Why do people think physics is so hard?

[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.