Learning to learn. Physics PhD style.

[RD]

I should probably start a learning journal* of sorts to post my progress over time and get (steering) feedback from you guys

*Maybe hybrid with snippets of ERE journal, since financials wise my ERE journey is in the boring phase of waiting for the time to pass.

For now, I'm revisiting calculus (differentiation first) and to get a good grasp of it's underlying principles rather than just the (long forgotten) mechanical manipulation and solving for exams.

I took a look at the Feynman Lectures and seems like a good start, well until I hit any major roadblocks. It's now available completely free online @ feynmanlectures.info

Checked out the Feynman's Tip on Physics which was introduced to help the weaker students at Caltech. I got stumped almost right away at the Prerequisite section on Differentiation (amazon book preview).

So yeah, long long journey ahead, Math has always been a limiting factor in my technical abilities and I'm going to make as much progress as possible while my interest lasts*
* INTP ;p

Have not read the VH1.pdf 10 times yet. Haha.

[5to9]

I should probably start a learning journal* of sorts to post my progress over time and get (steering) feedback from you guys

*Maybe hybrid with snippets of ERE journal, since financials wise my ERE journey is in the boring phase of waiting for the time to pass.

Many of the ERE journals that I find most interesting include details like this in addition to just the tracking of the financials. Building up of the money pile is only one component of the ERE philosophy, and while it's an important one, I would argue that developing the style of thinking critically about the world is even more important. I'd love to read about your learning journey if you include it in your journal!

[Seneca]

"Hey, you two," your friend shouts, stepping between you just as the fists begin to rise. "Let's be rational. You may be the inventor, and you may be the superobserver, but I have a Ph.D. in Physics. I know how to make observations, so let's just go inside and I'll prove to you that you're both wrong..."

from- http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Gene ... s+thinking

I started this book, on Jacob's recommendation, but had put it aside. I have picked it back up, incidentally because I have use for it on something I'm working on, and read that quote just this AM. I 'd and thought of this thread.

[riparian]

Thanks Jacob, I kinda figured. At least this'll be the only semester of this much reading, I think.

My brain went kind of numb last night after a hundred pages of exciting theory.

I think an open learning log thread like the exercise thread, where everyone posts, could be great.

[mathiverse]

I have worked and studied at several universities and I never seen anyone teaching qualitative understanding and a focus on abstract fundamental principles as the primary purpuse.

I recently read the book "The Theoretical Minimum: Classical Mechanics" by Leonard Susskind and George Hrabovsky: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465075681.

I am not a good judge of this since I know only a little bit of physics, so I'd be curious to hear your opinion on whether this book is an example of one that focuses on "teaching qualitative understanding and a focus on abstract fundamental principles as the primary purpose" if you've seen it. It seems to focus more on principles than the typical physics 101 textbook while still getting into the math and technical details to ground the principles. It does lack the problems you mentioned were needed to develop further intuition, but the overall book seems focused on the fundamental principles of classical mechanics.

The books are based on this lecture series for laypeople that is available on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApUFtLC ... D36D4CF129

[CS]

As a physicist (phd), with a physicist father (phd), he gave me some great advice: you won’t always understand everything the first time you see it. Just memorize the rules in those cases and trust the understanding will come.

These were pretty rare occasions, but that advice helped a lot in those.

Perhaps it was because we had the same genetic brain that needed percolation time.

It did also help that where I studied, especially the astrophysics dept, focused on the “back of the envelope,” I.e. concepts. Calculating the speed of air was a quick and easy physics problem for the qualifying exam.

[guitarplayer]

Nice find @mathiverse, here is the article mentioned earlier.

[jacob]

I recently read the book "The Theoretical Minimum: Classical Mechanics" by Leonard Susskind and George Hrabovsky: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465075681.

I am not a good judge of this since I know only a little bit of physics, so I'd be curious to hear your opinion on whether this book is an example of one that focuses on "teaching qualitative understanding and a focus on abstract fundamental principles as the primary purpose" if you've seen it. It seems to focus more on principles than the typical physics 101 textbook while still getting into the math and technical details to ground the principles. It does lack the problems you mentioned were needed to develop further intuition, but the overall book seems focused on the fundamental principles of classical mechanics.

The books are based on this lecture series for laypeople that is available on Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApUFtLC ... D36D4CF129

I'm 90% finished with the quantum theory book (https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Mechanic ... 465062903/) and I found it really really good. It's up there with R.I.G. Hughes, which I usually recommend for those who want to understand what they're calculating and why they're calculating it. If that book had been available during my undergraduate years, things would have made more sense. Perhaps things have changed since then, I don't know. In the 1990s, most textbooks focused on the Schroedinger formulation to much time was spent solving differential equations to find the eigenvalues and functions for various potentials (harmonic oscillator, box etc.) or barrier penetrations, whereas matrix mechanics was basically presented as a given.

In terms of "learning to think like a physicist", I'm not so sure. There's a huge difference between kennen and wissen. Presuming that "wissen" is the actual goal, the theoretical minimum does give a solid foundation that would allow anyone who mastered it to hold their own against most grad students and professors. The [quantum] book does have exercises, but unfortunately they're mostly of the "prove equation 3.14"-variety, which I think is where the book falls short. A mathematician would have no problem with these proofs. However, this approach doesn't develop "kennen" or "thinking like a physicist" as much as presenting physics as yet another branch of math which is probably not what you want (unless you're into mathematical physics (trans. math that's useful for physics)). Better exercises would be of "show that the solution to a "detailed setup" is given by" because that requires understanding what is and is not important, i.e. intuiting simplifying assumptions that make the math tractable. The goals of "mathematical rigor [mortis]" and "physical intuition" are nearly diametrically opposed. The latter requires evaluating what's important to the problem. The former requires being complete and comprehensive.

[CS]

This thread from the beginning is fantastic. I don’t know where Jacob has the patience to go into such detail and explanations, but they seem spot on. Physics was a love of mine for years and years and will always have a special place for it. Still making money from it, but not so much in the research and theory, but understanding how things work in a way useful for medicine.

[mathiverse]

Thanks, Jacob! I appreciate your thoughts on the books. I saw this when you posted it, but didn't get a chance to post my thanks for reading one of the books and looping back to reply on this thread.