Advice for self-studying physics?

[Ishida52134]

I'm currently a senior in high school and I've been interested in self studying physics. I've picked up self studying since last year and have been going through various undergraduate introductory textbooks such as Goldstein and Griffiths for mechanics and EM.

What exactly is the best way to self study to attain full understanding of the material? I usually read through the chapter where I gain understanding of it then go back and go through the problems. Should I go through the chapter and re-derive everything as well as do every problem? Or is it enough to read through the chapter and look through the problems and just see if I know how to approach it?

I feel that mathematics is part of the problem as well. For example, as I was reading through Griffiths, I had to re-read how they used separation of variables to solve partial differential equations for laplace's equation several times in order to be able to understand it and do problems. Should I study some math first? I've already taken a course in multivariate calculus and am currently taking differential equations.

In addition, is there a general method to self study efficiently? I feel that when I stay up late to study, I don't really learn/understand things as fast as I do when I read it during the day. When I take classes in school, it seems that I pick up things faster than when I self-study. For example, I somehow just sleep through all my math and physics classes and just ace the tests and I actually understand everything. However, when I self study and actually want to learn what I'm reading, it seems harder for me to understand things fast and retain it or have the drive to do more problems.

Is the doing more problems part the most important? Most of the time, I spend more time going carefully through the chapter and re-reading proofs and re-deriving things and then I just skim through the problems and move on if I can figure out the general method to do it. I sometimes just get lazy and don't bother to go through with solving all the long integrals and math. Or I just get impatient and want to move on to learn new things.

What tips do you guys have?

thanks.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Don't "self study" alone.
Look for correspondence and "distance learning" materials to help you.

 

[Ishida52134]

i can't really find any online things for the things I'm currently studying.

What tips do you have on self-studying online based on the above?

 

[guitarphysics]

I'm in a very similar situation to yours, but just two years behind you, and a bit less advanced. I have found it to be harder to learn from self-study than from school. What I do now is study only during the day, because usually I understand everything better, I talk to my physics teacher about what books are good for self-study (and ask him if I'm ever confused about a concept), and I try doing lots of problems (and coming up with my own as well, which is very important, I think). I think learning everything thoroughly (like you do) is really important, but with doing lots of problems, everything sinks in a little more.

 

[Ishida52134]

thanks. Do you guys think I should familiarize myself with higher level mathematics first like linear algebra or complex analysis? Or just continue with those books? And maybe move on to quantum mechanics or something later on.

Just curious, on average, how long does it usually take one to complete a textbook like griffiths?

 

[Jorriss]

What is your background in physics?

Why jump to such advanced books?

Have you looked into Kleppner and Purcell for mechanics & e&m?

Studying linear algebra simultaneously with your physics wouldn't be a bad idea. I would hold off on complex analysis if I were you.

 

[guitarphysics]

Have you looked into Kleppner and Purcell for mechanics & e&m?

Those are exactly the books I'm using! They're both amazing, and I highly recommend them, Ishida (if you haven't read them yet).

 

[Ishida52134]

Well I feel like I am capable of understanding these texts since I've already learned basic undergraduate classical mechanics and E&M, as for math: multi&diff. I feel I just have to brush up on some math like tensor notations and a bit of linear algebra. Like after looking through some math, I can solve problem sets.

so just read through it and do the problems? Is it not enough to just go through the text and do mit ocw problem sets? Or do I have to do the problems in the textbook as well. Some problem sets usually assign questions from the textbook anyways.
Do I have to work through the entire problem? Like I stated before, I sometimes just look at the problem adn figure out how to do it lol.
And also, is there a general method to learning. Like staying up at night and studying is that usually not as efficient for learning?

If I were to self study rigorously and to actually understand it completely, would I have to re-read everything carefully that I read through before when I didn't do problems? Or is it enough to just skim through it, re-derive things, work out examples, and do problem sets on mit ocw?

 

[Ishida52134]

I found that it's helpful to like write out a summary of what I've just read as like notes for someone else and I get a chance to rederive stuff and solve examples all over again. Is this a good idea?

 

[guitarphysics]

That actually sounds really good. I'm going to start doing that as well!

 

[Ishida52134]

Can anyone give a list of the best/most comprehensive physics textbooks for each area of physics for someone just learning it? Would it be more useful/straightforward to just use the landau series?
And is there a list of classic/popular math textbooks as well? For topics like analysis, differential geometry, topology, etc. Like the way there are more widely used textbooks in physics like griffiths, jackson, etc.

thanks.

 

[42Physics]

I recommend some YouTube channels to: MinutePhysics and Varitasium are excellent.

 

[MostlyHarmless]

I would recommend studying for like 2 hours at a time and taking an hour or so break, lay down, rest your eyes, listen to some music, and just mull over everything you just went over. Then come back to it and review it a bit. Personally, I feel that when I re-read something after taking my break, it is more clear than reading it twice back to back. I vaguely recall some scientific reasoning to this, but I'm not confident enough in that memory to quote it. I think it has something to do with the way we solve problems and "store memories."

I also recommend a similar method for when you get hung up on a problem. Step away from it for a bit, clear your mind, and then start again.

If you're like me, and your mind is always wandering, I find it helpful to listen to familiar, or lyric-less music like film scores(there's actually a pandora station by that name is you are interested). It sort of cuts off everything but what I'm looking at and really helps me focus in on a problem. It may also be relevant to note that I have adhd, so this all may be completely useless to you. :)

 

[guitarphysics]

I recommend some YouTube channels to: MinutePhysics and Varitasium are excellent.

Don't forget sixtysymbols!

 

[Ishida52134]

Should I just go along with the problems in the textbook rather than problem sets like from mit ocw? Especially since they don't really have answers?

 

[MostlyHarmless]

A mixture of both would probably be ideal.

 

[RJinkies]

Hp Ishida52134

- I'm currently a senior in high school and I've been interested in self studying physics. I've picked up self studying since last year and have been going through various undergraduate introductory textbooks such as Goldstein and Griffiths for mechanics and EM.

- What exactly is the best way to self study to attain full understanding of the material? Should I go through the chapter and re-derive everything as well as do every problem? Or is it enough to read through the chapter and look through the problems and just see if I know how to approach it?I think the best thing is to have a supplementary high school physics and a supplementary high school algebra text for reference as your very own firstly... I think a lot of students in the 60s 70s probably would self educate themselves more through life if some of the school textbooks were their 'own' to browse, if they really liked it and didnt have the time or maturity to 'really read it in school'.Goldstein i think would frustrate, boggle and intimidate people, and Griffiths any of his books will be useful one day... for sure. You're lucky to find a copy...

i think reading *everything* in a text is a good but slow option.
Reading a chapter or section many times...
totally understanding the examples inside and out...

and I'm of the school that 99% of students don't really do what the textbook author intended, doing all of the problems... You got a rare opportunity to really see *why* there are so many problems with your textbook, and i think it's almost like throwing half the textbook away, when teachers only toss 4 problems a week at people, and don't really 'educate' them on how to read, how to do the problems, how to self-study, and just how much time it takes, and what efforts are needed.

I think all it takes is more time, just a few more hours. maybe some think 90 minutes a week is good, but sometimes real understanding can happen with 6-8 or maybe 15 hours working on a chapter.

-----

I would rather master 3 chapters of a textbook inside out than zoom through 67% of the textbook with a fair understanding of the 'whole book'...

i think as a ball park 150 hours for one semester/half the textbook and
300 hours for the whole book.

-----

- as I was reading through Griffiths, I had to re-read how they used separation of variables to solve partial differential equations for laplace's equation several times in order to be able to understand it and do problems. Should I study some math first? I've already taken a course in multivariate calculus and am currently taking differential equations.

thats pretty good for high school...

getting your calculus 4/vector calculus and your diff equations i think is 99% of all you need for physics really.Honours people will add complex variables later on

and mathematical physics types will take a year of analysis [rudin] as well as more classes in math that need a course or two in differential equations.
- In addition, is there a general method to self study efficiently?
- Is the doing more problems part the most important? Most of the time, I spend more time going carefully through the chapter and re-reading proofs and re-deriving things and
- then I just skim through the problems and move on if I can figure out the general method to do it.
- Or I just get impatient and want to move on to learn new things.

Well that 'does' work for a rough understanding and might be good enough to pass a course for a few years, but if you want to really get a 95% understanding of the book and the problems...

it all boils down to time... which is going to be 10-15 hrs a week for 30 weeks [maybe 24 weeks if you rush] for a 68%-99% confident mastery of a textbook cover to cover]

a lot of the frustrations i had melt away with the extra hours reading it again and doing all the problems.

some textbooks hide stuff in the problems...too

I think that the more solid you make your ladder the easier it is so there is less struggle on the higher rungs.

IN a nutshell, i think get what it takes to totally master
- a vector calculus textbook
- one book on analysis

- totally master Halliday/Resnick or Wolfson/Pasachoff for first year physics with calculus

- take a whole year not 12 weeks for intermediate mechanics [I still think Symon and Kleppner/Kolenkow are the best reads, and not the marion route]

- my style would be books 1 2 3 4 5 of the Berkley Physics Series
[Mechanics/EM/Waves/Quantum/Statistical Mechanics]

most people today only praise purcell's book 2 in the series and ignore the rest. I felt it was a great series and if you could own them and tackle them, i thought you went over the hump and mastered 'all the hard stuff in physics'. The rest is detail... [though people with EM I II and QM I II III in third and fourth year might disagree!]

- griffiths - all three of his books - if you can read those and bite off a few chapters, you got it made. Griffith was said to be such a good textbook writer and lecturer, he could teach physics to hamsters [yet he chose a small college to teach at, and not a big name school]

- Well I feel like I am capable of understanding these texts since I've already learned basic undergraduate classical mechanics and E&M, as for math: multi&diff. I feel I just have to brush up on some math like tensor notations and a bit of linear algebra.

if you can tackle Kleppner/Symon for Int Mech after Halliday Resnick, that's pretty impressive for someone still in high school!

and knowing partial diff and starting on diff equations sounds like you might get the math hurdle done quickly.

Some schools actually flop differential equations in third year now, and not in second year physics, which sort of bothers me. I think the sooner you get some exposure the better.

and I'm seeing that disturbing trend with intermediate mechanics, it's like they want to compress intermediate mechanics into a marion and landau mechanics class as one difficult and steep hurdle which is a mistake. I think Symon and Kleppner should be 24 weeks, and then goldstein, but some want to get right into Landau or other books way way too fast- Can anyone give a list of the best/most comprehensive physics textbooks for each area of physics for someone just learning it? Would it be more useful/straightforward to just use the landau series?

Well what have you seen that you liked, and what level of books do you want?

Landau, I've seen in 4th year physics, and grad school syllabuses, but you can see them in some second and third year classes too. [if you got a russian physics teacher, you might be dead - his background would be quite different and so would his approach to teaching it way sooner than most would]

[I really scratch my head at some universities where year one mechanics is Halliday-Resnick and then there's no year two of [Marion] but it's just a year three class with no text required, landau as the recommended optional text]And is there a list of classic/popular math textbooks as well? For topics like analysis, differential geometry, topology, etc. Like the way there are more widely used textbooks in physics like griffiths, jackson, etc.

The Vijay list of physics textbooks is probably the best one in existence...
basically they toss any textbook that people don't object strongly to, when more than one person thinks it's a classic. So there's endless and endless recommendations there.

 

[Ishida52134]

Hp Ishida52134

- I'm currently a senior in high school and I've been interested in self studying physics. I've picked up self studying since last year and have been going through various undergraduate introductory textbooks such as Goldstein and Griffiths for mechanics and EM.

- What exactly is the best way to self study to attain full understanding of the material? Should I go through the chapter and re-derive everything as well as do every problem? Or is it enough to read through the chapter and look through the problems and just see if I know how to approach it?


I think the best thing is to have a supplementary high school physics and a supplementary high school algebra text for reference as your very own firstly... I think a lot of students in the 60s 70s probably would self educate themselves more through life if some of the school textbooks were their 'own' to browse, if they really liked it and didnt have the time or maturity to 'really read it in school'.


Goldstein i think would frustrate, boggle and intimidate people, and Griffiths any of his books will be useful one day... for sure. You're lucky to find a copy...

i think reading *everything* in a text is a good but slow option.
Reading a chapter or section many times...
totally understanding the examples inside and out...

and I'm of the school that 99% of students don't really do what the textbook author intended, doing all of the problems... You got a rare opportunity to really see *why* there are so many problems with your textbook, and i think it's almost like throwing half the textbook away, when teachers only toss 4 problems a week at people, and don't really 'educate' them on how to read, how to do the problems, how to self-study, and just how much time it takes, and what efforts are needed.

I think all it takes is more time, just a few more hours. maybe some think 90 minutes a week is good, but sometimes real understanding can happen with 6-8 or maybe 15 hours working on a chapter.

-----

I would rather master 3 chapters of a textbook inside out than zoom through 67% of the textbook with a fair understanding of the 'whole book'...

i think as a ball park 150 hours for one semester/half the textbook and
300 hours for the whole book.

-----

- as I was reading through Griffiths, I had to re-read how they used separation of variables to solve partial differential equations for laplace's equation several times in order to be able to understand it and do problems. Should I study some math first? I've already taken a course in multivariate calculus and am currently taking differential equations.

thats pretty good for high school...

getting your calculus 4/vector calculus and your diff equations i think is 99% of all you need for physics really.


Honours people will add complex variables later on

and mathematical physics types will take a year of analysis [rudin] as well as more classes in math that need a course or two in differential equations.



- In addition, is there a general method to self study efficiently?
- Is the doing more problems part the most important? Most of the time, I spend more time going carefully through the chapter and re-reading proofs and re-deriving things and
- then I just skim through the problems and move on if I can figure out the general method to do it.
- Or I just get impatient and want to move on to learn new things.

Well that 'does' work for a rough understanding and might be good enough to pass a course for a few years, but if you want to really get a 95% understanding of the book and the problems...

it all boils down to time... which is going to be 10-15 hrs a week for 30 weeks [maybe 24 weeks if you rush] for a 68%-99% confident mastery of a textbook cover to cover]

a lot of the frustrations i had melt away with the extra hours reading it again and doing all the problems.

some textbooks hide stuff in the problems...too

I think that the more solid you make your ladder the easier it is so there is less struggle on the higher rungs.

IN a nutshell, i think get what it takes to totally master
- a vector calculus textbook
- one book on analysis

- totally master Halliday/Resnick or Wolfson/Pasachoff for first year physics with calculus

- take a whole year not 12 weeks for intermediate mechanics [I still think Symon and Kleppner/Kolenkow are the best reads, and not the marion route]

- my style would be books 1 2 3 4 5 of the Berkley Physics Series
[Mechanics/EM/Waves/Quantum/Statistical Mechanics]

most people today only praise purcell's book 2 in the series and ignore the rest. I felt it was a great series and if you could own them and tackle them, i thought you went over the hump and mastered 'all the hard stuff in physics'. The rest is detail... [though people with EM I II and QM I II III in third and fourth year might disagree!]

- griffiths - all three of his books - if you can read those and bite off a few chapters, you got it made. Griffith was said to be such a good textbook writer and lecturer, he could teach physics to hamsters [yet he chose a small college to teach at, and not a big name school]




- Well I feel like I am capable of understanding these texts since I've already learned basic undergraduate classical mechanics and E&M, as for math: multi&diff. I feel I just have to brush up on some math like tensor notations and a bit of linear algebra.

if you can tackle Kleppner/Symon for Int Mech after Halliday Resnick, that's pretty impressive for someone still in high school!

and knowing partial diff and starting on diff equations sounds like you might get the math hurdle done quickly.

Some schools actually flop differential equations in third year now, and not in second year physics, which sort of bothers me. I think the sooner you get some exposure the better.

and I'm seeing that disturbing trend with intermediate mechanics, it's like they want to compress intermediate mechanics into a marion and landau mechanics class as one difficult and steep hurdle which is a mistake. I think Symon and Kleppner should be 24 weeks, and then goldstein, but some want to get right into Landau or other books way way too fast


- Can anyone give a list of the best/most comprehensive physics textbooks for each area of physics for someone just learning it? Would it be more useful/straightforward to just use the landau series?

Well what have you seen that you liked, and what level of books do you want?

Landau, I've seen in 4th year physics, and grad school syllabuses, but you can see them in some second and third year classes too. [if you got a russian physics teacher, you might be dead - his background would be quite different and so would his approach to teaching it way sooner than most would]

[I really scratch my head at some universities where year one mechanics is Halliday-Resnick and then there's no year two of [Marion] but it's just a year three class with no text required, landau as the recommended optional text]


And is there a list of classic/popular math textbooks as well? For topics like analysis, differential geometry, topology, etc. Like the way there are more widely used textbooks in physics like griffiths, jackson, etc.

The Vijay list of physics textbooks is probably the best one in existence...
basically they toss any textbook that people don't object strongly to, when more than one person thinks it's a classic. So there's endless and endless recommendations there.

thanks.
so it's more important to understand all the concepts presented in a specific textbook rather than worrying about every little word in the textbook right? How would I know that some concepts are presented in a textbook that isn't in another textbook though? What's the difference between all the same level, same topic textbooks out there if the concepts are the same? For example, Jackson and Schwinger.

And also, is it necessary for me to master everything in halliday/resnick first of all? Or can I just pick up individual topics with individual undergrad level books in topics such as thermodynamics, waves, optics, etc. So far, my high school only uses the mechanics and em sections for physics C. And I don't think colleges really use the other sections of that book for topics like waves/optics/quantum mechanics.

 

[henpen]

I hope that, being in a similar situation to you, I can provide a bit of help.

If not immediately obvious, a method that has worked for me is to complement textbooks with other sources (wikipedia, hyperphysics, MIT OCW, Berkeley, online notes (more) and some introductory papers I find particularly helpful, most universities will have quite a few http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ngb23/FD/ notes http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/notes.html: if you hate the current textbook, chances are there's a better one online for free), as reading from a limited number of sources, some subtleties that would be obvious if I were actually sitting the course at university can elude me when teaching myself. (This website seems good for homework problems, and Stackexchange (math and physics) is a useful way to get answers from experts concerning problems with the content (not homework), and often find troves of information, interesting papers or new areas of mathematics).

The majority of my time is spent learning mathematics, which I find more challenging, as some physics at low-undergraduate level I find a little trivial (as opposed to, say, Landau Volume 1), and according to previous experience that learning physics is much easier if you don't have to worry about the maths, and can focus on the core issues. I also quite like reading historical papers or overviews for wider knowledge, but that's for fun and hardly essential. Also, things like number theory are really interesting for their own sake.

However, I am cautious of turning into the mathematical physicist in Feynman's lectures that understands the mathematical structures and not the underlying physics.Like you, I also have a habit of flitting to the more interesting topics away from the stagnant ones (most often deterred by a roadblock hit in an exercise: ask online instead of switching topics because of refusal to go on without completion). Occasionally, this lends better intuition (with more time to mull over things or allowing me to forget, highlighting rote-learned subtopics for regrokking), but is slow. Perhaps if I pressed forward with one at a time, more net progress would be made, but I wouldn't enjoy learning as much.

Always do at least all the non-trivial problems (I skip over those I know that I know the solution's method)! Especially in mathematics, the exercises are extensions of the chapter: some things are missed out of the main text with the assumption that you'll rediscover it yourself. Olympiad problems and a plethora of similar websites (Brilliant, Komal for instance) are useful also, but be sure to explore around the problems if they're interesting.
I wouldn't solely re-derive formulae immediately after doing them, and would certainly search for (or come up with) alternate derivations, else it's all mechanical and no bellyfeel. I tend to re-derive it (in paper, and later in my head) when doing every problem involving the formula until I feel I know it inside out.

From what I've gathered, real (university) physics has a much higher information density (per page or unit study time) than high-school physics, so will of course take longer to self-study.

 

[Ishida52134]

thanks. so basically, I have to spend time on thinking and applying what I've learned and do problems more so than just reading it right?
what do u think about these questions?

1) Is it more important to understand all the concepts presented in a specific textbook rather than worrying about every little word in the textbook right? How would I know that some concepts are presented in a textbook that isn't in another textbook though?

2) When would I know when to read/look at lecture notes besides just reading the textbook and which combination of textbooks to use on specific areas within in one topic? And which problems to do since there are different problems in every textbook or lecture notes?

3) What's the difference between all the same level, same topic textbooks out there if the concepts are the same? For example, Jackson and Schwinger, where both are graduate level EM books.

4) And also, is it necessary for me to master everything in halliday/resnick first of all? Or can I just pick up individual topics with individual undergrad level books in topics such as thermodynamics, waves, optics, etc. So far, my high school only uses the mechanics and em sections for physics C. And I don't think colleges really use the other sections of that book for topics like waves/optics/quantum mechanics.

5) Are Feynman's lectures as useful as a regular textbook? Or just a fun aside reading?

6) Does this advice apply to studying math as well?

thanks a lot.

 

[henpen]

thanks. so basically, I have to spend time on thinking and applying what I've learned and do problems more so than just reading it right?
what do u think about these questions?

1) Is it more important to understand all the concepts presented in a specific textbook rather than worrying about every little word in the textbook right? How would I know that some concepts are presented in a textbook that isn't in another textbook though?

2) When would I know when to read/look at lecture notes besides just reading the textbook and which combination of textbooks to use on specific areas within in one topic? And which problems to do since there are different problems in every textbook or lecture notes?

3) What's the difference between all the same level, same topic textbooks out there if the concepts are the same? For example, Jackson and Schwinger, where both are graduate level EM books.

4) And also, is it necessary for me to master everything in halliday/resnick first of all? Or can I just pick up individual topics with individual undergrad level books in topics such as thermodynamics, waves, optics, etc. So far, my high school only uses the mechanics and em sections for physics C. And I don't think colleges really use the other sections of that book for topics like waves/optics/quantum mechanics.

5) Are Feynman's lectures as useful as a regular textbook? Or just a fun aside reading?

6) Does this advice apply to studying math as well?

thanks a lot.

I'm no more experienced than you, so take this with a pinch of salt.

(1)No idea. However, I find that I learn a lot more when really exploring parts I don't know. For example, if there's a novel use of DE that's not familiar, I'll learn more things around that (if it interests me) before going on. Of course make sure you can do the majority of the exercises. This helps equalise my ability in maths and physics, so one can't slip behind and hinder the other. It's very inefficient, though.
(2)When you're confused or are finding the things you're reading boring or trivial (often it's just the manner in which the information is presented that's boring). I doubt it's necessary unless this is the case.
(3)I don't know (the earlier comment was something of a guess). That comment was basically an extension of 'as a general rule, read from more than one source' (i.e., (2)). I'm not well read enough to helpfully comment.
(4)I picked up all the mechanics I know in retrospect (the way you refer to), I don't know whether this will work for more advanced topics. Personally, I've looked at copies of Halliday and Resnick online, and although there are some things in there that I don't know yet, I don't particularly like the 'bitty' layout of the book: I would prefer to master
(5)I've been told not, they're better for reviewing whether you really know a topic, and helping you achieve that. That said, I didn't really understand energy and work before reading his treatment of it.
(6)Probably, but less time need be 'wasted' on gaining a physical intuition, so in ways it's faster.

 

[Ishida52134]

so using a topic specific book is better than using a book that covers all the topics in physics?
For example, if you're studying mechanics for the first time, it's better to use kleppner instead of going through the first 15 chapters in fundamentals of physics?

 

[henpen]

It worked for me (a lot of it was learned from Mr Lewin, though).

 

[Ishida52134]

what's the point of using general textbooks like fundamentals of physics then?

 

[henpen]

what's the point of using general textbooks like fundamentals of physics then?

If you're not me and work slightly differently (I'd be surprised if all of my advice would help you, as I can't be sure it all even maximally helps me). I'm sure they'd help, but I prefer not to use them. I don't really have enough information to assess what would work better for you, try both ways and decide for yourself.

 

[Ishida52134]

thanks.

Any more ideas regarding whether it's worth it to work through a general physics text like Fundamentals of Physics?

 

[Ishida52134]

1) Isn't physics just about practice like math too?

2) I'm already taking multi/diff in high school at this point, so regarding studying physics, I should spend more time thinking and applying what I've learned rather than just reading the text right?

3) And so, understanding the concept is more important reading every single word?

thanks.

 

[DimReg]

I don't think a general physics text is too important, but learning freshman physics is. In my experience, freshman physics texts spend a lot of time on really simple models of complex phenomena, because they're easy to use and give a superficial sense of learning. Of course, using simple models to accurately model complex systems is extremely useful, but the reason it's useful is that they are SIMPLE models, so there is little to learning them or using them. You'll just end up bogged down learning specific models that you can't apply elsewhere.

However, you do need to learn classical mechanics and E+M, which are the main topics of general physics textbooks. These topics contain techniques and concepts you'll use over and over again, like angular momentum, separation of variables, potentials, conservation laws, etc. Most undergraduate level books on those subjects are enough of an introduction that a mathematically prepared student won't need freshman physics to use them.

Physics, like math is partially practice and partially knowledge. Earlier in you're "career", you'll have to learn a lot of very specific things for the first time, so you have to practice using them. Later, you start learning how to view new problems as variations of old problems you have already solved, and you start to be able to solve these problems without much more practice. When this happens, you have to spend more time making sure you understand what's going on, and start using this understanding to get creative.

Reading every word of a text is never important, other than to make sure you actually learned what's in the book. If you can learn the contents of a book without opening it, then there's no reason not to do that. I had a piano teacher who would say "I don't care if you play it with your nose as long as it sounds good" - basically, all that matters is what the end result is, not how you got there.

The best way to find out if you need to read more is to see if you know how to solve the problems in the text. You can read a book cover to cover and think you know it well, but if you can't solve any of the problems then you haven't learned very much yet. So you should definitely be applying what you learn.

 

[Ishida52134]

I don't think a general physics text is too important, but learning freshman physics is. In my experience, freshman physics texts spend a lot of time on really simple models of complex phenomena, because they're easy to use and give a superficial sense of learning. Of course, using simple models to accurately model complex systems is extremely useful, but the reason it's useful is that they are SIMPLE models, so there is little to learning them or using them. You'll just end up bogged down learning specific models that you can't apply elsewhere.

However, you do need to learn classical mechanics and E+M, which are the main topics of general physics textbooks. These topics contain techniques and concepts you'll use over and over again, like angular momentum, separation of variables, potentials, conservation laws, etc. Most undergraduate level books on those subjects are enough of an introduction that a mathematically prepared student won't need freshman physics to use them.

Physics, like math is partially practice and partially knowledge. Earlier in you're "career", you'll have to learn a lot of very specific things for the first time, so you have to practice using them. Later, you start learning how to view new problems as variations of old problems you have already solved, and you start to be able to solve these problems without much more practice. When this happens, you have to spend more time making sure you understand what's going on, and start using this understanding to get creative.

Reading every word of a text is never important, other than to make sure you actually learned what's in the book. If you can learn the contents of a book without opening it, then there's no reason not to do that. I had a piano teacher who would say "I don't care if you play it with your nose as long as it sounds good" - basically, all that matters is what the end result is, not how you got there.

The best way to find out if you need to read more is to see if you know how to solve the problems in the text. You can read a book cover to cover and think you know it well, but if you can't solve any of the problems then you haven't learned very much yet. So you should definitely be applying what you learn.

thanks. I already learned physics C last year and used halliday/resnick for mechanics and EM. Should I read the rest of the book for the other topics or just use topic-specific undergraduate texts? And I should use a bunch of texts to see which topics each textbook is missing right?

Also, should I take some time off to read other books to gain some more conceptual understanding of physics first? Or continue with self studying like continuing to use griffiths for advanced EM right now? I took multi/diff eqn too.

Do contests necessarily determine how well you would do as a professor in the future? I'm not that good with contests like usapho and usamo. And math contests too like arml I didn't have that much practice before junior year with math team type problems. Do these play a big role in the future if I intend on majoring in math and physics?

btw, I thought separation of variables was more for advanced undergraduate physics. If you mean separation of variables in partial differential equations like solving Laplace's equation.

 

[guitarphysics]

Hey, just wanted to say a few more thoughts (I'm the sophomore who knows a lot less than you but is going through sort of the same situation). I joined a physics club in my new school, and we do a lot of problem solving there (problems from past physics olympics, mostly), and I've found that solving problems (specially hard ones) really reinforces my knowledge and let's me know if I have any gaps. I recommend doing lots of hard problems to test your creativity and also your comfort with a specific topic.
I've found that (at least for me) learning from a person is a lot easier and less time-consuming than learning from a book (no matter how good the book may be), so I'm going to get a tutor about once or twice a week to help me with any problems I have with learning. If you think it would help you and if you can, then you should try getting a tutor as well.
For learning physics, I usually don't like going with books like Halliday/Resnick, I prefer topic-specific undergraduate books. I find it a lot more fulfilling and complete, whereas with Halliday/Resnick you only get a general idea (which is still pretty good though). Maybe you should try reading what Halliday/Resnick have to say about a subject (to get an introduction to it) and then afterwards read a more specific book?

 

[DimReg]

thanks. I already learned physics C last year and used halliday/resnick for mechanics and EM. Should I read the rest of the book for the other topics or just use topic-specific undergraduate texts? And I should use a bunch of texts to see which topics each textbook is missing right?

Also, should I take some time off to read other books to gain some more conceptual understanding of physics first? Or continue with self studying like continuing to use griffiths for advanced EM right now? I took multi/diff eqn too.

Do contests necessarily determine how well you would do as a professor in the future? I'm not that good with contests like usapho and usamo. And math contests too like arml I didn't have that much practice before junior year with math team type problems. Do these play a big role in the future if I intend on majoring in math and physics?

btw, I thought separation of variables was more for advanced undergraduate physics. If you mean separation of variables in partial differential equations like solving Laplace's equation.

I wouldn't worry too much about contest results. Research is nothing like a test, and admissions programs know that. Of course, you should try your best to do well on them, because it shows potential and dedication, which will help you get into a better school, but in the long run it will mean absolutely nothing. (You can imagine that success in physics is "forgetful": grad school won't care about high school, your first post doc position won't care about undergrad, etc.)

The best conceptual understanding you can get in physics is from applying your knowledge in a technical way. I'm not sure where else you are looking for conceptual understanding, but I assure you advanced undergraduate books are the best place to look. (Graduate texts often assume you already know what's going on, and focus on refining that knowledge, so they are unsuitable for your purposes). If you know the math already, you should be using it.

As for separation of variables, it's not too advanced, I started using it at the start of my second year of college (we had an intro to QM course, where you use separation of variable to split the Schrodinger equation into the time part and the space part).

 

[Ishida52134]

thanks.

I'm going to Cornell next year. And from what I heard about the placement test, it goes up to multi/diff/linear algebra. So I was planning on self studying linear algebra over the summer so I could start with analysis freshman year. And I can also skip mechanics/EM to waves and optics first year too.

Should I brush up on basic mechanics/EM with kleppner and Purcell since I don't think fundamentals of physics covers introductory mechanics/EM thoroughly enough? How do I test if I have a solid conceptual understanding of the subject though? Like I can do most of the problems in the textbook with all the integration and differential equations, but I don't feel like I understand the conceptual physics that well. Like, applying it to the real world and explaining how things work. I can explain the theory and I understand the things in the textbook completely well.

The reason I asked about contests was is it a measure of your natural talent in mathematics and physics or is it mostly based off of practice and hard work? Like, I can do those problems, but I don't have enough practice to be able to do it well enough for higher contests like usamo.

As for looking at kleppner and purcell, do I have to read everything, or should I just look at the problems and if I can do them I just go to the next chapter and just read whatever was left out of the fundamentals of physics textbook?

So I'm better off using undergrad physics textbooks on specific topics rather than reading the entire fundamentals of physics textbook first?

thanks a lot.

 

[Ishida52134]

Any ideas?

 

[ZombieFeynman]

I think you are overthinking things far too much. You are going to a good program next year. For now just open an introductiry book and learn something that looks fun. Then do some problems related to it that look interesting. You will have four years of undergrad with people telling you what to learn. Use this time to enjoy learning about what you want. Find what things particularly interest you.

 

[henpen]

I second the undead physicist.