are the standard SAT's and the GPA(grade point averages) Mathemeticians tend to gain in maths GPA's though. But it's not really apt to compare GPA in two different subjects, essentially it was a combined statistical average of who dropped out who stayed in GPA's and SAT's. Plus some other factors.

 

[J77]

I still think the best pure maths grad students are intellectually superior to the corresponding brilliant theoretical physics students.

What do you base that on?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Two words: Erwin Schrödinger. Brilliant mathemetician, brilliant physicist. In fact the brilliant phsysicists of our time would absolutely eat most pure mathemeticians for breakfast and leave their bones for the crows to pick over . Pure maths is worthless per se if it is never used. Only applied maths is valued in science, if you can do both your value is double.

 

[Thrice]

I find math to be incredibly easy compared to physics, probably because physics facts are much more disconnected. Physics gets easier for me once I can axiomatize it & that approach isn't usually taught in classes.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I find math to be incredibly easy compared to physics, probably because physics facts are much more disconnected. Physics gets easier for me once I can axiomatize it & that approach isn't usually taught in classes.

I find both hard - if you find maths and physics easy I think the nobel prize awaits you - but together they make it much easier, if you can show one in visual form and get the math behind it it becomes more manageable, a good model is worth a thousand words.

For example I didn't get complex numbers until I saw an example where a graph was used, then I said: I could call that 4D (x)(y)(z)(t), time and space, then time and space became much easier to comprehend mathematically. Minkowski diagrams and then light cones were the icing on the cake

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_line.png

 

[pivoxa15]

I am not a US citizen, When you mention GPA, do you mean their University or high school grades? SAT is taken by final year high school students looking for a place in Uni isn't it?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I am not a US citizen, When you mention GPA, do you mean their University or high school grades? SAT is taken by final year high school students looking for a place in Uni isn't it?

No neither am I, GPA at University, SAT scores to enter university, drop out rates, and a few other things.

 

[joshtring]

i think physics is the abstract or may be the funda of the rest of science! you feel physics easy then you find yourself able to solve anything that happens in this this world!

 

[pivoxa15]

The tests are the standard SAT's and the GPA(grade point averages) Mathemeticians tend to gain in maths GPA's though. But it's not really apt to compare GPA in two different subjects, essentially it was a combined statistical average of who dropped out who stayed in GPA's and SAT's. Plus some other factors.

So you are saying maths students tend to get better marks at maths than physics students at physics?

SAT consists of general testing including essays so one would tend to favour physics wanna-be scoring higher overall than pure maths wanna-be's.

For me though, I am not particularly bright or good at either physics or maths but I do have a large curiosity for nature and abstract entities. However, I feel that in general there isn't near as many 'impossible' type problems in physics than in maths. In other words I feel that given sufficient time, I am able to do any solved problem in physics but with maths, I can very quickly find a problem that I can't do and after a while get a feeling of 'never' be able to solve this problem. So you can say I am more confident at physics than at maths.

 

[pivoxa15]

i think physics is the abstract or may be the funda of the rest of science! you feel physics easy then you find yourself able to solve anything that happens in this this world!

I agree. If you succeed in physics than I think you would success in any other 'practical' endeavour. 'practical' being associated to the real world.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

So you are saying maths students tend to get better marks at maths than physics students at physics?

SAT consists of general testing including essays so one would tend to favour physics wanna-be scoring higher overall than pure maths wanna-be's.

For me though, I am not particularly bright or good at either physics or maths but I do have a large curiosity for nature and abstract entities. However, I feel that in general there isn't near as many 'impossible' type problems in physics than in maths. In other words I feel that given sufficient time, I am able to do any solved problem in physics but with maths, I can very quickly find a problem that I can't do and after a while get a feeling of 'never' be able to solve this problem. So you can say I am more confident at physics than at maths.

GPAs alone would not be representative. Is the point.

 

[chromosome24]

the hard thing about physics is statistical mechanics! i have an assignment due tomorrow and I am just about to gouge out my eyes.

 

[doc.madani]

some aspects of physics is hard and requires a lot of knowledge but physics is really fun and pretty simple stuff.

 

[malawi_glenn]

physics is really fun and pretty simple stuff.

quite arrogant from a person asking questions about Newtons laws of motion..

 

[_Mayday_]

I haven't ventured that far into physics to be honest so I can't really comment on how difficult physics is after school. One of my teachers studied at a top university and said it was extremely difficult, but then another one of my old teachers said it was alright if you put the hours in. You can't really draw a conclusion from those two opinions really.

Personally I enjoy Physics, so I can live with it being difficult, some aspects I have covered are quite straight forward, like the Particle Physics we have covered, but that was in very straight forwards terms. The questions are a lot harder when put in context with a real life scenario, and you have to figure out what a, b and c is, but the topics I have covered so far, when they are just numbers on a piece of paper, the formula are easily manipulated, and solved.

Overall I would say it is a difficult subject, in comparison with other subjects at the same level. If you say physics is very easy then surely you should have some grades or qualifications to back it up? As much as I would like to say it is straight forward, I will only know straight forward I find it in the summer when I get my results, or when I start university.

_Mayday_

 

[Nano]

I see a lot of people are saying that if you're bad at math, you'll be bad at physics. However, I'm quite advanced for my grade level at math, and I also happen to enjoy it, so I assumed I would be good at physics as well. But that's not the case, I'm actually terrible at physics for reasons I don't understand.
So is there some inherent difference between math and physics that I'm overlooking. They both seem to rely heavily on problem solving.

 

[humanino]

So is there some inherent difference between math and physics that I'm overlooking. They both seem to rely heavily on problem solving.

I too was much better at math at a young age. The thing with math is that you always know what you're talking about. Physics is actually more abstract ! In math, you cannot let the slightest detail ruin your work, you must pay attention to every little thing. In physics, the problem is not to focus on irrelevant features, you must know how to approximate reliably.

 

[Nano]

In physics, the problem is not to focus on irrelevant features, you must know how to approximate reliably.

I'm not quite sure what you mean, could you give an example?

I find that I'm as bad at solving physics problems than I am at understanding conceptual questions. A lot of people say that physics is hard because it messes with your intuition. But don't all subjects do that on some level or the other? Eventually you learn the misconceptions you held were wrong, and you learn the new way. But I don't seem to be able to "absorb" the new intuition that physics presents. Manipulating equations is fine, but thinking through a foreign concept with a new set of rules they give you is challenging.

 

[D H]

This thread has been raised from the dead four times now.

The thing with math is that you always know what you're talking about.

Whereas physicists don't have to know what they're talking about?

One difference between mathematics and physics is that physics is bound to reality (go ahead, humanino, give me the grumpy face back for making an enthymematically disparaging remark regarding mathematics; I deserve it). In physics one has to know what's important and what's important to ignore. Example: I'm working with some people new to a regime that I know very well. They kept adding a requirement to model an effect important in the regime in which they normally work. I kept striking this requirement because I know both regimes and I know the effect of interest is irrelevant. They finally got it when I made them realize that this capability is more than an order magnitude smaller than uncertainties in the dominant effects in this new regime. (Sorry to be so obtuse. I can't give out the details.) Knowing what throw away and what not to throw away is very important in physics.

 

[humanino]

I'm not quite sure what you mean, could you give an example?

What is the volume of a cow ?
Roughly the same as the volume of a sphere of water with the same weight !
(It's well-known)

Whereas physicists don't have to know what they're talking about?

Look, I'm a physicist !
What I mean is, a circle is a circle, we all agree on all properties of circles, no matter which definition we use of a circle (as long as they are equivalent to each other). But there is no circle anywhere in Nature. We know the mathematical objects we use to describe reality, but we should not forget that they are not reality. We don't know what is out there for sure.

 

[Hurkyl]

Knowing what throw away and what not to throw away is very important in physics.

And it's not in mathematics? From one perspective, this is the entire point of calculus, and the primary proof technique of real analysis!

Knowing what to throw away is important even in cases (apparently) far removed from the idea of approximation. For example, the theory of rings can be quite difficult and complex. One of the most important advances was Emmy Noether's observation that most rings of interest satisfy a certain technical condition which greatly simplifies the theory (we now call such rings Noetherian, in tribute). Knowing to consider only the important Noetherian case makes it much, much easier to deal with many of the questions that arise in ring theory / algebraic geometry.

 

[Wellesley]

A lot of people say that physics is hard because it messes with your intuition. But don't all subjects do that on some level or the other?

At least for me, some topics in Physics are hard to grapple with conceptually...For example the speed of light (and it's limitations). The traditional way of thinking (think Star Trek, Sci-Fi and Star Wars) has made the reality much harder to grasp. Everyone (who hasn't taken Physics) thinks objects can be accelerated past c, and that's what we group up thinking. This also makes learning Physics much harder than understanding how to manipulate equations.

 

[Winzer]

In my years of schooling I have found mathematics easier to learn then physics. Physics is a skill that I have developed. A lot of hard work has gone into it and I am proud to say it is not in vain.

Its funny. I considered going into pure and applied math for college study. But I found physics to be even more challenging; it was always the one science class I would get a B in High School. In addition I was not satisfied with my physical understanding of the world at the time. So for reasons of being stubborn and seeking perfection I joined the physics tank--no regrets.

Yes, I think physics is hard. I still have a long way to go with physics and I HOPE it is hard as hell.

 

[ice109]

because they've never done it. they see all these funny looking symbols and get scared.

whenever anyone comments on my genius with regards to my studying physics i always emphasize how dumb i actually am and how i could teach anyone that was interested.

 

[D H]

But I found physics to be even more challenging; it was always the one science class I would get a B in High School. In addition I was not satisfied with my physical understanding of the world at the time.

High school physics is hard. It involves a lot of disparate equations that have to be memorized and don't seem to be connected to one another in any meaningful way. Calculus-based physics is a lot easier. Things fit together, and there is a lot less memorization (but a whole lot more to derivation).

 

[Winzer]

High school physics is hard. It involves a lot of disparate equations that have to be memorized and don't seem to be connected to one another in any meaningful way. Calculus-based physics is a lot easier. Things fit together, and there is a lot less memorization (but a whole lot more to derivation).

I would agree. After studying calculus based physics more concepts and derivations became clear and even intuitive. I would take being able to do derivations over straight memorization any day, as I would expect most people would.

 

[ice109]

High school physics is hard. It involves a lot of disparate equations that have to be memorized and don't seem to be connected to one another in any meaningful way. Calculus-based physics is a lot easier. Things fit together, and there is a lot less memorization (but a whole lot more to derivation).

this is all of physics. every single physics class I've ever taken save for my mechanics classes has been like this.

 

[matthayzon89]

I commonly hear the words "Physics" and "Genius" combined in many sentences, which seems to be a bit of a misnomer, considering that most of physics is rather simple, and only gets complicated once you have to apply hundreds of possible changing factors in a problem.

Or am I just being pompous? X.x

Just so you know. I knew nothing about physics before this year. I never took Trigonometry (which is usually required b4 taking physics). I am going junior in a college and I have a 3.2 GPA. Physics is simply HARD! Intro to Physics is what I am talking about. It's not hard to understand the basics and know the formulas but its hard to apply it REAL life situations and really understand different concepts in different situations. I strongly disagree when people say 'its easy'. I would say it's very very time consuming and requires hours of hard thought to completely understand a given concept 'in and out'.

 

[thack45]

High school physics is hard. It involves a lot of disparate equations that have to be memorized and don't seem to be connected to one another in any meaningful way.

I think high school physics is hard if you have any interest in actual physics. Others breezed through advanced physics in HS while every problem for me just drew more questions. So much was to be taken as a given. Just do the math and you're in there. I failed that class.

 

[Galteeth]

This has been touched on, but there is a stereotype that pople who are good at abstract thinking are not as good at concrete mathematical processing and vive-versa. To do well with physics one needs both types of cognitive ability and must be able to use them in parallel. This is intimidating to a lot of people, even those who may be intelligent but are aware of their own cognitive weaknesses.

 

[Pythagorean]

High school physics is hard. It involves a lot of disparate equations that have to be memorized and don't seem to be connected to one another in any meaningful way. Calculus-based physics is a lot easier. Things fit together, and there is a lot less memorization (but a whole lot more to derivation).

I agree that this is how it should be taught, but I'm afraid that it depends on the teacher in my experience :/

 

[rewebster]

Why do people think physics is so hard?

well, first I would say that most people don't care about physics (or math and the sciences).

If you think about what grade school kids, then high school kids, in general, care about, its usually not math, physics, or the sciences. And if you asked those kids about them, they would probably say that they care less about them first, before they would say they were hard.

By the time that people who became interested in the sciences, they are on a goal course that doesn't resemble what most peoples' goal courses are--and at that time, those people look at people in science and wonder why they are trying to figure out what gravity is--and think, big deal, gravity is gravity. With no comprehension what all those symbols that physicists use, its like a foreign language that they see no sense in learning---so they think its 'hard'.

 

[MHD93]

The beauty of Physics lies in its hardness

 

[Jack21222]

Argh! Necroposter!