Good with math, but poor with physics?

[-Dragoon-]

For some reason, I keep getting an A+ on all of my math classes with very minimal effort (linear algebra and calculus) but am doing relatively poor in physics (scoring a B- with loads of effort). I've done practice problems, believe I understand the concepts to an extent, and yet my instructor throws a difficult problem that I wouldn't have the slightest clue in where to begin.

Anyone else currently in my situation or have been in my situation? What do you suggest I do to improve my grade? And for those that are great at physics, when do you feel confident you understand the concepts and how do you go about doing this? I seem to lack the basic physical intuition that most physics majors have and it seems no amount of doing practice problems will change anything...

 

[Jorriss]

And for those that are great at physics, when do you feel confident you understand the concepts and how do you go about doing this? I seem to lack the basic physical intuition that most physics majors have and it seems no amount of doing practice problems will change anything...

I wouldn't say I'm great at physics but I've done well enough as an undergraduate and I would say I never feel super confident I get the stuff but I read tons of different textbooks, I talk things over with friends and professors and do problems.

Do you use office hours?

 

[mathwonk]

Me too! I suck at physics and rock at math, relatively anyway. I recommend staying with physics as long as possible though because they are so in synch with reality, and have so much intuition that turns into good math. hang out with physics geeks and try to see how they think.

the problem i had was that physics is not precise, but that means that to do it well, you have to grok what fuzzy descriptions of situations should mean, and learn somehow to just roll with it. i.e. you have to learn to make sense out of vague situations. this is a good skill to acquire.

I.e. it takes a kind of courage to do physics, and imagination, as well as intuition. this is very valuable.

but listen more the people here who do get physics.

by the way, have you read the zapper's thread above?

 

[mege]

I'm in a similar boat (on bubble for A/Bs in my physics classes, upper and lower division, with clear As in my math classes). In my math classes, I was often an 'outlier' in performance (with most of the class getting Cs). In my physics classes, I'm just barely above average (and it's bothersome).

One thing that I am trying to get used to: working with others. There's a difference on my graded homework and projects for physics when I work with others and when I do it alone. I'm used to just sitting down for a few hours, cranking out math homework, but that doesn't always work with physics. Sometimes hearing another's interpretation helps solidify my own understanding in Physics (and prevent misconceptions). This is especially important, I think, in the upper division courses.

 

[BeBattey]

I'm an undergrad working through calculus and intro physics/chem classes right now. Last year I literally straight-up flunked physics.

What did it for me what Mege above me said, I found the physics tutor room, and started learning with other people. Eventually I caught up and started TEACHing other people, in my own classes, now acing physics. If you can teach it, you understand it so much more than if you can just regurgitate it.

Try that!

 

[BeBattey]

I'm an undergrad working through calculus and intro physics/chem classes right now. Last year I literally straight-up flunked physics.

What did it for me what Mege above me said, I found the physics tutor room, and started learning with other people. Eventually I caught up and started TEACHing other people, in my own classes, now acing physics. If you can teach it, you understand it so much more than if you can just regurgitate it.

Try that!

 

[Nano-Passion]

I've had my times where physics just didn't make any sense. But every time it happened, my persistence won out and it clicked-- followed by a "physics is easy" feeling. This cycle is perpetuated by the introduction of new concepts. For example, right now I'm trying to understand capacitors in parallel or series. And for me, it really isn't clicking and I'm kind of just following the formula right now due to time-pressure (test tomorrow afternoon -.-). But at the same time, I get the feeling that there are a lot of missing details in between theory and practice, so its not completely my fault.

What helped me with physics is the realization that its much different than mathematics. To me, all the physics equations are like sentences. They are sentences that describe relationships between different things, with conjugates, verbs, etc. This is very important to notice, because all of physics is the study of relationships of different phenomena, of which can be stated in an innumerable amount of ways. (An aside: In fact, physics is the pursuit of finding more basic relationships of nature, the ultimate grail of physics is to find one relationship that will ultimately describe everything.) Sometimes the relationships are more convenient to be stated in a certain form, because it gives you insight or it just makes more sense-- and that is the statement that is passed on in your textbook. Kind of how sentences are more convenient to be stated in a certain form, because it wouldn't make sense to write it backwards. It is then helpful to realize that in physics, different variables can mean different things in different context /situation. It is akin to how words have multiple meaning in dependence of context. And actually, its where I see people doing the most mistakes-- trying to apply the same thing to a different concept.

The way to get good at physics, then, is to understand relationships in terms of what the equation is really saying. What physics is good at, is saying a large amount of things in terms of a few letters. Try to pick apart the formula and peek at what its really saying. For example, ask yourself "what happens if this dependent variable changes, how will the relationship change?" Or "why is it defined this way, is there a different way to define this relationship?

I didn't understand the whole basis of electric fields until I let the formula speak to me. At first it seemed like a lot of hand-waving, but I then realized that the field concept is an ingenious way of stating a relationship of nature. Once you let the formulas speak, you start to develop a relationship with the physics, so to speak. As a consequence, I was motivated to explore physics and I'm now working on a project to state a commonly accepted notion in a different paradigm and seeing where it takes me and what interesting or helpful relationships I can find.

 

[SophusLies]

Anyone else currently in my situation or have been in my situation? What do you suggest I do to improve my grade? And for those that are great at physics, when do you feel confident you understand the concepts and how do you go about doing this? I seem to lack the basic physical intuition that most physics majors have and it seems no amount of doing practice problems will change anything...

I am the exact opposite of you. I can get through math classes we reasonable grades, heck I did a double major with physics and math, but I never really felt like I intimately understood what was going on in math classes. The endless chain of reasoning and pure abstraction can get me pretty lost.

The reason I'm good at physics is because when I see a physics problem I never think of the math first. I always think of the physical situation then after I feel my intuition is correct I proceed to the math. To learn the concepts I usually just read through the book and then try to find some experiments that showed the concept. Learning what experiments proved what is vital to my understanding of the concepts. Physics without experiments is philosophy and philosophy is confusing.

 

[huskerwr38]

I am the same way. I have aced all my calc class, LA, and DE (I really like DE). I even got an A in my first physics class, however, I have a new teacher this quarter and I am probably on a border line B/Cish in Electricity and Magnetism, kind of scary for me. The funny thing is I'm an EE and so far have aced all of my EE classes, but for some reason magnetism is throwing me for a loop. I will say though that this quarter my teacher has multiple choice questions and I HATE those, with a couple of partial credit type questions, which I do reasonably well on. WHO KNOWS!

 

[Dickfore]

It is frightening if you hadn't had any Physics course as a high school student. OP, is this the case with you?

 

[homeomorphic]

A lot of people talk about how math and physics are different, but I can't see it, personally. To me, they are more or less the same thing, and I did pretty well in both. Physicists are just less rigorous, and they do experiments. That's about the only difference I can see, other than subject matter, and even there there's a lot of overlap.

Maybe it's the way I do math. I'm a very visual, intuitive, and physical thinker.

For some reason, I keep getting an A+ on all of my math classes with very minimal effort (linear algebra and calculus) but am doing relatively poor in physics (scoring a B- with loads of effort).

You haven't done real math yet, so it's not clear that math, as such, is that easy for you. Linear algebra is sort of halfway real math, depending on how it's taught.

The endless chain of reasoning and pure abstraction can get me pretty lost.

It can get everyone pretty lost, including math people, but often, they don't care to admit it. As Arnold put it,

"It is impossible to understand an unmotivated definition but this does not stop the criminal algebraists-axiomatisators."

I didn't really understand rings until maybe a few months ago, and I almost have a math PhD. I knew the definition, knew 10 million examples of rings, could prove lots of theorems about them. Why would you write down such a stupid-looking definition in the first place? I didn't feel it in my bones. If that doesn't happen, I'm not satisfied that I understand it. It's easy to think that you do understand, just because you know the definition, examples, and can solve some problems. But, to me, if that's all you have, then, you're a follower, not a leader. It's not your own. That is what Arnold's comment means to me.

Physics without experiments is philosophy and philosophy is confusing.

Well, maybe it's pure math. It's only confusing (to me, anyway) because people keep making unmotivated definitions all over the place without explaining the psychological origins of the definitions, and often the proofs, as well.

 

[SophusLies]

It can get everyone pretty lost, including math people, but often, they don't care to admit it. As Arnold put it,

"It is impossible to understand an unmotivated definition but this does not stop the criminal algebraists-axiomatisators."

I didn't really understand rings until maybe a few months ago, and I almost have a math PhD. I knew the definition, knew 10 million examples of rings, could prove lots of theorems about them. Why would you write down such a stupid-looking definition in the first place? I didn't feel it in my bones. If that doesn't happen, I'm not satisfied that I understand it. It's easy to think that you do understand, just because you know the definition, examples, and can solve some problems. But, to me, if that's all you have, then, you're a follower, not a leader. It's not your own. That is what Arnold's comment means to me.

Well, maybe it's pure math. It's only confusing (to me, anyway) because people keep making unmotivated definitions all over the place without explaining the psychological origins of the definitions, and often the proofs, as well.

homoemorphic, you surprise me. If you're a pure math person then aren't your professors burning you at the stake for not accepting their ways? It seems all the pure math people pride themselves on their overly abstract methods. That was actually the sole reason I didn't pursue math in grad school. There weren't many intuitive, concept-oriented math professors at my undergrad but the ones that were made me hang around to the end.

I agree with you that you do have to go your own way to deeply understand something but I felt there was so many unnecessary abstract blocks that it wasn't worth the effort. They can keep their pure math castle. I'm glad there is someone making an effort to rip down those walls because honestly I couldn't.

 

[homeomorphic]

homoemorphic, you surprise me. If you're a pure math person then aren't your professors burning you at the stake for not accepting their ways? It seems all the pure math people pride themselves on their overly abstract methods. That was actually the sole reason I didn't pursue math in grad school. There weren't many intuitive, concept-oriented math professors at my undergrad but the ones that were made me hang around to the end.

I guess I'm less cautious about what I say on here. Maybe they would burn me at the stake if I were more vocal in real life, not so much because they oppose my general philosophy of doing math, but more that it's hard for people to accept criticism. It's not as if the math community is divided into two camps, one of which is intuitive and conceptual, and one of which is not. Mathematicians just fall somewhere along the scale. And the way they teach doesn't always match the way they think. Probably most of the professors where I am would at least see where I'm coming from, although most of them also don't seem to fully grasp the problem.

Some of the most respected mathematicians like Arnold or Thurston are saying the same things that I am saying, and I'm probably getting it partly from them.


The only way in which I am being threatened is that I am having to spend too much time rethinking math to put enough effort into my thesis. So, they are not happy with me because of poor performance in research (mainly just being slow) and teaching. But there's a reason for that. With teaching, I just don't know how to please fussy undergrads.

I agree with you that you do have to go your own way to deeply understand something but I felt there was so many unnecessary abstract blocks that it wasn't worth the effort. They can keep their pure math castle. I'm glad there is someone making an effort to rip down those walls because honestly I couldn't.

I didn't want to let them deter me.

 

[-Dragoon-]

I wouldn't say I'm great at physics but I've done well enough as an undergraduate and I would say I never feel super confident I get the stuff but I read tons of different textbooks, I talk things over with friends and professors and do problems.

Do you use office hours?

How much does reading other textbooks really help? I wanted to start reading other texts (have them on my computer), but just skimming through them and they seem no different with the text my professor uses (pictures all over the place and they don't get to the point when introducing a concept).

As for office hours, I used to go but not anymore, as it just doesn't seem practical anymore. I do a lot of problems and get stuck on a lot of them, and it takes just under the 1 hour to show him the problem, show my reasoning and various diagrams and doodles I drew and then for him to walk me through the problem, show me where I went wrong, what I applied incorrectly, and then to actually work through the problem. That would be great if I had the time and weren't taking 5 other courses.

I don't even know why some people advise that doing as many practice problems as possible is the way to go. Working through these problems can take anywhere from 10 minutes (very straight forward problem) to 30 minutes for the difficult ones.

I just need a more efficient way of learning physics, as it seems the generic "do as much practice problems" just doesn't work for me...

 

[Dickfore]

If it takes you more than 10 minutes for a straightforward problem, then you really need to solve many more, so that you get sufficient practice.

 

[mathwonk]

to begin to see how physicists think, check out lewis carroll epstein's book, thinking physics.

 

[-Dragoon-]

Me too! I suck at physics and rock at math, relatively anyway. I recommend staying with physics as long as possible though because they are so in synch with reality, and have so much intuition that turns into good math. hang out with physics geeks and try to see how they think.

the problem i had was that physics is not precise, but that means that to do it well, you have to grok what fuzzy descriptions of situations should mean, and learn somehow to just roll with it. i.e. you have to learn to make sense out of vague situations. this is a good skill to acquire.

I.e. it takes a kind of courage to do physics, and imagination, as well as intuition. this is very valuable.

but listen more the people here who do get physics.

by the way, have you read the zapper's thread above?

Interesting to hear from a mathematician struggling with physics. Is this a rarity amongst other mathematicians or is it more common than most think, Mathwonk?

One thing I don't understand is why many, including my physics professors, automatically assume that being good at math instantly translates to being good at physics.

When I'm asked to prove something in my problem sets for my math classes, I know instantly what theorem to use and how to prove it. But as for physics, there have been many times where I've been clueless at how to attempt a problem or even imagine exactly what is going on.

 

[-Dragoon-]

If it takes you more than 10 minutes for a straightforward problem, then you really need to solve many more, so that you get sufficient practice.

What do you consider a straightforward problem? Are you talking about those problems where you just have to plug in numbers into a few equations? I can solve those in a few seconds...

 

[Dickfore]

What do you consider a straightforward problem?

 

[homeomorphic]

When I'm asked to prove something in my problem sets for my math classes, I know instantly what theorem to use and how to prove it. But as for physics, there have been many times where I've been clueless at how to attempt a problem or even imagine exactly what is going on.

If that happened for you yet with math, then, trust me, you just haven't done difficult enough math.

 

[-Dragoon-]

What do you consider a straightforward problem?

To me, a straight-forward problem would be calculating where the position of the electric field of two like charges is zero.

 

[-Dragoon-]

If that happened for you yet with math, then, trust me, you just haven't done difficult enough math.

What is your problem? It seems this entire thread you're trying to demean me based on the fact you think I'm not "doing real math". How can you possibly know I'm not doing "difficult enough math"? Can you even objectively define what "difficult enough math" is?

 

[homeomorphic]

What is your problem? It seems this entire thread you're trying to demean me based on the fact you think I'm not "doing real math". How can you possibly know I'm not doing "difficult enough math"? Can you even objectively define what "difficult enough math" is?

Demean you? Don't be silly.

It has nothing to do with being demeaning. I am just saying you are at such a such a stage in your education. We all passed through that stage or will pass through that stage. Has nothing to do with anyone being smarter than anyone else. It's as harmless as saying you haven't driven down highway 55, so you don't know what's there yet.

You can't define it very precisely, but there is wide agreement that certain things are difficult.

 

[Dickfore]

To me, a straight-forward problem would be calculating where the position of the electric field of two like charges is zero.

1) You need to draw a diagram. For this, you need to know how the vector of the electric field from the point charge is directed; (1 min max)
2) You need to identify where the vectors can cancel. For this, you need to know when the sum of two vectors is zero; (30 sec max)
3) You need to finally calculate the position (measured from one of the charges). For this, you need to know how the intensity of the electric field decreases with distance).

There is an extra trick in that you need to take the square root of the equation (otherwise you get a quadratic equation with an unphysical negative root). (3 min max)

So, I claim that if you went through the curriculum, and payed attention in discussion sections, you would be able to solve this problem in 4 min 30 seconds top. If you do not follow these steps, you do not have enough practise, or you haven't covered what was taught in class.

 

[-Dragoon-]

1) You need to draw a diagram. For this, you need to know how the vector of the electric field from the point charge is directed; (1 min max)
2) You need to identify where the vectors can cancel. For this, you need to know when the sum of two vectors is zero; (30 sec max)
3) You need to finally calculate the position (measured from one of the charges). For this, you need to know how the intensity of the electric field decreases with distance).

There is an extra trick in that you need to take the square root of the equation (otherwise you get a quadratic equation with an unphysical negative root). (3 min max)

So, I claim that if you went through the curriculum, and payed attention in discussion sections, you would be able to solve this problem in 4 min 30 seconds top. If you do not follow these steps, you do not have enough practise, or you haven't covered what was taught in class.

I go to all the lectures, and lectures are for the most part useless. The professor spends the entire lecture deriving the same equations the book does and doesn't really teach the concepts. However, I don't want to blame the prof for my incompetence and lack of intelligence, since there are many students in the class who are doing well.

I just think I am not getting this stuff, since as you say, it should take 4 and a half minutes to do that problem.

I don't know why people keep saying that doing problems will alleviate this problem, but I'm just not seeing that? I spend hours doing problems, and my problem-solving abilities don't seem to improve as much as people seem to suggest around here. At best, I think I could probably solve the problem in 6 minutes, and that's rushing through it...

 

[chiro]

I go to all the lectures, and lectures are for the most part useless. The professor spends the entire lecture deriving the same equations the book does and doesn't really teach the concepts. However, I don't want to blame the prof for my incompetence and lack of intelligence, since there are many students in the class who are doing well.

I just think I am not getting this stuff, since as you say, it should take 4 and a half minutes to do that problem.

I don't know why people keep saying that doing problems will alleviate this problem, but I'm just not seeing that? I spend hours doing problems, and my problem-solving abilities don't seem to improve as much as people seem to suggest around here. At best, I think I could probably solve the problem in 6 minutes, and that's rushing through it...

I can't really comment on the professor or you, but based on what you have said the professor is actually at least in part, teaching you the concepts.

The idea for things like physics, applied mathematics, statistics and to some degree pure mathematics is that you start off with really general concepts and then you take a lot of them and meld them together with a bunch of constraints to get either a model or a new concept to use.

The idea of doing derivations is not only for the sake of proving results: it's also used to go through what the concepts are and how they play a role in some new result, model or similar representation.

What you should be paying really close attention to is not only what these constraints are and what they mean 'in english' or your language of choice, but also what these constraints mean physically and what the melded formula means physically when it has been proven if your professor is doing so.

I recommend you thinking about your identities and other things like formulas and otherwise in terms of a constraint because if you understand the boundary of that constraint and the consequences of that constraint in terms of physical intuition, it will make your life a lot easier when you see a derivation because in the back of your mind you have mentally prepared yourself by understanding what these formulas mean not in terms of something symbolic mathematically, but symbolic in an intuitive physical sense.

In fact this is precisely what applied mathematicians, physicists and engineers have to do: they take models developed usually by pure mathematicians (often decades or many decades previously) and then they enforce constraints that allow them to make use of a result that was more general but is now simpler to use for the purposes of the scientist, engineer, or otherwise.

The constraint will tell you a lot about what's going on even if you are not an expert or have studied something in a lot of detail if you try and relate the constraint back to what its being used for.

Constraints make it possible for us to understand the world. Without them we wouldn't understand anything because we would be taking in everything and it wouldn't be manageable.

 

[homeomorphic]

I think if you understand all the concepts, then problem-solving should follow, with just a little practice. If practice is not working, I would suspect it's the conceptual understanding that is missing.

 

[Dickfore]

I go to all the lectures, and lectures are for the most part useless. The professor spends the entire lecture deriving the same equations the book does and doesn't really teach the concepts. However, I don't want to blame the prof for my incompetence and lack of intelligence, since there are many students in the class who are doing well.

I just think I am not getting this stuff, since as you say, it should take 4 and a half minutes to do that problem.

I don't know why people keep saying that doing problems will alleviate this problem, but I'm just not seeing that? I spend hours doing problems, and my problem-solving abilities don't seem to improve as much as people seem to suggest around here. At best, I think I could probably solve the problem in 6 minutes, and that's rushing through it...

I don't mean to be impolite, but maybe you are just not good at Physics. That's why grades lower than A are for.

 

[nlsherrill]

I don't mean to be impolite, but maybe you are just not good at Physics. That's why grades lower than A are for.

Geeze give him a break he just started. I don't think a "B" means you are not good at physics either. I don't know many people who didn't struggle with it at all the first course they took in it. Most lower level math classes are easier than lower level physics courses, so this should explain why him getting easy A's in lower level maths versus somewhere in the B range for physics.

Dragoon,

It is just going to take time for you to get used to the different way of thinking and the different problem solving necessary for physics. I wouldn't be deterred, unless you utterly can't stand the subject.

 

[-Dragoon-]

I don't mean to be impolite, but maybe you are just not good at Physics. That's why grades lower than A are for.

At least you are being honest about it, which I thank you for. I am tired about hearing all of the people on this board who say all it takes is just "hard work". Yeah, right. I doubt most qualified physicists today ever struggled with the introductory classes and concepts.

At least I know I gave it my best shot, after all, most people aren't good at physics and there's a reason why most people hate it (and it's not purely because of bad teachers, like other posters on here like to claim). Meh, I'll just stick with math. At least I won't have to be good at physics and I was always interested in math, physics was just something I was moderately interested in since I found it pretty interesting to see the real-world applications of math.

 

[nlsherrill]

At least you are being honest about it, which I thank you for. I am tired about hearing all of the people on this board who say all it takes is just "hard work". Yeah, right. I doubt most qualified physicists today ever struggled with the introductory classes and concepts.

At least I know I gave it my best shot, after all, most people aren't good at physics and there's a reason why most people hate it (and it's not purely because of bad teachers, like other posters on here like to claim). Meh, I'll just stick with math. At least I won't have to be good at physics and I was always interested in math, physics was just something I was moderately interested in since I found it pretty interesting to see the real-world applications of math.

Think again.

Anyway, if you want one persons opinion to sway you away from an interesting field, be my guest. It takes hard work to be a physicist or a mathematician, even if you are naturally good at the kind of thinking required. If you think math is much easier for you, then come back and tell us that after you take real analysis.

 

[SophusLies]

Think again.

Anyway, if you want one persons opinion to sway you away from an interesting field, be my guest. It takes hard work to be a physicist or a mathematician, even if you are naturally good at the kind of thinking required. If you think math is much easier for you, then come back and tell us that after you take real analysis.

I struggled much more with my first Calc classes than I ever did with analysis. I also struggled more with my intro physics classes than my upper level ones. After an entire math degree plus a little more I found that I'm really not cut out for research level math. My math insights are weak and my generalizing abilities are shoddy. But from my first physics classes I felt that I thought differently from others regardless of struggling.

If -Dragoon- feels a certain way with math then so be it, I don't see why you're taking offense to it. Not everyone has to like physics.

 

[-Dragoon-]

I don't mean to be impolite, but maybe you are just not good at Physics. That's why grades lower than A are for.

I find the last part of your statement to be laughable. If that is your definition of "being good at physics", then why do many physics graduate programs except students with less than A average (<3.7 GPA)? Clearly, they are not good at physics by your definition, so why do graduate schools still accept them? Are their supervisors idiots or something?

 

[homeomorphic]

At least I know I gave it my best shot, after all, most people aren't good at physics and there's a reason why most people hate it (and it's not purely because of bad teachers, like other posters on here like to claim). Meh, I'll just stick with math. At least I won't have to be good at physics and I was always interested in math, physics was just something I was moderately interested in since I found it pretty interesting to see the real-world applications of math.

Physics is more than just an application of math. It's a part of math. The roots of a lot of math are in physics. It's possible to be a successful mathematician without knowing any physics, but I don't know that I would recommend it. Eventually, if you go far enough in math, there are parts of physics that will just be "more math"--as I've been saying, no different from the rest of math, except as some weird superstition that you have in your mind that they are completely different subjects. You can look at some things from a very mathematical point of view, if you want.

Even when I was studying electrical engineering, I thought the theory side of it was the same thing as what I'm doing now, studying math. I use the same sort of thought processes to understand all of it.

 

[Dickfore]

I find the last part of your statement to be laughable. If that is your definition of "being good at physics", then why do many physics graduate programs except students with less than A average (<3.7 GPA)? Clearly, they are not good at physics by your definition, so why do graduate schools still accept them? Are their supervisors idiots or something?

Graduate programs also require you take a set of obligatory physics courses. If you get a B- (less than 3.0 on a number scale) in Physics II, then what would you expect to get in Classical Mechanics, Theoretical Electrodynamics, Quantum Mechanics, Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics, all required by graduate schools? Surely, your GPA would be below 3.0, or even 2.5, which would not be enough for a grad school admission. Thus, your point is moot.